UNETHICAL policies. A review.

[Chestr]

So according to you, the Toyota dealer in California is blocking other Toyota dealers and blocking you from your freedom of choice and that is an absolutely absurd idea.

Here is a TACKLE BOX supporter. It's okay. You have the right to your own opinion.

* So you think you can take your hamburger to Wendys and they have to cook it?
* So you think you can take your dough and ingredients to Domino's and they have to make you a pizza?

No sir. The law does not specifically restrict me to hamburger and dough licensed dealers to have my hamburger shipped to another hamburger licensed dealer. However if they refused shipment solely on the grounds that they want my cash then they are manipulating specific legal restrictions intended for one thing to another in their benefit. This is definitely against the spirit of capitalism and is unethical.

And yes I believe this is absolutely blocking. They are blocking US (not just me but US) from the entire realm of internet sales due to a restriction placed on us by the state that basically places the consumer unwittingly at their mercy. That is definitely a block, my friend. A massive block.

So just because we can find other FFL in the area, does that make their policy OK? What if all FFL in the area caught on and did the same thing. Would you still not complain if you discovered that you could not get ANY firearms mailed to you whatsoever? Where do you draw the line? Thats like saying "quit whining because there's only ONE doctor screwing up surgeries." The line of the law is clearly drawn in the sand.

FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE laws are put in place to make sure that businesses play fair and allow the consumer to choose.

Tell me, sir. Is their policy a "fair business practice?" If you think so given the above, please explain why calmly and rationally.

But go ahead. Please continue your rant, sir.

So you are of the opinion that a government agency should be allowed to tell a private individual how they should run a business? Why? Do you think it's a good idea to tell shoppers what to sell? how about a doctor what procedures he must perform?

No sir. Nowhere in 2 pages did I specify that they sell certain products.

Now I ask you - are YOU of the opinion that a business can dictate to a consumer what to buy? How about WHERE to buy?

What if the government mandated that you had to pay your bills through UPS. What if UPS refused to overnight your bill for Metrocast because they were trying to force you to use Verizon? Would that be ok with you? Don't pick it apart. It's just an 'in your face' 'gee i never thought about it that way' example.

Food for thought, sir. But please, continue.

 

[Merlin99]

Here is a TACKLE BOX supporter. It's okay. You have the right to your own opinion.



No sir. The law does not specifically restrict me to hamburger and dough licensed dealers to have my hamburger shipped to another hamburger licensed dealer. However if they refused shipment solely on the grounds that they want my cash then they are manipulating specific legal restrictions intended for one thing to another in their benefit. This is definitely against the spirit of capitalism and is unethical.

And yes I believe this is absolutely blocking. They are blocking US (not just me but US) from the entire realm of internet sales due to a restriction placed on us by the state that basically places the consumer unwittingly at their mercy. That is definitely a block, my friend. A massive block.

So just because we can find other FFL in the area, does that make their policy OK? What if all FFL in the area caught on and did the same thing. Would you still not complain if you discovered that you could not get ANY firearms mailed to you whatsoever? Where do you draw the line? Thats like saying "quit whining because there's only ONE doctor screwing up surgeries." The line of the law is clearly drawn in the sand.

FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE laws are put in place to make sure that businesses play fair and allow the consumer to choose.

Tell me, sir. Is their policy a "fair business practice?" If you think so given the above, please explain why calmly and rationally.

But go ahead. Please continue your rant, sir.



No sir. Nowhere in 2 pages did I specify that they sell certain products.

Now I ask you - are YOU of the opinion that a business can dictate to a consumer what to buy? How about WHERE to buy?

What if the government mandated that you had to pay your bills through UPS. What if UPS refused to overnight your bill for Metrocast because they were trying to force you to use Verizon? Would that be ok with you? Don't pick it apart. It's just an 'in your face' 'gee i never thought about it that way' example.

Food for thought, sir. But please, continue.

They're not telling you to use UPS though, they're saying you must mail in the payment using one of several private mail services. You're complaint is that UPS won't send a money order that you bought at western union because they sell money orders also.

 

[Baja28]

Here is a TACKLE BOX supporter Negative. I think I have been in the Tackle box once in 48 years.

