View Full Version : Martin B Retting, and the OLL.
acaligunner
07-05-2009, 4:22 PM
Hello;
I was thinking about getting a OLL (since I do not own a AR type rife), and went into MBR for some ordering info.
I talked with the two brothers & a few salespersons there, and most all of them informed me that if I went out and bought a OLL (lower or complete rifle), that I had a high percentage of being thrown into jail.
Also they informed me that they would not order any type of OLL.
So I'm thinking, (Self), why would the whole staff give me unreliable info?
Stating that I would/could be raided, thrown into jail-- for owning any OLL?
Is this just FUD, To keep me from going somewhere else?
What's the deal?
I know they don't have to sell lowers, AR's (oll), or bullet buttons, etc. But why all the mystery.
I know the owners don't like all the Ca gun laws, but isn't this a chance to live up to his customers demands, and show that he's in his right.
a caligunner
ajaffe
07-05-2009, 4:30 PM
Fud. Well at least for 2 more weeks.
Martin B. Retting and Culver City PD don't get along. That's the mystery.
acaligunner
07-05-2009, 4:44 PM
Hello;
Can someone provide more info on this.
acaligunner
savasyn
07-05-2009, 4:47 PM
Go to Ammo Bros, it's not /that/ far away from Retting and they are extremely off-list friendly.
Retting has been extremely off-list UNfriendly since they started to appear a few years back. Too bad too, as they used a good place for fun rifles back in the day.
savasyn
07-05-2009, 4:48 PM
Oh yeah, and here's an thread with an article that might shed more light on the legality of off-lists:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=200257
CSACANNONEER
07-05-2009, 4:52 PM
Hello;
Can someone provide more info on this.
acaligunner
It's quite simple. MBR, thinks that if you buy a OLL that which could be converted or built into an AW, you have a high probibility of going to jail. This is like saying that if you have a car that is capable of being modified into an illegal street racer, you have a high proability of going to jail. (Even if you don't modify it!) So, how flawwed is their thinking?
acaligunner
07-05-2009, 4:53 PM
Go to Ammo Bros, it's not /that/ far away from Retting and they are extremely off-list friendly.
Retting has been extremely off-list UNfriendly since they started to appear a few years back. Too bad too, as they used a good place for fun rifles back in the day.
Exactly, that's why I don't understand there stance on OLL's.
It's a legal sale, so why do I get I'm going to be busted/raided for looking into buying one?
I would have liked a better dealing, than what they told me. If they don't want to sell OLL AR's, why did I get such a statement from them?:leaving:
acaligunner
acaligunner
07-05-2009, 5:00 PM
It's quite simple. MBR, thinks that if you buy a OLL that which could be converted or built into an AW, you have a high probibility of going to jail. This is like saying that if you have a car that is capable of being modified into an illegal street racer, you have a high proability of going to jail. (Even if you don't modify it!) So, how flawwed is their thinking?
Weird, Ha.
:25:
So, he's doing us a favor by not selling up something that MAY be too dangerous for us. Oh I seeeee
Kinda like this;
:61:
To this;
:80:
:rofl2:
acaligunner
MBR does not want the additional scroutiny from their local law enforcement agency. When you have a business and the cops hate you, you won't be in business very long if you do things to antagonize them.
forgiven
07-05-2009, 6:33 PM
Is there any officers who/would comment on the Culver City police procedure/or behavior when it comes to guns. Thanks
HotRails
07-05-2009, 8:12 PM
When you see someone behaving in this way, take you business elsewhere. However, I too would like to know the background on MBR's stance on OLL's. They used to be a little friendlier.
bigger hammer
07-05-2009, 8:51 PM
MBR does not want the additional scroutiny from their local law enforcement agency. When you have a business and the cops hate you, you won't be in business very long if you do things to antagonize them.
Might we know the source of your information that the Culver City PD "hates" MBR?
MILLITIAof1
07-05-2009, 8:54 PM
MBR sucks, thats all there is to it.
bigger hammer
07-05-2009, 8:59 PM
I'll disagree but really don't care what your opinion is. I asked where J–cat comes by his information that the Culver City Police "hates" MBR.
Might we know the source of your information that the Culver City PD "hates" MBR?
I'm not going there. People are owed their privacy, especially in today's political climate.
