What are the legalities of vendors denying gun/ammo sales and searching social media accounts of gun buyers?

[Blue Sky Country]

Posting this question because ANTIFA affiliated groups like the John Brown Gun Club and Redneck Revolt are actually extremely dangerous to the stability of this country and over the years, they have grown in numbers as well as firepower.

They have infiltrated many branches of the military, recruiting members.

They have also sent their members into military service in order to learn tactics and weapons operations.

They DO train and some of them ARE getting quite good at it.

If push comes to shove, these creeps will not engage in "conventional warfare". They will use ambush and terror tactics, on their opponents as well as noncombatant civilians too.

They are NOT to be laughed at or underestimated in any way. They may be nothing compared to an experienced deer hunter who lives off of the land, but they are still extremely dangerous and capable of carrying out acts such as mass shootings in target rich environments...



So now is the million dollar question:

ATTENTION GUN STORE OWNERS AND VENDORS:

What exactly are the legalities and intricacies regarding doing PRIVATE background checks on prospective gun and ammunition buyers and looking up their social media presence and denying the purchases if they are found to to be affiliated with leftist extremist groups?

The fact that so many of them are taking advantage of the 2nd Amendment and procuring weapons via the legal outlet is downright alarming and must be addressed if we want to prune this dangerous phenomenon right on our home soil.

 

[MotoFlier]

Private back ground checks, denying 2nd amendment rights due to social media. Sounds like some next level Red Flag bullshit. The fuck outta here with that non sense.

 

[Son of Dorn]

This is from a few years ago but seems like refusing to sell to someone if you suspect they'll use their gun for ill is alright? Article says the ATF supports that one, or it did at the time.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-17/dealers-choice-gun-store-owners-can-deny-anyone-they-want

As long as you're not saying "I will not sell this gun to you because you are [insert ethnicity/religion here]", it shouldn't be a problem. If you say "I'm sorry, I can't make this sale in good conscience out of concern for [X outcome].", that might be okay?

I'm looking at this from the POV of a landlord, though, since we're getting new tenants soon. I'm 100% not allowed to say "I will not rent this apartment to you because you're [insert ethnicity/religion].", but I absolutely can refuse to rent to someone if they come around all twitchy and scratching themselves and their eyes are bugging out of their head and I think to myself "Well this guy is probably doing some shit I cannot and will not condone on my property. No can do." Nothing stops me from making a formal or informal background check on the prospective tenant and if I don't like what I see, I'm under zero obligation to rent to him if no contract has been made.

Of course, the difference is that I am able to terminate his contract if I do find out he's up to no good. A gun vendor can't exactly demand the gun be returned if he checks the guy out and finds out after the fact.

 

[Blue Sky Country]

Private back ground checks, denying 2nd amendment rights due to social media. Sounds like some next level Red Flag bullshit. The fuck outta here with that non sense.

If someone tries to buy a gun from you and you happen to see that his Facebook page is filled with "Kill cops", "death to USA", etc..., would you still sell to him, even if he passes the fed background check???

 

[Vodoun daVinci]

If it's on Social Media its simply is not private in my opinion....so, if a vendor or anyone else wants to research what I say here at Snipers Hide or any of the other forums I post at and use that information to deny me goods or services then how do we Police the Net? Everything I say on Social Media can and will be used against me and if we don't think guys like the Redneck Revolt and other ANTFA Groups aren't researching us and cataloging us I think that's a big mistake. They can fire me for shit I say on my FB page (don't have one) and hold me accountable for what I say and type so why should a vendor be any different?

VooDoo

 

[FatBoy]

For me it's simple. If I'm doing a FTF and get a weird feeling about anything I walk away. Even with my buddies we do a bill of sale.
That said, I stopped selling guns years ago. At this point I'd rather have them collect dust in the safe then not have them. Only ones that leave my collection now are gifted to family or friends.

To your greater point, there really isn't anything we can do to stop this. Every ploy we used would in turn be used against us.

 

[Vodoun daVinci]

I think we are accountable for what we say and do...how we act and who we support or hate. We are accountable. Or should be.