No sir. The law does not specifically restrict me to hamburger and dough licensed dealers to have my hamburger shipped to another hamburger licensed dealer. However if they refused shipment solely on the grounds that they want my cash then they are manipulating specific legal restrictions intended for one thing to another in their benefit. This is definitely against the spirit of capitalism and is unethical. They don't owe you anything! They can run their business as they see fit. They are there to make money, not handle your transfers.

And yes I believe this is absolutely blocking. They are blocking US (not just me but US) from the entire realm of internet sales due to a restriction placed on us by the state that basically places the consumer unwittingly at their mercy. That is definitely a block, my friend. A massive block. Like you said, it's your opinion as wrong as it may be.

So just because we can find other FFL in the area, does that make their policy OK? YES!!! What if all FFL in the area caught on and did the same thing. Would you still not complain if you discovered that you could not get ANY firearms mailed to you whatsoever? Where do you draw the line? Thats like saying "quit whining because there's only ONE doctor screwing up surgeries." The line of the law is clearly drawn in the sand. I don't deal in "what if's", I deal in facts. Go buy the friggin gun from them! They owe you NOTHING! You're grasping.

FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE laws are put in place to make sure that businesses play fair and allow the consumer to choose. They did nothing wrong So go choose another dealer! Not a hard concept to grasp.

Tell me, sir. Is their policy a "fair business practice?" YES!!! If you think so given the above, please explain why calmly and rationally. It's a perfectly fair practice for all the reasons I already provided. You even quoted them. This is a company in business to make money, not transfer your guns for you for free.

But go ahead. Please continue your rant, sir. You're the one with the long winded posts and you say I'm ranting???


What if the government mandated that you had to pay your bills through UPS. What if UPS refused to overnight your bill for Metrocast because they were trying to force you to use Verizon? Would that be ok with you? Don't pick it apart. It's just an 'in your face' 'gee i never thought about it that way' example. Again, I don't deal in "what if's" but that's apples and oranges anyway. The govt. isn't forcing you to use the Tackle Box. You have choices. USE THEM!

Food for thought, sir. But please, continue.

Here, I'll do a "what if" for ya....

The government says anyone named Chestr with a lawn business has to mow anyone named Bob's lawn twice a year for free. Or Chestr's appliance store has to receive, unload, store and be liable for any appliance bought online even though Chestr sells appliances. You ok with that?

 

[Merlin99]

Here is a TACKLE BOX supporter. It's okay. You have the right to your own opinion.



No sir. The law does not specifically restrict me to hamburger and dough licensed dealers to have my hamburger shipped to another hamburger licensed dealer. However if they refused shipment solely on the grounds that they want my cash then they are manipulating specific legal restrictions intended for one thing to another in their benefit. This is definitely against the spirit of capitalism and is unethical.

And yes I believe this is absolutely blocking. They are blocking US (not just me but US) from the entire realm of internet sales due to a restriction placed on us by the state that basically places the consumer unwittingly at their mercy. That is definitely a block, my friend. A massive block.

Not really, it's an inconvenience, there are other FFL's in the area without the restriction, that you must work around their schedule is your problem.

So just because we can find other FFL in the area, does that make their policy OK? Yes What if all FFL in the area caught on and did the same thing. Would you still not complain if you discovered that you could not get ANY firearms mailed to you whatsoever? I would probably get my own FFL, cost is about $200.00 for a three year license. Where do you draw the line? Thats like saying "quit whining because there's only ONE doctor screwing up surgeries." The line of the law is clearly drawn in the sand.

FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE laws are put in place to make sure that businesses play fair and allow the consumer to choose.

Tell me, sir. Is their policy a "fair business practice?" If you think so given the above, please explain why calmly and rationally.

But go ahead. Please continue your rant, sir.



No sir. Nowhere in 2 pages did I specify that they sell certain products.

Now I ask you - are YOU of the opinion that a business can dictate to a consumer what to buy? How about WHERE to buy?

I believe that their policy hindered your purchase and you've taken it as a personal affront and are lashing back in frustration. I am not in any way connected with the tackle box, I haven't even been in the store in over 10 years.