The bottom line is this: In this case, it is not the merchant's personal bias or ignorance. It's local politics.
I dunno if everyone remembers, but Cliff's Gunsmithing was run out of Santa Ana for the same reason.
If MBR doesn't want to sell OLL's because of local problems, then why wouldn't they just say so?
bigger hammer
07-05-2009, 9:27 PM
I'm not going there. People are owed their privacy, especially in today's political climate.
You could answer in general terms.
The bottom line is this: In this case, it is not the merchant's personal bias or ignorance. It's local politics.
Let's try it this way. At what rank of the Culver City Police does this "hatred" begin? Or are you claiming that it's all officers, from top to bottom?
Can you suggest a reason for this "hatred?"
I dunno if everyone remembers, but Cliff's Gunsmithing was run out of Santa Ana for the same reason.
Are you now saying that the Culver City Police "hated" Cliff's Gunsmithing too, and that because of that "hatred" Cliff's was run out of Santa Ana?
Stop it! You know damn well CCPD has no influence over the business climate in Santa Ana.
I'll put it this way: When ATF and DOJ both show you more love than the local PD, something's wrong. I don't know at what rank the hatred starts, but I suspect it originates from the City Council/Chief's level.
Brutish
07-05-2009, 9:36 PM
:banghead:
bigger hammer
07-05-2009, 10:09 PM
Stop it! You know damn well CCPD has no influence over the business climate in Santa Ana.
You wrote of the CCPD's alleged "hatred" for MBR and then wrote, "Cliff's Gunsmithing was run out of Santa Ana for the same reason." [Emphasis added] Didja mean that Cliff's was hated by the Santa Ana PD? If so, your reference wasn't clear. We were discussing the CCPD and MBR. No mention was made of the Santa Ana PD.
Pray tell us, when do you think that this "hatred" of MBR by the CCPD began?
I'll put it this way: When ATF and DOJ both show you more love than the local PD , something's wrong.
What kind of "love" do you think that a PD should show to a local gun shop?
I don't know at what rank the hatred starts, but I suspect it originates from the City Council/Chief's level.
NOW it's not only "THE PD" (which BTW would be FAR MORE than just the Chief), but now it's the City Council as well!?
Can you give us some reason that MBR recently donated over $1,400 towards the family of a fallen Culver City PD officer? How about their long–time habit of offering CCPD officers a discount on guns and other purchases?
I’m calling BS on your statement. And since I have about 35 years of close background information on this from BOTH sides of the coin, I know that you're wrong about the PD. There have been 4-5 Chiefs of CCPD in the last 5-6 years. Just which one of them "hated" MBR? Or has it been all of them?
J-cat
07-05-2009, 10:39 PM
You wrote of the CCPD's alleged "hatred" for MBR and then wrote, Didja mean that Cliff's was hated by the Santa Ana PD? If so, your reference wasn't clear. We were discussing the CCPD and MBR. No mention was made of the Santa Ana PD.
Pray tell us, when do you think that this "hatred" of MBR by the CCPD began?
What kind of "love" do you think that a PD should show to a local gun shop?
NOW it's not only "THE PD" (which BTW would be FAR MORE than just the Chief), but now it's the City Council as well!?
Can you give us some reason that MBR recently donated over $1,400 towards the family of a fallen Culver City PD officer? How about their long–time habit of offering CCPD officers a discount on guns and other purchases?
I’m calling BS on your statement. And since I have about 35 years of close background information on this from BOTH sides of the coin, I know that you're wrong about the PD. There have been 4-5 Chiefs of CCPD in the last 5-6 years. Just which one of them "hated" MBR? Or has it been all of them?
I'm not going to tell you who told me. Further, everyone but you understood my previous post to mean Cliff's was not run out of town by Culver City PD.
Why would you not contribute money to a fallen officer's family if you had a gun business? Why would you not give discounts to CCPD? Do you know how to live amongst other people, let alone get along with them?
J-cat
07-05-2009, 10:42 PM
Do you know what 5 chiefs in 5 years is an indication of?
acaligunner
07-05-2009, 10:50 PM
You wrote of the CCPD's alleged "hatred" for MBR and then wrote, Didja mean that Cliff's was hated by the Santa Ana PD? If so, your reference wasn't clear. We were discussing the CCPD and MBR. No mention was made of the Santa Ana PD.