VooDoo

 

[MotoFlier]

If someone tries to buy a gun from you and you happen to see that his Facebook page is filled with "Kill cops", "death to USA", etc..., would you still sell to him, even if he passes the fed background check???

You've never got upset and said something you didn't mean? I believe in due process and I belive people who have not legally lost their rights are entitled to exercise them. Whether i agree with there political stance, religion, or beliefs. Because America

Didn't they have something like that in the Avengers movie? A computer algorithm that could predict the likelihood of someone to do something in the future and kill them as to not risk it happening.

Hail Hydra

 

[Rthur]

FFL's are instructed in their interview that they can refuse a transfer/sale.
They give examples like a strawman purchase ect.
This is a very slippery slope, I can see the decision being delegated to those other than
the man on the ground/direct contact with said transferee.
Another version of the red flag lack of due process.

R

 

[MtnCreek]

An FFL or private seller can refuse service.

 

[Threadcutter308]

FFL's are instructed in their interview that they can refuse a transfer/sale.
They give examples like a strawman purchase ect.
This is a very slippery slope, I can see the decision being delegated to those other than
the man on the ground/direct contact with said transferee.
Another version of the red flag lack of due process.

R

Yes, "slippery slope" is what immediately comes to mind for me. Too easy for new "regulations" to be turned around and used against innocent, law abiding citizens.

So, my vote is not only "no", but "hell no".

However, if FFL's can indeed invoke common sense and say no if they get a "bad vibe", then that's a decision I can live with. I don't want .gov any more involved in what they already have been. Their track record is just so "stellar" and all.......

 

[FatBoy]

You've never got upset and said something you didn't mean? I believe in due process and I belive people who have not legally lost their rights are entitled to exercise them. Whether i agree with there political stance, religion, or beliefs. Because America

Didn't they have something like that in the Avengers movie? A computer algorithm that could predict the likelihood of someone to do something in the future and kill them as to not risk it happening.

Hail Hydra

You can bet you ass if I read or knew about someone threatening lives there is no way in hell I'd sell them a weapon. On top of that, I would probably call the cops or FBI.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. If they were just blowing off steam, they have nothing to worry about. That said, I'm totally against red flag laws, etc. To me, it's a personal responsibility thing, coupled with commons sense. If I see it I have a responsibility to take action. If I'm wrong, I too should know there may be consequences.

 

[lash]

You've never got upset and said something you didn't mean? I believe in due process and I belive people who have not legally lost their rights are entitled to exercise them. Whether i agree with there political stance, religion, or beliefs. Because America

Didn't they have something like that in the Avengers movie? A computer algorithm that could predict the likelihood of someone to do something in the future and kill them as to not risk it happening.

Hail Hydra

You mean Minority Report?

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Sorry if someone gets offended if a legitimate FFL Dealer refuses to conduct a licensed transaction.
After all...THEY are the ones the judicial system will be the first to visit if something happens with said firearm, not some stranger reading social media about how abc dealer refused to sale to their cousins uncles sisters brother in law and he is a good guy.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[MotoFlier]

 

[Rthur]

You can bet you ass if I read or knew about someone threatening lives there is no way in hell I'd sell them a weapon. On top of that, I would probably call the cops or FBI.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. If they were just blowing off steam, they have nothing to worry about. That said, I'm totally against red flag laws, etc. To me, it's a personal responsibility thing, coupled with commons sense. If I see it I have a responsibility to take action. If I'm wrong, I too should know there may be consequences.

While that seems perfectly logical there are those who would look at common
posts on this site as a justification.
How many on Facebook would call this site nothing but a bunch of right wing crazy gun nuts?
Perspective.

R

 

[308pirate]

Private back ground checks, denying 2nd amendment rights due to social media. Sounds like some next level Red Flag bullshit. The fuck outta here with that non sense.

