The gun dealers have any authority

[lazarus]

Firearms dealers are one of the few businesses where "protected classes" really don't exist in practice. An FFL has wide latitude to deny your business even if the transaction would be legal. A bad feeling or a cross word is sufficient. No one is required to sell you a gun. And while some can argue you can't deny protected classes, unless the dealer is being obvious about it, no one is going to be able to prove it and force the matter.

The rationale is simple: Does an FFL want to be the one in the spotlight where they did a transfer, even though legally approved by NICS, to someone they felt was "off" and that information came to light? The media and anti-gun forces will excoriate that person more than they already would be having merely done it through normal course of business with no idea. Hindsight is a real thing and when it comes to guns, an FFL will not be given a lot of slack. An IRS audit or a colonoscopy without anesthesia will be more pleasant.

So yes, a dealer can refuse a sale because they don't like the way they looked at you. I've seen it. Several times. In some cases, adjusting my body position to clear lanes of fire (including for my own) because I was watching someone work on talking themselves out the door. Been at this gun ownership thing for going on 20 years and I've seen many a purchase denied long before it got to the paperwork stage.

No one will turn to an FFL and say "You should have sold that gun!" But a lot of people will say "Why did you do that?"

In my experience, an FFL has virtually unlimited ability to say "No" at any stage in the process. Even after "NICS Proceed" comes back.

Matt

It wasn’t a denial, but I had a hard time not standing with my jaw on the counter on my last transfer. Guy came in, looked to be early 20s asking if they could do a NICS check to see if he was prohibited because he just got off probation (like yesterday) and wanted to know if he could buy a gun.

No was the answer. Tried to explain to him the 4473 and what was prohibitive at a very, very basic level. “Naw, I don’t think what it was would stop me, but I don’t want to get in trouble for trying to buy a gun if I can’t”.

IIRC FFL suggested calling state police to ask them, or a lawyer.

He felt real twitchy. Even if it wasn’t those questions, he felt off (maybe why he just finished probation for something).

Pretty sure the FFL was going to tell him no if one of his questions was then going to be if he could try buying a gun to see if he’d be denied.

 

[lazarus]

Your money, your choice. His business, his choice. I am in favor of the CCW exemption but I don't own the premises, the inventory, or pay the bills. I just know the store and the guys who work in it.

They have had, multiple times, this policy save them a lot of grief. WV doesn't actively go after the CCW permit of someone who becomes prohibited. The nics check caught it. In one case, the guy was actually convicted, not just under indictment. He still had his CCW card in hand.

I have mixed feelings on background checks. But I do feel like, if they are going to be done, then they should be done.

In this day and age my big issue is that there is zero excuse not to have crap digitized. Become prohibited? State police should have your license to carry revoked immediately. Present your license to skip the check? The check should still be punching name, address and CCW number in to state police portal and…valid license. No NICS, but should still verify you aren’t holding a forgery and that it is still valid.

 

[bean93x]

I'd never deal with him. We don't need to support FFL's that infringe worse than the state does. He should be
selling greeting cards instead.

Only a handful in the Eastern Panhandle accept a valid CCW in bypass of a NICS check.

Reason being, you could possibly have been convicted of a prohibiting crime but still in possession of a CCW. The ones I see that honor it are those who know the purchaser on a first name friendly basis.

 

[rseymorejr]

Everybody likes to get all spun up over background checks and prohibited people, but it wasn't that long ago that you could mail a check off and receive a gun in the mail. No background check, no "cooling off" period, no registration or government involvement (except for the mailman delivering it) Was violent crime worse then or now? What was the murder rate in Baltimore in 1963? How about 2022? Are all those government infringements preventing violent felons from getting guns now?

 

[wpage]

Everybody likes to get all spun up over background checks and prohibited people, but it wasn't that long ago that you could mail a check off and receive a gun in the mail. No background check, no "cooling off" period, no registration or government involvement (except for the mailman delivering it) Was violent crime worse then or now? What was the murder rate in Baltimore in 1963? How about 2022? Are all those government infringements preventing violent felons from getting guns now?

This^^^
The real problems are cultural. Like ancient Rome morality

 

[Squaregrouper]

I'd never deal with him. We don't need to support FFL's that infringe worse than the state does. He should be
selling greeting cards instead.

