Dick's Sporting Goods loses firearms businesses after gun control push

I don't know what an FFL is but any store cant deny service on the basis of any of the listed characteristics.

 

They can and do.
"Ginger Colbrun, public affairs chief for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, says licensed gun dealers have broad discretion to deny sales, such as in instances where a buyer appears to exhibit erratic behavior.

“As private business owners, [Federal Firearms License holders] can and do use discretion in determining to whom they will or will not provide service,” Colbrun says."

 

And yet I'm guessing that you have zero evidence to back up your claim.
As far as the AR-15, when did the NRA change it's stance to make everyone believe that the bogey man is around every corner and if you're not armed you are asking for trouble. The NRA is the real problem. People are people but because the NRA has now convinced that the gun is the new jesus christ there are more guns than people in the US and it's proven to be a bad recipe.
The biggest problem with your thought is that other countries play the same video games and don't have the same problems. I don't think your drug theory has any validation at all.

 

So... a FFL can deny the legal sale of a firearm because the prospective buyer is gay?

 

If they use that as the official excuse, they will be in court and probably lose but in reality, they only need reasonable suspicion that the purchase is not for legitimate purposes which covers a lot of territory.

 

The problem is that the left continues to spew the diatribe of their handlers and refuse to take a logical look to what and why these events are taking effect with more frequency than ever as we have the same amount of weapons per capita in this nation since prior to WWII. There have been several case studies that show that adverse effects of psychotropic drugs and the lack of mental health facilities in this nation. Before the increase of mass shootings, we had a large in depth network of mental institution

36 School shooters/school related violence committed by those under the influence of psychiatric drugs

 

FFL dealers also have a moral obligation. That the prospective gay buyer is depressed and has cut marks on his/her arm, it's in the best interest to probably deny the sale of the firearm.

 

I see.
But a FFL -can- deny the legal sale of a firearm because the prospective buyer is under a certain, subjective, age?
How does that work?

 

Irrelevant to the scenario presented.

 

You are splitting hairs on this issue. In a nutshell, the FFL has a lot of leeway if they choose to deny a sale other than stating age or sexual orientation as the official reason.

 

No. I'm not.
Age and sexual orientation are both protected classes; if a FFL cannot deny someone a legal purchase based on the buyer's sexual orientation, - as you agree he cannot - what argument is there he can deny a legal purchase based on age?

 

Ok, lets say you're correct and the right knows what the problem is.....what have they done about it?

 

NOTHING.. Both sides merely argue to argue. There is an absolute problem but everyone is too busy bantering party line politics.

 

... and probably lose. Thus, he agrees that a FFL cannot deny someone a legal purchase based on the buyer's sexual orientation

 

I will end this conversation with this, An FFL can refuse to sell any individual a firearm based on the feeling that individual may be lying on form 4473 OR have intent to do harm. Follow me here, that is a very broad category and it is used every day hundreds of times. I work in the industry, three of my co-workers are FFL's, and one runs a pawnshop. I understand you are for an 18 year old to purchase a long gun. That is fine but that is not relevant to the argument as to what options does an FFlL have when it comes to the purchase of a firearm. We are in agreement on what the law is, now the discussion is what is the option of the FFL.
I am done here.

 

Because you do not want to defend your point? Sad..

Correct.
All else being equal, how does age, race, religion or sexual orientation convey said dishonesty or intent?

 

Nothing there contradicts a thing Ive said. Yes they have discretion. Just not when it comes to exercising that discretion in a discriminatory fashion against any of the named classifications such as age.
BUT, having said that. Just as bans against discrimination on the basis of race, in practice only prohibit discrimination against minority races, discrimination on the basis of age generally only prohibits discrimination against the old.

 

One only needs to look to New Orleans and other natural disasters that took a long time to recover from.

That's the beauty of America, we are all free to make choices. You choose to make the choice of not being able to defend yourself in a burglary when you and your family are home, I respect that. Should there be a long term wide spread natural or man made disaster, how will you feed your family? Even if you lay in a good supply of emergency food, how will you protect it from folks that weren't as prepared as you from just dropping by and taking your families food and water supply? It is recommended you have a gallon of water per person in your household per day as well as at least one meal. Are you prepared?

 

That's roughly 730 violent crimes relating to a home invasion, per day; 88 of these involved a gun.
And, somehow, we don't need a firearm for self-defense.

 

Dixon, I am not arguing with anybody and you are totally correct it IS against the law to discriminate against anyone because of race and religion among other things.
Regarding the legal sale of firearms, a FFL dealer does not have to prove his reason for not selling a gun, they really do not have to offer anything other than the individual looked suspicious and they felt the buyer may have had other motives for the purchase. FFL dealers must always try to error on the side of protecting themselves and the general public. My friend with the pawn shop loses at least one sale per week for reasons they choose and they have never had an issue in court. I will add over the last decade they have also had only a handful of situations where a gun was sold to an individual and that person used it in the commission of a crime.
YMMV.

 

Given the odds of your scenario, I'm fine with my situation. If you read my previous posts about the NRA, you're like their poster boy.

 

Most gun banners see the NRA as a problem-not for any real legitimate reason, but rather because almost all gun banners are leftists and the NRA helps marshal votes against left-wingers

 

You never even mention trying to save lives

 

the current interpretation is a watered down bastardized diminution of the proper one-and that watering down is because Scalia was afraid to overturn the expansion of the commerce clause because doing so would cause "social upheaval" by removing institutions that the public had become reliant upon (such as social security, Titles IX and VII etc)

the second amendment was not intended to create a new right but merely to recognize the right of self defense-a right the founders ALL believe existed from the dawn of man. That is why the moronic claims that the right only vests for those in the active militia are so specious: a right that PRE EXISTS GOVERNMENT cannot possibly require membership in a post-government entity to vest

 

I have a rack of them. 9mm, 762 NATO, 545x39 Combloc and 556 NATO. I have several for Service Rifle events, several for 3G competitions, several for USPSA or SC PCC events, a couple for home defense.