Pray tell us, when do you think that this "hatred" of MBR by the CCPD began?
What kind of "love" do you think that a PD should show to a local gun shop?
NOW it's not only "THE PD" (which BTW would be FAR MORE than just the Chief), but now it's the City Council as well!?
Can you give us some reason that MBR recently donated over $1,400 towards the family of a fallen Culver City PD officer? How about their long–time habit of offering CCPD officers a discount on guns and other purchases?
I’m calling BS on your statement. And since I have about 35 years of close background information on this from BOTH sides of the coin, I know that you're wrong about the PD. There have been 4-5 Chiefs of CCPD in the last 5-6 years. Just which one of them "hated" MBR? Or has it been all of them?
Just to clarify, So they can sell Off the list AR's that have the mag wells 'welded' close, (and this is OK with the CCPD, City Council).
But they can't sell OLL's, AR's with Bullet Buttons, because these are not 'OK' with the CCPD, CC?
Are OLL's & AR's with Bullet Buttons, Outlawed in Culver City?
After inquiring, I left there like I had been 'scolded' from even thinking about buying a legal firearm.
I don't know where all this paranoid statements came from, but to the best of my knowledge, it seems like there where running scared, which is sad.
acaligunner
J-cat
07-05-2009, 10:51 PM
If you have 35 yeard of "close background information on this from both sides of the coin" then why don't you tell us why a store won't take guns in on consignment or sell perfectly legal firearms?
bigger hammer
07-05-2009, 11:36 PM
I'm not going to tell you who told me.
Yes, I know. You said that quite some time ago. I haven't asked since.
Why would you not contribute money to a fallen officer's family if you had a gun business?
I know that if someone "hated" my business and treated me badly (referring to YOUR statement regarding the CCPD not "showing love") that I'd not donate anything to them. Remember that you who first said that it was specifically "the cops hate [MBR]" [Emphasis added]
Now you've moved the goalposts to saying that it was "the Chief" and "the City Council" that hates MBR.
Why would you not give discounts to CCPD?
I'd also not give discounts to people who "hated" me.
Do you know what 5 chiefs in 5 years is an indication of?
I have little doubt that you have dreamt up some nefarious reason for this and/or you're hinting that it's a case of incompetence or some wrongdoing. But the truth is that the longest running Chief of Police in the state retired. (As an aside he gave out more CCW's than any other Chief in the state). They appointed an interim Chief and then hired from within. That Chief was hired away by the Feds. They appointed another interim Chief. He reverted when they hired a new "permanent" Chief who's still in office. BTW that's only four Chiefs not five. "My error when I earlier wrote "4 – 5 Chiefs").
This was an EXCELLENT evasion of my question which was quite simple. I asked, "There have been 4-5 Chiefs of CCPD in the last 5-6 years. Just which one of them "hated" MBR? Or has it been all of them?" And you avoided answering, probably because you've been caught in some BS.
Might we get an answer to this question?
If you have 35 yeard of "close background information on this from both sides of the coin" then why don't you tell us why a store won't take guns in on consignment or sell perfectly legal firearms?
They don't take guns on consignment because it's a nuisance. They'd prefer to buy the gun outright and then sell it themselves. The owner gets his money right away and they don't assume liability for damage to a gun owned by a third person. Lots of businesses don't take property on consignment. Nothing wrong with it. Just a business decision.
All businesses decide what they want to sell and how they want to sell it. Sorry but you don't get to demand that just because something is legal that a given store has to sell it to you. When I had an FFL there were some brands that I refused to sell because of their poor customer service with me. I refused to get caught in the middle of their problems.
But that doesn’t change the BS of your initial statement that the CCPD "hates" MBR.
bigger hammer
07-05-2009, 11:36 PM
Are OLL's & AR's with Bullet Buttons, Outlawed in Culver City?
Culver City has no gun laws of its own.
B Strong
07-06-2009, 5:13 AM
Hello;
I was thinking about getting a OLL (since I do not own a AR type rife), and went into MBR for some ordering info.
I talked with the two brothers & a few salespersons there, and most all of them informed me that if I went out and bought a OLL (lower or complete rifle), that I had a high percentage of being thrown into jail.
Also they informed me that they would not order any type of OLL.