Wrong answer asshole. Firearm dealers are private businesses and they can deny service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want without explaining to anyone.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Reform the Judicial system in which MY business cannot be responsible for someone else's actions and repost this thread, lol.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Blue Sky Country]

Yes, "slippery slope" is what immediately comes to mind for me. Too easy for new "regulations" to be turned around and used against innocent, law abiding citizens.

So, my vote is not only "no", but "hell no".

However, if FFL's can indeed invoke common sense and say no if they get a "bad vibe", then that's a decision I can live with. I don't want .gov any more involved in what they already have been. Their track record is just so "stellar" and all.......

Totally agree on that. Definitely do not need any "government" ruling on issues like this... Hence why I stressed private and self-based decisions on behalf of the vendor himself, not due to any laws or statutes.

 

[308pirate]

If you're calling out for peace and safety via prosecution of thought crimes and associations then you've taken the bait.

Spit that hook, cause it's Un American

You need to reconsider your libertarian autism

 

[Son of Dorn]

You mean Minority Report?

Difference there was Minority Report presented actual crimes as being preventable within moments of them occurring, for the most part. Not "Oh based on this guy's genetics, he'll grow up to be the next Osama Bin Laden. Rain fire upon his house, never mind that he's three months old and just crapped his diapers. He's EVIL." like the Captain America movie did.

But yeah the concept pops up regularly in fiction in one form or another.

 

[MotoFlier]

Obviously if some guy is standing face to face with you buying a gun talking about going home and putting a bullet in that bitches head is one thing. However looking at someone's Facebook and saying "I don't know couple weeks ago you smiley faced a rather questionable Baby Yoda meme" is ridiculous.

 

[308pirate]

I believe in due process and I belive people who have not legally lost their rights are entitled to exercise them. Whether i agree with there political stance, religion, or beliefs. Because America

We (private individuals and private businesses) are not restrained by the Constitution or Bill of Rights from violating someone's rights.

 

[MtnCreek]

Wrong answer asshole. Firearm dealers are private businesses and they can deny service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want without explaining to anyone.

That was true till '64. Now there are protected groups. But plain weirdos aren't on that list yet.

 

[FatBoy]

While that seems perfectly logical there are those who would look at common
posts on this site as a justification.
How many on Facebook would call this site nothing but a bunch of right wing crazy gun nuts?
Perspective.

R

I agree, and understand there are nuances to this. However, if someone raises my suspicion to the level that I feel compelled to report them, that person is pretty fucked up. As to soft handed facebook snowflakes,
I don't buy guns from them. If they want to find a reason to report me to X.gov they'll find a reason. Your point is not lost though.

Similar issue. When I ran mathces, I invited people to not come back. I gave everyone a chance until they were unsafe, untrainable or they made me uncomfortable. To me training is no different them firearms. If I'm wrong them I'm just an asshole and they earn to shoot past 100y someplace else. If I'm right, maybe I stopped the next DC or interstate shooter. We are responsible for policing our own.

 

[MotoFlier]

Wrong answer asshole. Firearm dealers are private businesses and they can deny service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want without explaining to anyone.

How about that family owned bakery that refused to make the cake for the gay couple. Didn't end so well for them but I agree people are such hypocrites and its trendy to attack the 2nd amendment.

 

[308pirate]

Obviously if some guy is standing face to face with you buying a gun talking about going home and putting a bullet in that bitches head is one thing. However looking at someone's Facebook and saying "I don't know couple weeks ago you smiley faced a rather questionable Baby Yoda meme" is ridiculous.

We are complete fucking idiots if we don't start compiling dossiers on anyone we can identify as an Antifa terrorist and/or radical leftist to deny them everything we can at any opportunity: jobs, housing, weapons, vehicles, anything and everything

Stupid fucking weakness is what will get us defeated

 

[308pirate]

How about that family owned bakery that refused to make the cake for the gay couple.

Depending on which one you're talking about some of them won in the end

And if this is your best example, it's weak as fuck. At least those bakers stood on principle. You seem to want to fold like a cheap suit

 

[MtnCreek]

How about that family owned bakery that refused to make the cake for the gay couple. Didn't end so well for them but I agree people are such hypocrites and its trendy to attack the 2nd amendment.