 

[Chestr]

I believe that their policy hindered your purchase and you've taken it as a personal affront and are lashing back in frustration. I am not in any way connected with the tackle box, I haven't even been in the store in over 10 years.

You are entitled to your own opinion, sir. I will respect it. However, I am not lashing. It is more a case of duty, sir. I am a rare case that stands up for what he believes in.

For instance, I refused to shop in Wal-Mart because they wouldn't give their employees health insurance by exploiting the law.

I also refuse to eat at McDonalds because of their lack of ethics. Fraser Consultancy gave McDonalds the title of the most unethical company in all of the world in 2006. They even ranked them higher than South Africa's De Beers, the diamond moguls. Why? Go read about it. What they do in other countries, let alone this one would make your skin crawl. I have eaten at a McDonalds one time in...oh...about ten years?

It's the same reason I served my time in the armed forces. Some go for college. I went for duty. I did my duty.

I am more dismayed at failure of the law to prevent unethical business than I am at watching businesses exploit the law. I am even MORE dismayed watching customers blissfully frequent businesses fully aware that they exploit the good nature of customers or employees.

We may not be able to stop Wal-Mart and McDonalds but we CAN support and reward businesses who display ethics and morality in their business practices.

It should be the duty of every American to shop smart and stay away from bad business practices.

And I am happy and content to let all the God-blessed world know where BAYSHORE EYECARE and THE TACKLE BOX stand in the ethics department. If you do not agree, it is your right not to as a free man. However there are those that will read this and take heed. People will search SOMD or Google for reviews looking to make a sound purchase and hopefully find this thread. The power of the 1st Amendment.

So there you have it, sir.

In fairness I also gave both businesses a chance to retort. I'm 100% sure both businesses have read this thread already. SOMD is a tight community. They know. Whether they respond is their choice. I hope they do. I hope they decide to help to make this community better instead of being feeders. We shall see.

 

[SG_Player1974]

• So you think you can take your muffler to Meineke or Midas and they have to install it?
• So you think you can take your hamburger to Wendys and they have to cook it?
• So you think you can take your dough and ingredients to Domino's and they have to make you a pizza?

Ok...all good points however, lets put this into context that APPLIES to the subject:

* If Meineke applied for, agreed to the stipulations to, and received a Federally approved licence to ship and receive mufflers, then yes I feel that I should be able to have a muffler purchased online sent to that Meineke and have tham install it for a fee.
* If Wendy's applied for, agreed to the stipulations to, and received a Federally approved license to ship and receive hamburgers, then yes I feel that I should be able to have McDonalds ship a hamburger to them and ask them to cook it for a fee.

I could go on but I think you see my point. I am not a federal licensing lawyer however, I would like to think there is NOTHING in that license or the agreement to receive that license, that stipulates the provider of the service can refuse shipment/receipt merely because they dont want to miss out on a sale!

* Do you think Walmart should refuse to develop your photos because you purchased your camera/film at Target?
* Do you think any Mark's Electronics should refuse to repair your TV because you did not buy a model from their floor?
* Do you think that Park Dodge should refuse to do warranty work on your vehicle because you did not buy it from THEIR lot? (This example is probably the best!)

 

[Merlin99]

Ok...all good points however, lets put this into context that APPLIES to the subject:

* If Meineke applied for, agreed to the stipulations to, and received a Federally approved licence to ship and receive mufflers, then yes I feel that I should be able to have a muffler purchased online sent to that Meineke and have tham install it for a fee.
* If Wendy's applied for, agreed to the stipulations to, and received a Federally approved license to ship and receive hamburgers, then yes I feel that I should be able to have McDonalds ship a hamburger to them and ask them to cook it for a fee.

I could go on but I think you see my point. I am not a federal licensing lawyer however, I would like to think there is NOTHING in that license or the agreement to receive that license, that stipulates the provider of the service can refuse shipment/receipt merely because they dont want to miss out on a sale!

* Do you think Walmart should refuse to develop your photos because you purchased your camera/film at Target? As long as that's the stores policy, yes
* Do you think any Mark's Electronics should refuse to repair your TV because you did not buy a model from their floor?As long as that's the stores policy, yes

* Do you think that Park Dodge should refuse to do warranty work on your vehicle because you did not buy it from THEIR lot? (This example is probably the best!)As long as that's the stores policy, yes

They own the business, not you, not the government, why should either of you get a voice in setting how they do business?