You have obviously never worked at a retail gun shop.
Guys higher than Snoop Dog and Willie Nelson combined try to come into a shop and buy a gun.
"Yeeeeaaaahhh maaaannn, I want to buy an, a, errr, assault rifle. Heeheee."

 

[4g64loser]

You have obviously never worked at a retail gun shop.
Guys higher than Snoop Dog and Willie Nelson combined try to come into a shop and buy a gun.
"Yeeeeaaaahhh maaaannn, I want to buy an, a, errr, assault rifle. Heeheee."

I can second this. Drunks, dopers, flagrant straw purchase attempts, etc will all be readily detectable with a quick whiff or a direct question or two. Sometimes it's not so clear cut and a gut call is needed.

I may have amused myself by preying on the paranoia of a doper or two. They got pretty freaked out. And didn't come back.

 

[lazarus]

Everybody likes to get all spun up over background checks and prohibited people, but it wasn't that long ago that you could mail a check off and receive a gun in the mail. No background check, no "cooling off" period, no registration or government involvement (except for the mailman delivering it) Was violent crime worse then or now? What was the murder rate in Baltimore in 1963? How about 2022? Are all those government infringements preventing violent felons from getting guns now?

A better question would be, how much worse would it be with no background checks. If the ATFs figures are to be believed, it’s several hundred thousand denials a year. With something like a 10-20% positive rate (as in, yeah, the person is really prohibited). That’s at least tens of thousands of people who should have guns, not getting them.

How many go in to get one through a straw purchase, a buddy, a private sale, a dude on a street corner, etc. don’t know. TONS of prohibited people get guns illegally. It’s just not that hard to do. Universal background checks would probably cut down in that more. Probably not a huge amount though.

I guess I am not scared to talk about what could happen. It could help. But on the other hand, 2A talks about rights, and UBC are an erosion of that. Thomas says public safety means balancing ain’t okay.

 

[rseymorejr]

A better question would be, how much worse would it be with no background checks. If the ATFs figures are to be believed, it’s several hundred thousand denials a year. With something like a 10-20% positive rate (as in, yeah, the person is really prohibited). That’s at least tens of thousands of people who should have guns, not getting them.

How many go in to get one through a straw purchase, a buddy, a private sale, a dude on a street corner, etc. don’t know. TONS of prohibited people get guns illegally. It’s just not that hard to do. Universal background checks would probably cut down in that more. Probably not a huge amount though.

I guess I am not scared to talk about what could happen. It could help. But on the other hand, 2A talks about rights, and UBC are an erosion of that. Thomas says public safety means balancing ain’t okay.

This may be an unpopular opinion but just because someone is prohibited doesn't necessarily mean they're dangerous, plenty of non violent people are prohibited. On the other side of the coin, passing a background check in no way insures that a person will not commit a violent felony sometime in the future. I understand why we have background checks but if, as you say, "how much worse would it be with no background checks" Who knows? But the real question is why is society so much more violent now and what can we do about it? We all know that any criminal that wants a gun can get them regardless of any laws we have. Criminals break laws, that's what they do. If we put as much effort as we do on gun control laws, into removing from society, permanently, the most violent felons and repairing our mental health system I think we'd get better results.

 

[lazarus]

This may be an unpopular opinion but just because someone is prohibited doesn't necessarily mean they're dangerous, plenty of non violent people are prohibited. On the other side of the coin, passing a background check in no way insures that a person will not commit a violent felony sometime in the future. I understand why we have background checks but if, as you say, "how much worse would it be with no background checks" Who knows? But the real question is why is society so much more violent now and what can we do about it? We all know that any criminal that wants a gun can get them regardless of any laws we have. Criminals break laws, that's what they do. If we put as much effort as we do on gun control laws, into removing from society, permanently, the most violent felons and repairing our mental health system I think we'd get better results.

It's kind of not though. At least if you look at the 1960s. Those few years leading up to the GCA, homicides (all types) in the US were a bit higher (about 5-10%) higher than lows in the early 2000s. Even today, they aren't much higher. The 1970s, 80s and 90s were MUCH higher. Now, mass murder are WAY higher the last few years than at any point in recorded statistics.

 

[DaemonAssassin]

It's kind of not though. At least if you look at the 1960s. Those few years leading up to the GCA, homicides (all types) in the US were a bit higher (about 5-10%) higher than lows in the early 2000s. Even today, they aren't much higher. The 1970s, 80s and 90s were MUCH higher. Now, mass murder are WAY higher the last few years than at any point in recorded statistics.