That's because the federal gov took your rights to give them to others made up right to buy a cake or whatever.

Go in a cakeshop wanting them to make a cake decorated like a picture of you fucking your sister, they'll throw you out w/o repercussions. Now if adam & steeve want a cake showing them sucking each other off, they might want to come up with a different reason to refuse service.

 

[MotoFlier]

I would say if your worried everyone is 1 post away from becoming a lunatic killer than being a gun dealer is probably not the right career path for you.

Depending on which one you're talking about some of them won in the end

And if this is your best example, it's weak as fuck. At least those bakers stood on principle. You seem to want to fold like a cheap suit

One went out of business i didn't know there were more. "Fold like a cheap suit" I literally have no clue what your trying to say but it sounds like a trendy Facebook one liner lol.

 

[308pirate]

So now is the million dollar question:

What exactly are the legalities and intricacies regarding doing PRIVATE background checks on prospective gun and ammunition buyers and looking up their social media presence and denying the purchases if they are found to to be affiliated with leftist extremist groups?

They have no legal liabilities if they do what you wisely suggest

Never mind the idiots rambling about "rights"

 

[MotoFlier]

Why stop at gun sales? How about the construction worker that pulls into a gas station after work a buys a 6 pack? Dude really looks like he could use a drink i don't trust he's gonna wait till he gets home. What If He cracks one open on the drive home and smashes his big ol work truck into a mini van full of kids? We cannot take the risk and must deny alcohol sales to all these deplorables.

 

[MotoFlier]

Worst part is that is a far more likely scenario than someone using a gun you sell them to commit a crime.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Uhhhh actually alcohol resellers and servers are required to NOT sale to anyone they think cannot legally drive.
Restaurants are allowed to NOT serve someone based on their clothing attire.
List goes on and on.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Blue Sky Country]

Hi,

Uhhhh actually alcohol resellers and servers are required to NOT sale to anyone they think cannot legally drive.
Restaurants are allowed to not serve someone based on their clothing attire.
List goes on and on.

Sincerely,
Theis

As a former retail manager, half of my mandatory 'training' was about refusing sales of alcohol, tobacco/e-cig products, and potential inhalants based solely on "presumption", and you can bet, they are SERIOUS about it too. If one of my associates sells a pack of smokes to a minor in an underage sting operation, that shit blows back in my face about not training him/her properly...

 

[MotoFlier]

Hi,

Uhhhh actually alcohol resellers and servers are required to NOT sale to anyone they think cannot legally drive.
Restaurants are allowed to NOT serve someone based on their clothing attire.
List goes on and on.

Sincerely,
Theis

We are not talking about someone is clearly intoxicated or done anything wrong. That's the beauty of America if you believe we should take it upon ourselves to predict who deserves rights and who doesn't thats your right. I still think you should be able to exercise all your rights even though I completely disagree with you but I guess I'm old fashion that way.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Except that your rights do not protect MY business from the judicial system.....That is MY responsibility (notice I did not say "right"....that was by design).

IF we do not Police ourselves then we open the door for others to control us....I choose the first option so IF in Policing ourselves as in regards to the firearms industry we may get that "gut call" wrong and we may get it right but what we did do is protect our business, our family, our employees, our vendors, etc so it is the cost of doing business.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[MotoFlier]

This made me laugh.
There it is you got me. Thank God for social media exposing me. Red flag me take all my guns and refuse to do business with me. Great work team!!!

 

[308pirate]

Well I missed the part about PRIVATE in the OP.

Yeah seems too many are too much of a woke libertarian to actually read for comprehension...……..

 

[308pirate]

Why stop at gun sales? How about the construction worker that pulls into a gas station after work a buys a 6 pack? Dude really looks like he could use a drink i don't trust he's gonna wait till he gets home. What If He cracks one open on the drive home and smashes his big ol work truck into a mini van full of kids? We cannot take the risk and must deny alcohol sales to all these deplorables.