 

[Nucklesack]

Here, I'll do a "what if" for ya....

The government says anyone named Chestr with a lawn business has to mow anyone named Bob's lawn twice a year for free. Or Chestr's appliance store has to receive, unload, store and be liable for any appliance bought online even though Chestr sells appliances. You ok with that?

48 ?

 

[Nucklesack]

I also refuse to eat at McDonalds because of their lack of ethics. Fraser Consultancy gave McDonalds the title of the most unethical company in all of the world in 2006. They even ranked them higher than South Africa's De Beers, the diamond moguls. Why? Go read about it. What they do in other countries, let alone this one would make your skin crawl. I have eaten at a McDonalds one time in...oh...about ten years?.

Do you know why?

Do you know why the Fraser Consultancy ranked McDonalds higher than DeBeers?

Because:

• a Fast Food joint serves unhealthy food (this is a surprise?)
• because consumers feel Mcdonalds doesnt treat staff and suppliers well (Fraser's term)

One of those doesnt have facts to support the claim, its based on a feeling. The other is idiotic.

 

[Baja28]

Ok...all good points however, lets put this into context that APPLIES to the subject:

* If Meineke applied for, agreed to the stipulations to, and received a Federally approved licence to ship and receive mufflers, then yes I feel that I should be able to have a muffler purchased online sent to that Meineke and have tham install it for a fee.
* If Wendy's applied for, agreed to the stipulations to, and received a Federally approved license to ship and receive hamburgers, then yes I feel that I should be able to have McDonalds ship a hamburger to them and ask them to cook it for a fee.

I could go on but I think you see my point. I am not a federal licensing lawyer however, I would like to think there is NOTHING in that license or the agreement to receive that license, that stipulates the provider of the service can refuse shipment/receipt merely because they dont want to miss out on a sale!

* Do you think Walmart should refuse to develop your photos because you purchased your camera/film at Target?
* Do you think any Mark's Electronics should refuse to repair your TV because you did not buy a model from their floor?
* Do you think that Park Dodge should refuse to do warranty work on your vehicle because you did not buy it from THEIR lot? (This example is probably the best!)

Show me in the licensing stipulations where it says they have to do this. Good luck with that.

You, me, Chestr nor the govt. have any say in who a company has to do business with (unless there is discrimination). This guy is a whiner who's too lazy to shop around. If he put half the energy into finding another FFL dealer that he put into crying here, he would have his gun already.

 

[Chestr]

Nucklesack - You know and I know there is much more to it than that. However lets stay on subject. If you wish to debate McDonalds, please, for everyone's sake here, start a McDonalds thread. No offense intended so don't get upset. Please understand that I just wish to stay on task here in this thread. Thanks in advance.

Merlin99 and Baja28 - In your arguments you are both completely avoiding the fact that we are not talking about a free market. We are talking about a controlled market.

It's not the fast food joint. It's SEVERELY restricted by the Federal Government. We're not talking about open doors everywhere and balloons and streamers and candy corn. A Federal Firearms License does not grant you the power to run free in fields of clover and swim in rivers of chocolate. Nor does it give you the power to eliminate other businesses from practicing in the area willy-nilly and do whatever you want to do.

Only certain folks that meet the requirements hold 'keys' to that market mandated by the Federal Government. Those 'keys' do not give them the power to unethically leverage consumers. That happens in Cuba and South Africa, not on American soil. Or at least the Federal Government doesn't support it here. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But when it does it's not ethical or entirely legal either.

That was not the intent of the Federal Firearms Licensing program. If it was we would be outraged, right? Price fixing and market leveraging is illegal is it not? Cartels are illegal, are they not? Profiteering is illegal, is it not?

Do you know what these things are? Do you know why they are illegal?

If a business knowingly and willfully applied for a Federal Firearms License THEN THEY DID MAKE A FREE CHOICE. That business becomes A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL AND FIREARMS. As a representative of the federal government, they can not discriminate nor USE THEIR LICENSE TO FIX PRICES AND LEVERAGE CONSUMERS.