So I'm thinking, (Self), why would the whole staff give me unreliable info?
Stating that I would/could be raided, thrown into jail-- for owning any OLL?
Is this just FUD, To keep me from going somewhere else?
What's the deal?
I know they don't have to sell lowers, AR's (oll), or bullet buttons, etc. But why all the mystery.
I know the owners don't like all the Ca gun laws, but isn't this a chance to live up to his customers demands, and show that he's in his right.
a caligunner
MBR is FUD central.
Yes, I know. You said that quite some time ago. I haven't asked since.
I know that if someone "hated" my business and treated me badly (referring to YOUR statement regarding the CCPD not "showing love") that I'd not donate anything to them. Remember that you who first said that it was specifically "the cops hate [MBR]" [Emphasis added]
Now you've moved the goalposts to saying that it was "the Chief" and "the City Council" that hates MBR.
I'd also not give discounts to people who "hated" me.
I have little doubt that you have dreamt up some nefarious reason for this and/or you're hinting that it's a case of incompetence or some wrongdoing. But the truth is that the longest running Chief of Police in the state retired. (As an aside he gave out more CCW's than any other Chief in the state). They appointed an interim Chief and then hired from within. That Chief was hired away by the Feds. They appointed another interim Chief. He reverted when they hired a new "permanent" Chief who's still in office. BTW that's only four Chiefs not five. "My error when I earlier wrote "4 – 5 Chiefs").
This was an EXCELLENT evasion of my question which was quite simple. I asked, "There have been 4-5 Chiefs of CCPD in the last 5-6 years. Just which one of them "hated" MBR? Or has it been all of them?" And you avoided answering, probably because you've been caught in some BS.
Might we get an answer to this question?
They don't take guns on consignment because it's a nuisance. They'd prefer to buy the gun outright and then sell it themselves. The owner gets his money right away and they don't assume liability for damage to a gun owned by a third person. Lots of businesses don't take property on consignment. Nothing wrong with it. Just a business decision.
All businesses decide what they want to sell and how they want to sell it. Sorry but you don't get to demand that just because something is legal that a given store has to sell it to you. When I had an FFL there were some brands that I refused to sell because of their poor customer service with me. I refused to get caught in the middle of their problems.
But that doesn’t change the BS of your initial statement that the CCPD "hates" MBR.
You seem to have all the answers, Mr. Culver City Politics. Yet you are unable to read and understand and converse in abstract terms.
Let me explain something to you:
Cliff lost his business license and had to sue the city. No, Mr. Know It all, he did not sue Culver City. He sued Santa Ana. Why? Not because Culver City had anything to do with it, but apparently some people at the city council level did not like him selling certain semi-automatic centerfire rifles. How do I know this? No, the CCPD Chief of Police did not tell me. Cliff told me, before he packed-up and left. Politics was the reason. That is what I meant in my posts before you got upset.
I know you have principles, but if you were running a gun shop in a bad political climate, you'd be donating money left and right trying to play nice and make friends everywhere you could OR you wouldn't be in business very long.
I also remember saying that I SUSPECTED the "hate" originated at the chef's level. Do you know what the word "suspect" means? It seems you don't. Well, it means that I don't really know! I have a suspicion, however, based on what someone said to me.
I did not move the goal posts. This is not a game. Maybe it is to you, but not to the rest of us. I do not have any nefarious reasons. I never said MBR was incompetent. Someone else said that. You are attributing this statement to me because you have nothing of value to say and are running out of options.
As far as the guns a business wants to sell, consignments might be a pain in the arsch, but that is not the reason MBR abstains. But you should know that, being you have "35 years of background information on this."
In summary, and to clarify, the reason MBR won't sell OLL is due to political animosity stemming from the law enforcement AGENCY (PD) and the city they do business in. I never said that individual officers hate MBR. That is something you read into and got pissy about. This is my opinion, based on a conversation with a person that I'm not going to name. He trumps your "35 years of background information on this."
I do want to say that I found my iteraction with you to be revolting, to say the least, much like dealing with a recently parolled felon with a demanding attitude. Remember, people don't owe you anything. You have to earn it.
mbr90232
07-06-2009, 12:02 PM
Okay…how about a post from a legit source…
We understand and appreciate the fact that there are many parties involved in the OLL issue who (quite legitimately so) feel that OLL’s and rifles built in “bullet button” configuration are perfectly legal. We understand that it is a very emotional issue for many individuals.
