You are correct. However the policy is there to block consumers from utilizing competitive businesses. And THAT is unethical.
UNETHICAL policies. A review.
- Thread starter Chestr
- Start date
You are correct. However the policy is there to block consumers from utilizing competitive businesses. And THAT is unethical.
Since you're never going to believe anyone else, why don't you file suit and let a judge give you his professional opinion. (Don't be surprised if they tell you that you've got to pay court costs and for his legal defence)
SG_Player1974
New Member
If, when I did get my driver's license, I signed an agreement to ferry anyone who requested the service and passed all acceptable federal background checks, regulations, etc. then yes, I would pick you up and take you to work. Simply because I AGREED TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE! Now, if you did not qualify or did not pass the checks, then I would refuse service. However, if you did pass them all and there were only 10 or so drivers in the county that could drive the particular road to your work (me being one of them) and I showed up to your house and told you that I could not take you unless you paid an additional outrageous fee..... Would you not feel a bit upset and slighted?
Sure you could call another one of the 10 drivers but now you have been inconvenienced and left with time wasted.
Too bad for you though because it was MY right, as a business, to refuse that service correct??????
SG_Player1974
New Member
Denying service for agreed upon reasons and ending at that = NO PROBLEM.
Denying service because they want to force you to purchase from them instead of a competative source = PROBLEM!
MMDad
Lem Putt
FFL holders do not agree to provide that service. The license merely allows them to provide that service if they wish to. Kind of like your driver's license.
Now do you see the issue? There is absolutely nothing that requires them to provide a service AT ALL. They have no obligation to provide that service. If they want to the can, but they do not have to.
If their fee is excessive, go somewhere else. What's so difficult about that? They are not the only business that provides the service, the OP was just too lazy to find somebody who provide the service he wanted at the price he wanted to pay.
MMDad
Lem Putt
They aren't "forcing" anything. I bet their doors were unlocked and he could have walked out at any time. He even knew their policy up front, yet is still whining.
It's like whining that McDonald's charges too much for a Big Mac. You can walk out at any time and go to Burger King. The OP is whining because he wanted his Big Mac at his price, but was not willing to go to Burger King instead.
not quite, he wanted to buy a whopper off of ebay and have it shipped to McDonalds. (because of the required federal hamburger license)
SG_Player1974
New Member
Now I see the point. Thank you for clarifying it for me.
I would hope that when they did state their policy to the OP as was posted previously, they told him that they DO NOT accept any shipments of firearms for second parties. Even though it may be solely up to the business owner to select which firearms to accept transfer of and to who they go to, it still seems like a shady business practice to be selective. You would think that the business would just charge a pass through fee and make some profit without having to deal with a sale.
Maybe the paperwork involved is not worth the profit. Who know???
Unethical business practice has nothing to do with an FFL license.
No matter the method of coercion or market denial, unethical is unethical. If a company has the power to block consumers from using competition, however the method, its illegal.
PERIOD.
You read into it what you wanted to get out of it. You put your own spin and twist into it to "win" but you're AVOIDING the point that there are already laws in place to prevent such practices. Yet you SKILLFULLY avoid that fact in your responses.
If verizon (WHO OWN ALL THE PHONE LINES) automatically blocked calls to any number from At&T, Sprint, or Cingular to prevent you from reaching their competition to change service, would that be "FAIR PLAY" in the business world?
Verizon DOES HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY to do that. But they can not. Should they?
Answer the question!!!
1. Would that constitute an unethical business practice?
2. Would you say in your own personal opinion that morally that is ok?
3. And just for a single post, can you at least say that you see my point?
I think that you don't have the cojones to tell me you see my point because you know I have you in a corner so to speak since you have not added one reference or fact to your responses other than conjecture and opinion which holds ZERO weight.
No matter the method of coercion or market denial, unethical is unethical. If a company has the power to block consumers from using competition, however the method, its illegal.
PERIOD.
You read into it what you wanted to get out of it. You put your own spin and twist into it to "win" but you're AVOIDING the point that there are already laws in place to prevent such practices. Yet you SKILLFULLY avoid that fact in your responses.
If verizon (WHO OWN ALL THE PHONE LINES) automatically blocked calls to any number from At&T, Sprint, or Cingular to prevent you from reaching their competition to change service, would that be "FAIR PLAY" in the business world?
Verizon DOES HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY to do that. But they can not. Should they?
Answer the question!!!
1. Would that constitute an unethical business practice?
2. Would you say in your own personal opinion that morally that is ok?
3. And just for a single post, can you at least say that you see my point?
I think that you don't have the cojones to tell me you see my point because you know I have you in a corner so to speak since you have not added one reference or fact to your responses other than conjecture and opinion which holds ZERO weight.
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
You have someone in a corner???Unethical business practice has nothing to do with an FFL license.
No matter the method of coercion or market denial, unethical is unethical. If a company has the power to block consumers from using competition, however the method, its illegal. How did the Tackle box block you from going to their compitition?
PERIOD.