They chose to be licensed. No one "held a gun to their head" and made them fill out the paperwork. We, the consumer, didn't tell them how to run their business, as you claim. Your argument is, therefore, moot.

However, I would like to thank you two gentlemen for bringing some very important points to the table, no offense intended. So thank you for that and thank you for your contributions.

 

[Chestr]

And by the way, Baja, I do have my gun already.

That isn't even the argument. Please for my sake and for the sake of the people reading this, don't flame and don't conjecture and for goodness sake don't be rude and obnoxious. Lets try a little harder not to make this a personal attack against me because it doesn't help your position.

Try to stay on task and contribute meaningful argument instead of getting angry. I'm trying to help you out here. It sort of destroys your validity.

 

[Nucklesack]

Nucklesack - You know and I know there is much more to it than that. However lets stay on subject. If you wish to debate McDonalds, please, for everyone's sake here, start a McDonalds thread. No offense intended so don't get upset. Please understand that I just wish to stay on task here in this thread. Thanks in advance.

I didnt bring McDonalds into it, thinking he could strengthen his point by mentioning something unrelated.

Who was this person again?

Now i refuted their point, since the reason McDonalds was called unethical (from this same persons own source) was because a Fast Food joint was not healthy. And some people "feel" the company doesnt treat employees and vendors well, of course they dont explain why.

Maybe this same person, who brought up McDonalds (who was that again?) should have taken that advice?

 

[Nucklesack]

And by the way, Baja, I do have my gun already.

That isn't even the argument. Please for my sake and for the sake of the people reading this, don't flame and don't conjecture and for goodness sake don't be rude and obnoxious. Lets try a little harder not to make this a personal attack against me because it doesn't help your position.

Try to stay on task and contribute meaningful argument instead of getting angry. I'm trying to help you out here. It sort of destroys your validity.

Maybe you shouldnt have posted incorrect information in your original post?

The TackleBox is not the only FFL within 50 miles, there are 2 all within 10 miles (ish).

 

[Merlin99]

Nucklesack - You know and I know there is much more to it than that. However lets stay on subject. If you wish to debate McDonalds, please, for everyone's sake here, start a McDonalds thread. No offense intended so don't get upset. Please understand that I just wish to stay on task here in this thread. Thanks in advance.

Merlin99 and Baja28 - In your arguments you are both completely avoiding the fact that we are not talking about a free market. We are talking about a controlled market.

It's not the fast food joint. It's SEVERELY restricted by the Federal Government. We're not talking about open doors everywhere and balloons and streamers and candy corn. A Federal Firearms License does not grant you the power to run free in fields of clover and swim in rivers of chocolate. Nor does it give you the power to eliminate other businesses from practicing in the area willy-nilly and do whatever you want to do.

Only certain folks that meet the requirements hold 'keys' to that market mandated by the Federal Government. Those 'keys' do not give them the power to unethically leverage consumers. That happens in Cuba and South Africa, not on American soil. Or at least the Federal Government doesn't support it here. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But when it does it's not ethical or entirely legal either.

That was not the intent of the Federal Firearms Licensing program. If it was we would be outraged, right? Price fixing and market leveraging is illegal is it not? Cartels are illegal, are they not? Profiteering is illegal, is it not?

Do you know what these things are? Do you know why they are illegal?

If a business knowingly and willfully applied for a Federal Firearms License THEN THEY DID MAKE A FREE CHOICE. That business becomes A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL AND FIREARMS. As a representative of the federal government, they can not discriminate nor USE THEIR LICENSE TO FIX PRICES AND LEVERAGE CONSUMERS.

They chose to be licensed. No one "held a gun to their head" and made them fill out the paperwork. We, the consumer, didn't tell them how to run their business, as you claim. Your argument is, therefore, moot.

However, I would like to thank you two gentlemen for bringing some very important points to the table, no offense intended. So thank you for that and thank you for your contributions.

One point that you haven't answered yet, why not get your own FFL? it's not expensive, there are a number of on-line assists and best yet, you are not held hostage by anyone elses business practices.