Mass murder as in where a mass shooting now has 2 or more victims? Before, it was something like 6 or more victims. They moved the number of victims to make it seem like more mass shootings are happening. When it actually isn't going up, it's going down.

 

[lazarus]

Mass murder as in where a mass shooting now has 2 or more victims? Before, it was something like 6 or more victims. They moved the number of victims to make it seem like more mass shootings are happening. When it actually isn't going up, it's going down.

It has generally been 4 or more people shot since at least the 1990s. I can't speak to any of the data before the 1990s. Before then it was mostly only tracked as mass murder, 4 or more people killed. Though IIRC, it had previously been tracked as 4 or more people killed including the shooter, and then they changed it to 4 or more people killed not including the shooter (so actually a stricter standard). I am not sure when the mass murder standard changed.

It is still incredibly rare. It is just less incredibly rare.

 

[welder516]

I think that the gun business is the last defense in the system, i would think if a gun dealer sees a sales that don't look right with many years of experience would take the safest avenue and decline the sales.

I am never for control or more control, but at one point we all need understand gun store owners don't want to be in the news.

 

[Huckleberry]

Doesn’t matter what I’m selling or you’re not prohibited from making a purchase, if I don’t like your behavior, attitude or demeanor then I have the Right to tell you GTFO of my establishment.

I go with my gut instinct and if my gut says there’s something about your conduct that I don’t like then your money is no good and you need to leave.

 

[lazarus]

Doesn’t matter what I’m selling or you’re not prohibited from making a purchase, if I don’t like your behavior, attitude or demeanor then I have the Right to tell you GTFO of my establishment.

I go with my gut instinct and if my gut says there’s something about your conduct that I don’t like then your money is no good and you need to leave.

IMHO, it is one thing to not really like a customer when you are selling them ice cream. Or t-shirts. Sure, if they are being an actual problem, abusive, etc. kick them to the curb. But not liking a customer in general sales/business with a short/no term relationship to me is generally wrong. But when things you are selling or doing are either longer term relationship, or there is a shed load of personal responsibility going along with it, then yeah, how you feel about a customer matters.

Gun dealers (or even private party transactions) shouldn't be selling a gun to someone the dealer or person feels off about, let alone is waiving giant red flags in their face. Rights are rights, except it does stop being a right when it seems like the person is about to do something wrong.

If I was a liquor store, I wouldn't be selling to someone who looked underage and the ID looked suspect. Or who was stumbling drunk through the door. I'd cut off the guy at the bar who is obviously going to be driving themself home before they hit stumbling drunk and insist on calling them a ride if they did try to leave. A guy is trying to buy a pickup truck bed full of fertilizer and is asking questions about the best way to mix diesel fuel into it, you know, for a science experiment, I'd refuse to sell it. A lot of bad crap gets stopped because a business owner acts on their hunches and says, sorry, I can't sell that to you. I guess call me the morality police.

Occasionally someone sets off all of the alarm bells and the business/employee actively ignores those alarm bells, and then bad crap happens as a result. Plenty of times someone flies under the radar, or finds some illegal way to get what they want to do something bad anyway, but that doesn't mean people don't have a responsibility to act when things feel wrong, just because maybe they'll go somewhere else and act less shady, or someone at another place will ignore it, or they might find some way to sidestep legalities.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Should be, but the government begs to differ

Any private business should be able to say, 'I hate that fat ugly Jew eruby and I won't sell to him"

You left out old.

 

[possumman]

Should be, but the government begs to differ

Any private business should be able to say, 'I hate that fat ugly Jew eruby and I won't sell to him, but in this day and age, that just isn't so.

I honestly wish it were so. I'm glad about smoke free restaurants but I despise it's under the jackboot of government, and not voluntary

Didnt think you were fat--maybe just big boned

 

[Garet Jax]

authority no - discretion yes

They can't prevent you from buying a gun. They can just choose not to sell you one.

 

[slsc98]

Just wait till the first Trans justice warrior gets denied and the poor FFL gets squashed by the Biden Justice Department

This. In 3, 2, 1 …

 

[RFBfromDE]

Didnt think you were fat--maybe just big boned

But with a lovely, effervescent personality!