You read into it what you wanted to get out of it. You put your own spin and twist into it to "win" but you're AVOIDING the point that there are already laws in place to prevent such practices. Yet you SKILLFULLY avoid that fact in your responses. See my question above.
If verizon (WHO OWN ALL THE PHONE LINES) automatically blocked calls to any number from At&T, Sprint, or Cingular to prevent you from reaching their competition to change service, would that be "FAIR PLAY" in the business world? Again, see my question above... (damn you're easy)
Verizon DOES HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY to do that. But they can not. Should they?
Answer the question!!! Ask a question that doesn't involve apples and oranges. Oh and see above....
1. Would that constitute an unethical business practice?
2. Would you say in your own personal opinion that morally that is ok?
3. And just for a single post, can you at least say that you see my point?
I think that you don't have the cojones to tell me you see my point because you know I have you in a corner so to speak since you have not added one reference or fact to your responses other than conjecture and opinion which holds ZERO weight.
Sounds like the Tackle Box has you in a corner and you're a big baby. 
The only point you have is the top of your head. Even SG_Player1974 admitted he understands. You're just too thick headed and embarrassed that you spent too much for a gun.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Verizon does have a monopoly, that's why the law prohibits blocking.
The Tackle Box does not have a monopoly. That's why they are not required to help you to give business to their competitors.
There are plenty of dealers who will provide the service you want. The Tackle Box does not prevent you from using those dealers. Stop being a lazy entitlement type and use your consumer power by spending your money with someone who provides the service you want.
If the Tackle Box loses enough business, they will change their policy. That is the only thing that can, or should, change their policy.
If you really think that their policy is illegal, please cite the law that makes it illegal. Not your interpretation, the actual law.
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
And Verizon is a public service utility governed by the PSC. A private owned business is not. Chestr has no concept of equal comparisons.
Beta84
They're out to get us
With the first post, I think that the eyecare people were jerks. You need a prescription and they have no right to force you to buy one of their pairs of glasses. You are paying for a service (the checkup and prescription that results) and that is their main business. The glasses is an added part of the business that isn't their primary function, even if it may be a primary money maker. If they don't want to give you a prescription unless you purchase your glasses from them, they need to make you aware of that up front. Then you can make an informed decision.
As for the gun dealer, what they did makes sense to me. If you could purchase the item from their store, why would they let you purchase it somewhere else and then give it to you, so they lose that potential $$$? If they did that, everyone would find the same guns online and purchase them for a lower price and they'd go out of business. It's just bad business, simple as that. If it's a gun that you can purchase at the store then you can purchase it from them, buy a gun that you can't buy from them, or find another store that's willing to help you out. You can't force a store to undermine themselves.
As for the gun dealer, what they did makes sense to me. If you could purchase the item from their store, why would they let you purchase it somewhere else and then give it to you, so they lose that potential $$$? If they did that, everyone would find the same guns online and purchase them for a lower price and they'd go out of business. It's just bad business, simple as that. If it's a gun that you can purchase at the store then you can purchase it from them, buy a gun that you can't buy from them, or find another store that's willing to help you out. You can't force a store to undermine themselves.
SG_Player1974
New Member
I understand both points being made on this LONG thread. My only questions are these:
1) Did the Tackle Box inform the OP that they do not accept shipments of firearms for anyone or any source OTHER than for their own stock?
2) If they did.... Does anyone know if the FFL policy states that they can refuse this service? (And yes...I know that they SHOULD have the right to do so as a business owner however, my question is in regards to the written agreement in the FFL license regarding shipping/receiving.)
3) If they did not..... Would this be a form of discrimination?
Beta84
They're out to get us
The OP seems to state that they wouldn't accept shipments of firearms if it was something they could sell. It doesn't state anywhere that they wouldn't accept shipments if it was something else. I can't imagine a policy that would force a store to accept shipments on items that they sell since that would cut their legs out from under them. I mean seriously, force someone to accept a shipment on an item that they sell and not make money off of it like they would otherwise? Again, that'd put people out of business.
That's not discrimination, that's smart business.
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
Chestr is a member of the liberal entitlement group of
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
Chestr wants to buy his beef & bread at Food Lion and have Burger King cook it and make a sammich for him.
Beta84
They're out to get us
exactly. do they even make any money off the shipment of the gun, or are they merely receiving a package and giving it to him? that'd be an even bigger difference, does he get that sammich for free or is he at least paying a quarter for it?
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
I'm sure they charge a fee but ole chestr can't grasp that concept. He never got past the fact that they weren't going to xfer a gun for him when he could have bought it from them in the first place.
Again. You people avoid the parts that make your arguments invalid. Your answer is "well it's only ONE storefront that's shady." We've already covered how they're blocking.
I knew you'd be back. You're a forum addict. You couldn't help it. It was predictable.
Just as predictable was your uncouth response and lack of any semblance of manners. They only serve to bring out my points and keep people reading. I think putting people down is an addictive behavior of yours.
And I say again. You are entitled to your own opinion and the freedom of the 1st amendment. Try not to abuse it and use it negatively so much.