Unfortunately, at this time, we have chosen not to stock or deal in OLL’s. This was a business decision reached after careful consideration of relevant facts and consultation with the CA DOJ. Like any business decision, it was not arrived at lightly.
Trust me when I say that we would love to be able to, in good conscience, sell all of the different “black” rifles that seem to be all over the place. The problem, and what we feel is a potentially critical issue, is total and complete lack of guidance from the CA Attorney General’s Office. Pure and simple, our current Attorney General (Brown) does not issue opinions. On several occasions, officials at the DOJ have skirted my direct, and sometimes not so direct, questions about the matter. They simply answer that this (DOJ) office does not issue opinions. Their official stance is that they prefer to leave enforcement up to the individual Counties and Municipalities. In the future, if more guidance from the CA Attorney General becomes available, we would certainly revisit the issue.
I can relate, anecdotally, that during our last DOJ audit, the first question asked by the DOJ investigator was whether “we were messing around with off-list lowers?” (His words, not mine). Read into that whatever you will….but I feel it’s an indication of the DOJ attitude about OLL’s.
We simply decided that it would put us in a position of selling items that we could not unequivocally state were 100% legal. We have always felt our customers deserve an expectation that the merchandise being offered is completely legal and they will be free from prosecution during its legitimate use. This is the primary reason that we do not stock or handle OLL’s. We also decided that defending any legal challenge would cost more than any potential profit from OLL sales. So there it is, just a simple business decision, nothing more, nothing less.
In response to the other “sub topic”, our relationship with our City’s Police Department, Chief of Police and City Council have always been and will continue to be outstanding. I can’t imagine where anyone got any other impression.
As always, if any of you have any questions regarding our policies…..please feel free to give me a call before you listen to someone that obviously doesn’t have a clue.
Best regards,
Alex Reyes
Manager
Martin B. Retting, Inc.
310-837-2412
ajaffe
07-06-2009, 12:09 PM
DOJ is pissed about OLLs because they are legal and there is nothing they can readily do about it now. They left the window open with the list and smart Californians took advantage of the opportunity. There has already been an OLL case and I believe the charges were dropped on BWO.
Plenty of dealers selling OLLs in California, plenty of manufacturers shipping lowers and EBRs into California, plenty of dealers passing their audits that are selling OLLs in California, plenty of people using OLLs in California that are not in jail.
Your fears are just that, your fears. Spreading FUD has no excuse. Simply tell customers, "Hey, we do not sell OLLs because we are afraid of the DOJ, but you can buy them somewhere else like _________." No need to get into telling people they are going to jail because they bought an OLL.
Brutish
07-06-2009, 1:02 PM
Did you ever talk to an attorney or did you just try and get your information from the DOJ, the source of most misinformation?
Either something is legal or it isn't. OLLs are 100% legal. OF COURSE someone could be (and people have been) WRONGFULLY arrested for a crime for owning legal weapons. Hell, people get wrongfully arrested for many things. That doesn't mean they were committing a crime.
I suppose as long as you tell customers that you made a business decision not to deal in OLLs (instead of saying, they are of questionable legality or that the customer will go to jail if he buys one) that is all fine and good. Just don't spread BS. BBs and OLLs are not open to "interpretation." There is legal, and not. Read the PC and CCR (I can provide the relevant sections if you want) and you can understand it for yourself.
In the meantime, I absolutely respect your right to choose not to sell them, but don't spread bull**** to potential customers just to make a sale of a closed mag well lower or some other firearm.
Okay…how about a post from a legit source…
We understand and appreciate the fact that there are many parties involved in the OLL issue who (quite legitimately so) feel that OLL’s and rifles built in “bullet button” configuration are perfectly legal. We understand that it is a very emotional issue for many individuals.
Unfortunately, at this time, we have chosen not to stock or deal in OLL’s. This was a business decision reached after careful consideration of relevant facts and consultation with the CA DOJ. Like any business decision, it was not arrived at lightly.