 

[SG_Player1974]

One point that you haven't answered yet, why not get your own FFL? it's not expensive, there are a number of on-line assists and best yet, you are not held hostage by anyone elses business practices.

Why do so many people here refuse to recognize the point that it SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE THE CONSUMER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THE PROBLEM!!!

Too many times, especially on this forum, I read the same old thing..... "Why don't you fix it yourself?"

Well... to all of those who have this mindset... you are the reason people get ripped off or receive terrible service! If you let businesses continue to short-change you and not demand the service that you deserve (and are often advertised but not adhered to) then things will never change!

This gentleman requested a service that the company WILLINGLY signed on to and advertised to perform and that company failed to live up to what they assured they would provide. PLAIN and SIMPLE.

There should be no argument... no defense... no excuses. They agreed to do something (perform as an FFL dealer/shipper) and they failed to perform that duty in order to force the consumer to contribute to their profit margin.

I have not read the FFL agreement/license however, I am supremely confident that NO WHERE in it does it say that the company can refuse service in order to make a profit from a weapons sale. If that were the case then there would be NO free trade in the firearms business if you really think about it. No one would agree to receive shipment of ANY weapons that were not sold locally!

 

[Nucklesack]

Why do so many people here refuse to recognize the point that it SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE THE CONSUMER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THE PROBLEM!!!

Too many times, especially on this forum, I read the same old thing..... "Why don't you fix it yourself?"

Well... to all of those who have this mindset... you are the reason people get ripped off or receive terrible service! If you let businesses continue to short-change you and not demand the service that you deserve (and are often advertised but not adhered to) then things will never change!

This gentleman requested a service that the company WILLINGLY signed on to and advertised to perform and that company failed to live up to what they assured they would provide. PLAIN and SIMPLE.

There should be no argument... no defense... no excuses. They agreed to do something (perform as an FFL dealer/shipper) and they failed to perform that duty in order to force the consumer to contribute to their profit margin.

I have not read the FFL agreement/license however, I am supremely confident that NO WHERE in it does it say that the company can refuse service in order to make a profit from a weapons sale. If that were the case then there would be NO free trade in the firearms business if you really think about it. No one would agree to receive shipment of ANY weapons that were not sold locally!

Reading comprehension normally an issue for you? The original poster was told ahead of time what the policy was.

I quote:

The man speaking for THE TACKLE BOX, who's name I'll politely leave out of this review, said that the official store policy was a little trickier than that. The man told me that THE TACKLE BOX would OUTRIGHT REFUSE a firearms transfer if the make and model could theoretically have been purchased at THE TACKLE BOX.​

There was no misdirection, and he wasnt lied to, the policy was disclosed to him.

He (Original Poster) just didnt like it. He could have gone to the numerous other FFL's who may or maynot have this same policy.

 

[Merlin99]

Why do so many people here refuse to recognize the point that it SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE THE CONSUMER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THE PROBLEM!!!
Because so many people believe that the government is their parent and will fix everything for them. Grow up and take care of your own problems.

Too many times, especially on this forum, I read the same old thing..... "Why don't you fix it yourself?"
That's what adults do, children are the ones who want others to fix their problems.

Well... to all of those who have this mindset... you are the reason people get ripped off or receive terrible service! If you let businesses continue to short-change you and not demand the service that you deserve (and are often advertised but not adhered to) then things will never change!
Not really, but you wouldn't agree

This gentleman requested a service that the company WILLINGLY signed on to and advertised to perform and that company failed to live up to what they assured they would provide. PLAIN and SIMPLE.
No they didn't, a FFL is not to transfer a gun from one private individual to another, it's to allow them to sell them, that it also allows them to transfer them is an aside.

There should be no argument... no defense... no excuses. They agreed to do something (perform as an FFL dealer/shipper) and they failed to perform that duty in order to force the consumer to contribute to their profit margin.
They are in business to make a profit, if it weren't for the profit they wouldn't be there at all.

I have not read the FFL agreement/license however, I am supremely confident that NO WHERE in it does it say that the company can refuse service in order to make a profit from a weapons sale. If that were the case then there would be NO free trade in the firearms business if you really think about it. No one would agree to receive shipment of ANY weapons that were not sold locally!
It's not in there, what else is not in there is a statement saying that they must perform a transfer for anyone who asks, they can refuse service to just about anyone.

