Should LGS’s and FFL’s refuse transfers based on ideology?

[WickedWillis]

In theory. But I damn sure will not enable them in any way, shape or form and in fact will actively attempt to limit their rights to the extent that I can. I can tell you right now, you try to join my Gun Club and you're a Commie piece of crap, I will object to your membership in a heartbeat.

The way it works is you have submit an application and then have to be voted in to membership at a monthly meeting. A current member must stand up and recommend you for membership at the meeting (two must sign your initial application) and then the other members get to decide whether to accept your application or not. If ANY member objects to your membership, it goes to the Club Board- who can hold a hearing and allow the person defend themselves, submit testimony etc.... for final decision. I would absolutely black ball someone and present a case to the board in person if I knew of any Libtards that applied for membership.

Sounds like an insanely fun place to have a membership. I too belong to a private rifle and pistol club, but this sounds a wee bit skull and bones for my taste.

[ABNAK]

Are we past the point of taking the high road? I think a large percentage of us are.

What you are suggesting is morally and ethically wrong. Doing it because almost everything the other side does is wrong bothers me. I don't want to stoop to their level. I won't mind shooting them in the face when the time comes, but I want to know I did everything I could beforehand to save their lives, as Steyr so succinctly put it. Playing their stupid games and giving them a taste of their own medicine in the way you suggest does sound fun, and there is certainly a perverse irony in it, but I'm not there yet.

On the other hand, I can justify a private business owner refusing a sale to someone who voted to ban the item they are trying to buy in my mind. Like a prudish Republican who voted to ban medicinal marijuana and now wants to buy it to ease the suffering of their dying parent.

I'm torn on this one. On one hand, I look down on them with disdain for their Anti-American behavior, and I'm glad I'm not like them. On the other hand: F*** THEM!

Oh hell fvcking YES!!!

[Mozart]

The 2nd Amendment protects all of those groups though, as long as they are still American citizens.

Correct. They have every right to manufacture their own weaponry. But it is a privilege to buy weaponry from a store, not a right

[ABNAK]

If you refused a gun sale to an Obama or Biden voter that wanted to use it to defend their family in case of "civil unrest", would that not be punishing the family members that they would have protected with it?

Don't give a shit. The gloves are off. I HATE the other side with a passion. They can ALL rot in Hell. They seek the ruin of our country and society. I seek THEIR ruin.

[WickedWillis]

Sure. No one is saying for the government to selectively take the "libtards, hippies, and fags" guns away. Just that a private business owner can't (and shouldn't be) compelled to sell to them if he does not want to. They can get their guns from some other legal method.

Sure. Private businesses should be, well, private. Just like a bakery should not be forced to make a cake for a gay couple if they don't believe in gays being married.

We should knock off 2A gate-keeping though, it sucks. I've taken out at least half a dozen non traditional 2a supporters this year, that are only interested in firearms because of all the extreme things they see going on. It's nice to find a common ground with people you don't normally agree with and be able to show them something you love.

The 1st Amendment is supposed to also apply to all American citizens, but now that only holds true if people are not offended.

Burning the American Flag is OK, but flying the Stars and Bars is almost a hate crime now.

If you haven't figured it out yet, there are new rules.

I think burning the flag has only fallen under the 1st amendment since the late eighties if I'm not mistaken? So it's a relatively new protected act.

Some rules are changing and flexing, I agree. I only hear about flying the flag being disagreed with if it's coming from right-wing media sources though, nothing I have experienced, or seen.

[Esq.]

Sounds like an insanely fun place to have a membership. I too belong to a private rifle and pistol club, but this sounds a wee bit skull and bones for my taste.

Yes and no. Our membership is capped and kept small so the facility is not over run, especially by idiots who might get it shut down or sued by doing stupid shit..... People want a safe, clean place to shoot with lots of freedom--we have pistol pits, you can shoot carbines in them, shoot, move etc ...There are not that many places close to most developed areas in the country where you can do that. Its literally less than 10 minutes from downtown....

For $125 a year you get a pass key to the gate and can shoot anytime its light out...there are no range officers..So yes, we are protective of our range.

The county filed criminal charges against a local private range operator not long ago....they were conveniently dropped when he agreed to close his range. Such is the world we live in. (And to be fair, when county deputies are called out because a house is hit and they have body cam video of bullets leaving the range and impacting around them...I cant really blame the County Board of Supervisors. )

[Mozart]

This will not be a popular post, I predict.