Trust me when I say that we would love to be able to, in good conscience, sell all of the different “black” rifles that seem to be all over the place. The problem, and what we feel is a potentially critical issue, is total and complete lack of guidance from the CA Attorney General’s Office. Pure and simple, our current Attorney General (Brown) does not issue opinions. On several occasions, officials at the DOJ have skirted my direct, and sometimes not so direct, questions about the matter. They simply answer that this (DOJ) office does not issue opinions. Their official stance is that they prefer to leave enforcement up to the individual Counties and Municipalities. In the future, if more guidance from the CA Attorney General becomes available, we would certainly revisit the issue.
I can relate, anecdotally, that during our last DOJ audit, the first question asked by the DOJ investigator was whether “we were messing around with off-list lowers?” (His words, not mine). Read into that whatever you will….but I feel it’s an indication of the DOJ attitude about OLL’s.
We simply decided that it would put us in a position of selling items that we could not unequivocally state were 100% legal. We have always felt our customers deserve an expectation that the merchandise being offered is completely legal and they will be free from prosecution during its legitimate use. This is the primary reason that we do not stock or handle OLL’s. We also decided that defending any legal challenge would cost more than any potential profit from OLL sales. So there it is, just a simple business decision, nothing more, nothing less.
In response to the other “sub topic”, our relationship with our City’s Police Department, Chief of Police and City Council have always been and will continue to be outstanding. I can’t imagine where anyone got any other impression.
As always, if any of you have any questions regarding our policies…..please feel free to give me a call before you listen to someone that obviously doesn’t have a clue.
Best regards,
Alex Reyes
Manager
Martin B. Retting, Inc.
310-837-2412
bigger hammer
07-06-2009, 1:07 PM
MBR is FUD central.
They must be doing something right. They've been in business for over 80 years. They've been in the same location, doing the same thing for over 50 years.
There aren't many other gun stores in the LA area that can make this claim.
It should be known that I have absolutely no financial connection …
bigger hammer
07-06-2009, 1:08 PM
You seem to have all the answers
Not at all. I just know some things having lived them.
Mr. Culver City Politics.
LOL. How rude!
Yet you are unable to read and understand and converse in abstract terms.
Thanks for the personal attack. Typical of what happens when someone gets "caught out" as happened with you.
Let me explain something to you:
Cliff lost his business license and had to sue the city. No, Mr. Know It all, he did not sue Culver City. He sued Santa Ana.
Please don't blame me because you're unable to write clearly. YOU made the ambiguous reference, not me.
apparently some people at the city council level did not like him selling certain semi-automatic centerfire rifles. How do I know this? No, the CCPD Chief of Police did not tell me. Cliff told me, before he packed-up and left. Politics was the reason. That is what I meant in my posts before you got upset.
I've never gotten upset in this conversation. YOU are the one making the vague references and calling names. It's apparent THAT YOU are the one who's upset. I can tell you for a certainty that no past COP (Chief of Police) of Culver city gave a damn what kind of rifles MBR sold. The old Chief, the one who was there for decades, was a staunch supporter of the 2A. He regularly spoke against the AWB both at the national and the local levels. At one point he gave out more CCW's than all the other COP's in CA COMBINED. I can't say the same thing for the present chief because I've not discussed it with him. But I have no reason to believe that anything has changed significantly.
Perhaps if you'd answered the very simple question (that I've now asked THREE times) . "There have been 4-5 Chiefs of CCPD in the last 5-6 years. Just which one of them "hated" MBR? Or has it been all of them?" Perhaps we'd know. but since you've avoided and evaded this question repeatedly, we don’t.
I know you have principles, but if you were running a gun shop in a bad political climate, you'd be donating money left and right trying to play nice and make friends everywhere you could OR you wouldn't be in business very long.
Do you think that giving line police officers a discount or donating to a fallen officer affects how a COP or a City Council feels? If so, you're sadly mistaken.
I also remember saying that I SUSPECTED the "hate" originated at the chef's level. Do you know what the word "suspect" means? It seems you don't. Well, it means that I don't really know! I have a suspicion, however, based on what someone said to me.
This is sometimes what you get when you repeat and spread rumors that you never even bothered to verify in the first place. I have insider knowledge and know that this is BS. You're repeating a rumor that you've never verified or corroborated. If you'd done EITHER, we'd have heard about it by now.
I did not move the goal posts.