In case you missed it I'm saying to grow up, goverment can't fix everything for you and when they try, they screw things up worse.

 

[Chestr]

One point that you haven't answered yet, why not get your own FFL? it's not expensive, there are a number of on-line assists and best yet, you are not held hostage by anyone elses business practices.

Thank you. Yes. To answer your question. I looked in to it about a week ago actually. To fulfill the conditions of the application you must own your own separate place of business that is in another location from your home and be able to secure it in a certain way. I assume that's why there are bars on the door at THE TACKLE BOX. I didn't read much further after that.

FFL was not meant for every citizen to have anyways. In the old days they called them 'Kitchen Table dealers' but they changed the rules making it harder for the average Joe to get one.

FFL was meant for businesses anyways. Sellers. Dealers. That sort of thing.

SG_Player1974 - Yea sorry but it was 'technically' disclosed to me up front. It took a little prying to get it out of the guy but he admitted it later on during our conversation.

But you ARE right with your point in a sense.

Nucklesack - You're being a jerk. Stop it. Act like a gentlemen. People are less inclined to read your post if it's hateful anyway.

Baja28 - I understand your point. I do. You believe in freedom to run your business as you choose. I respect that. I really really do. You believe strongly that companies run by free men should have the ability to do as they choose. That is a noble belief. My version is yes too as long as it's fair and ethical.

Answer my question earlier. Do you believe in cartels? Do you believe in price fixing? Do you believe in bait and switch? Do you believe in profiteering?

Please explain why you do or do not support each of those and then explain why.

What are you opinions on those?

 

[Baja28]

Nucklesack - You know and I know there is much more to it than that. However lets stay on subject. If you wish to debate McDonalds, please, for everyone's sake here, start a McDonalds thread. No offense intended so don't get upset. Please understand that I just wish to stay on task here in this thread. Thanks in advance.

Merlin99 and Baja28 - In your arguments you are both completely avoiding the fact that we are not talking about a free market. We are talking about a controlled market.

It's not the fast food joint. It's SEVERELY restricted by the Federal Government. We're not talking about open doors everywhere and balloons and streamers and candy corn. A Federal Firearms License does not grant you the power to run free in fields of clover and swim in rivers of chocolate. Nor does it give you the power to eliminate other businesses from practicing in the area willy-nilly and do whatever you want to do.

Only certain folks that meet the requirements hold 'keys' to that market mandated by the Federal Government. Those 'keys' do not give them the power to unethically leverage consumers. That happens in Cuba and South Africa, not on American soil. Or at least the Federal Government doesn't support it here. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But when it does it's not ethical or entirely legal either.

That was not the intent of the Federal Firearms Licensing program. If it was we would be outraged, right? Price fixing and market leveraging is illegal is it not? Cartels are illegal, are they not? Profiteering is illegal, is it not?

Do you know what these things are? Do you know why they are illegal?

If a business knowingly and willfully applied for a Federal Firearms License THEN THEY DID MAKE A FREE CHOICE. That business becomes A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL AND FIREARMS. As a representative of the federal government, they can not discriminate nor USE THEIR LICENSE TO FIX PRICES AND LEVERAGE CONSUMERS.

They chose to be licensed. No one "held a gun to their head" and made them fill out the paperwork. We, the consumer, didn't tell them how to run their business, as you claim. Your argument is, therefore, moot.

However, I would like to thank you two gentlemen for bringing some very important points to the table, no offense intended. So thank you for that and thank you for your contributions.

And you called my little post a rant.

And by the way, Baja, I do have my gun already.

That isn't even the argument. Please for my sake and for the sake of the people reading this, don't flame and don't conjecture and for goodness sake don't be rude and obnoxious. Lets try a little harder not to make this a personal attack against me because it doesn't help your position.

Try to stay on task and contribute meaningful argument instead of getting angry. I'm trying to help you out here. It sort of destroys your validity.

I'll get right on this. Your position is the one in dire need of help. GTF over it and move on for christs sake. You're gonna give yourself a heart attack. And take your little brother SG_Player1974 with you.