You need to get a grip on reality

 

[FatBoy]

Your point is a larger one, which IMO has to balance the individual right of a person with the rights/responsibility of a company. Both have rights, one is held to a higher legal standard through regulation. Unfortunatly it's not as cut and dry as it used to be. (Think no shirt, no shoes, no service). Now assholes sue to move an agenda instead of just going to the next business.

One of your previous arguments was the Baker. If this was still a free country, this would have been laughed out of court. This was done intentionally to tear at the first amendment. If this was the ONLY bakery allowed by law then maybe there is an argument, but that's not the case. This is one of the clearest cases I can think of to push tort reform.

This is still at least a shell of America. If someone doesn't want to do business with you, generally there are others lines up to take your money.

 

[sharpshot50]

I think you would be able to refuse service in your particular store as long as you either didn't cite a reason or cited that you were uncomfortable selling to them. If they're white, you might not have any wrongful repercussions, but if they're anything else and they decide to sue you for racism, etc., that would be a case that you'd probably lose in today's world.

On the other hand, what someone posts on social media doesn't always reflect who they are or what they'll do. I said a lot of stupid crap in my younger years and if it could all be used against me now, I doubt I'd be able to own anything at all in this hobby.

You make a good point, though, and I definitely think that it should be up to the FFL dealer to decline a sale for any reason, I just don't think it can or should go beyond that, i.e. you can't stop them from going to the next vendor and completing the purchase.

 

[MotoFlier]

You need to get a grip on reality

That is exactly what I was thinking about the people feeding into this subjective "Common Sense" "Self Regulation".
I'm all ears to hear about ways to prevent terrible things from happening but in my opinion social media is not a means to that end. That said my opinion is worth what you pay for it lol.

 

[SilentStalkr]

An FFL can deny anyone under their own accord, if they think something is amiss.

 

[308pirate]

That is exactly what I was thinking about the people feeding into this subjective "Common Sense" "Self Regulation".
I'm all ears to hear about ways to prevent terrible things from happening but in my opinion social media is not a means to that end. That said my opinion is worth what you pay for it lol.

I don't think you understand that with rights come responsibilities

Like I told someone else, check your libertarian autism........

 

[MotoFlier]

I don't think you understand that with rights come responsibilities

Like I told someone else, check your libertarian autism........

When did I say rights don't have responsibilities? This is the second time now you have made some random statement to me that pertains to nothing.

 

[TheGerman]

Yeah no thanks.

We don't need anyone to decide who can and can't exercise a right given by God because of feelings or conflicting views. See where thats heading? If an individual shop wants to black list you, fine. Gov involvement? Fuck no.

Those skinny beta faggots can just get shot in the face like anyone else.

 

[FatBoy]

We are blurring the lines between rights and vendors who supply the tools to exercise said rights. Just because you have the right to bear arms doesn't me I have a legal obligation to sell it to you. You have freedom of speach but the newspaper has no obligation to print your views.

This line has been perverted in recent years but I believe the pendulum will start to swing the other way once we get some strict constructionists on the benches .

 

[SilentStalkr]

We are blurring the lines between rights and vendors who supply the tools to exercise said rights. Just because you have the right to bear arms doesn't me I have a legal obligation to sell it to you. You have freedom of speach but the newspaper has no obligation to print your views.

This line has been perverted in recent years but I believe the pendulum will start to swing the other way once we get some strict constructionists on the benches .

Yeah, the problem is we’ve been waiting on these people for awhile!

 

[lash]

That is exactly what I was thinking about the people feeding into this subjective "Common Sense" "Self Regulation".
I'm all ears to hear about ways to prevent terrible things from happening but in my opinion social media is not a means to that end. That said my opinion is worth what you pay for it lol.

It has been seen that many who plan on killing others will out themselves on social media. To ignore that is to be a modern day ostrich and hide your head in the sand, saying, “It isn’t so, it isn’t so.”

There is a noticeable difference between posting “they should be shot” and “I am going to shoot them”. In case you can’t tell the difference, one means that you think it is a punishable offense and the other says that you are going to take that into your own hands.