I don't see a problem with it. I feel very strongly that people/businesses should deny people services or goods for whatever reason they choose.

Yea, yea, I know you're thinking it- "but what about race, religion, creed, etc..."

I don't care.

If a business wants to make a stand and not sell to someone for any reason- I'm fine with it. Let them then reap the rewards and deal with the consequences of their choices.

If people agree with them they will support them and they prosper, so be it, if people don't let them boycott them and they fail, so be it.

If there is a niche or void to be filled, let free enterprise rise up and people start businesses to fill that void.

Forcing someone to sell a cake to a gay couple won't change their mind about homosexuality and that gay couple can get a cake on the next corner from someone who would be proud. and happy to make it for them and charge them for it.

Let people be free to do as they wish regarding business dealings and deal with the consequences of their actions.

Before you step up on that soap box, I am not advocating racism, sexism, etc- I am merely fine and dandy with letting people decide how they wish to run their businesses and then dealing with the consequences of their actions. Free-market-Anarcho-capitalism.

It's like this- I'd rather know who the person is and decide to work with them and give them my business rather than them hide and I don't know who they are.

You don't want to sell to white people- fine, personally I don't want to buy from you. You don't want to sell to black people- fine, personally I don't want to buy from you.

Then we can truly support who and what we feel is the best option and people will prosper or fail due to their practices.

I've never discriminated based on anything, other than people being hard to work with- assholes, they get charged fees for being hard to work with, I don't care if they are white, black, rich, poor, purple, Wicca, vegan, muslim, etc- if you're a dick and hard to work with you get a PITA charge!

I also have a red flag rule- if you give me 2 of them before entering into a contract- I fire you as a client, no questions asked, rescind offer of contract- bye-bye.

I've learned the hard way through the years of not following my rules or my gut.

So yeah, I'm fine with people deciding with whom they do and do not want to work with, sell to, etc.

Where there is a snag in this is GOV funded institutions, they cannot and shouldn't discriminate. Play for all.

The funny thing is, that's where the most rampant abuse is currently- in fed.gov. IRS- Lois Lerner anyone?

There will always be someone who will sell to anyone regardless of if they even should or not. Let people find them, let that person earn the business.

Completely agree.

Yes there’s a risk, if we all of sudden didn’t have the CRA, that shop owners could start banning gays or blacks or immigrants.

BUT this is 2020: does anyone think in the age of social media that a shop owner like that would continue to stay in business? Hell no, they would be boycotted into destruction. The market would weed out the jerks naturally.

It’s tricky stuff . . . . government trying to legislate how people associate with each other in a society. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[WickedWillis]

Yes and no. Our membership is capped and kept small so the facility is not over run, especially by idiots who might get it shut down or sued by doing stupid shit..... People want a safe, clean place to shoot with lots of freedom--we have pistol pits, you can shoot carbines in them, shoot, move etc ...There are not that many places close to most developed areas in the country where you can do that. Its literally less than 10 minutes from downtown....

For $125 a year you get a pass key to the gate and can shoot anytime its light out...there are no range officers..So yes, we are protective of our range.

The county filed criminal charges against a local private range operator not long ago....they were conveniently dropped when he agreed to close his range. Such is the world we live in. (And to be fair, when county deputies are called out because a house is hit and they have body cam video of bullets leaving the range and impacting around them...I cant really blame the County Board of Supervisors. )

Ours is the same, only caveat being that it backs up to forest service land, so you have to be careful of your backstop at the rifle range. As well as in the summer we may have fire restrictions.

Private gate, keycards, no RO's, yearly fees, have to apply for membership, etc.

[MikhailBarracuda91]

Completely agree.

Yes there’s a risk, if we all of sudden didn’t have the CRA, that shop owners could start banning gays or blacks or immigrants.

BUT this is 2020: does anyone think in the age of social media that a shop owner like that would continue to stay in business? Hell no, they would be boycotted into destruction. The market would weed out the jerks naturally.

It’s tricky stuff . . . . government trying to legislate how people associate with each other in a society. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Very true

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[gaijin]

Don't give a shit. The gloves are off. I HATE the other side with a passion. They can ALL rot in Hell. They seek the ruin of our country and society. I seek THEIR ruin.

Absolutely. Rot in Hell indeed.

Seems crystal clear what “their” endgame is.