Obviously you did! First you said that "MBR does not want the additional scroutiny [sic] from their local law enforcement agency. When you have a business and the cops hate you …"
First you said that MBR did things a certain way because they were under "scrutiny from their local law enforcement agency." You added that "the cops hate [MBR]"
Then it changed to "It's local politics."
Then it became a "fact" (apparently only in your mind) that the "ATF and DOJ show more love than the local PD" to MBR.
Then it morphed to you "suspect" that the "hatred" [i]"originat[ed]from the City Council/Chief's level."
It's clear to all (except you it seems) how what you said continually changed as the conversation progressed.
Continually throughout this you've avoided and evaded direct questions that would put the lie to your nonsense statement. You continue to do so in this post.
This is not a game. Maybe it is to you, but not to the rest of us. I do not have any nefarious reasons. I never said MBR was incompetent. Someone else said that. You are attributing this statement to me because you have nothing of value to say and are running out of options.
You are the one who wrote, "Do you know what 5 chiefs in 5 years is an indication of?" conveniently you didn't answer your own question! In a discussion like this one, where your credibility is well past the P–trap you made a weak attempt to question the credibility of the COP of the CCPD.
Here's another question that you'll probably hide from. Pray tell, to what DO YOU attribute the fact that CCPD has had so many Chiefs in such a short time? Why would you even bring it up? I brought it to ask which COP started this alleged "hatred" but AGAIN you didn't answer my question. LOL.
As far as the guns a business wants to sell, consignments might be a pain in the arsch, but that is not the reason MBR abstains. But you should know that, being you have "35 years of background information on this."
Well since you seem to know, why don't you tell us? Uh oh, ANOTHER question. ROFL.
In summary, and to clarify, the reason MBR won't sell OLL is due to political animosity stemming from the law enforcement AGENCY (PD) and the city they do business in.
To call a spade a spade, BULL****. This opinion is based on an uncorroborated rumor. I know better and so should anyone reading this.
I never said that individual officers hate MBR. That is something you read into and got pissy about.
Let me refresh your memory and that of anyone who's still bothering to read this. AGAIN here are YOUR OWN WORDS on this. "When you have a business and the cops hate you … " You didn't write originally that "The City Council hates MBR" and you didn't write that "The Chief of Police" hates MBR." Instead you clearly wrote that "the cops hate [MBR]." Clearly that IS a reference to the "individual officers." Clearly it's NOT a reference to the City Council or to the Chief of Police. It INCLUDES the individual officers!
Words have meaning. When you use them imprecisely or vaguely, as you've done quite a bit here, you should expect to be corrected and questioned as to what you really mean.
This is my opinion, based on a conversation with a person that I'm not going to name. He trumps your "35 years of background information on this."
Don't think so. You may or may not have had this conversation. You've refused to give us even the slightest hint of this person's identity (and AGAIN, I'm not asking). In any case, there's no corroboration for this conversation. JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, there's no corroboration for his opinion. OTOH, I have over 35 years on the ground with BOTH the police AND MBR. One of my best friends worked at MBR for about a decade. He tells me that EVERYTHING that you're spewing, is nonsense. I also have many friends at MBR. I still have many good friends who work at the PD of every rank from Assistant Chief to Officer, who all say the same thing.
What you have is an anonymous voice from someone who isn't even here to support your comments; if he even exists, that is.
I do want to say that I found my iteraction with you to be revolting, to say the least, much like dealing with a recently parolled felon with a demanding attitude.
Does having your nonsense questioned always make you this testy?
Remember, people don't owe you anything. You have to earn it.
I can always tell when I've truly won an argument. The other side starts name calling and other personal attacks of this sort. Nothing left, not logic. Not reason. Not the facts. Just insults. ROFLMAO.
I have no idea what this reference is to "people don't owe you anything." I've not asked for anything and don't think that anyone owes me anything. YOU OTOH have asked us to believe a hard–to–believe story that's not been corroborated at any level. Typical urban legend. "I can't tell you who told me this, but trust me …"
I've always hated rumors and rumor mongers. They hurt morale and can ruin businesses and lives. I've fought it whenever I get the chance. It does give some small people the smug feeling that they have some inside information, when all they have is hot air.
And finally, thanks Alex for chiming in. I called Alex (we've been friends for about 20 years) and alerted him to this thread. Now you have the information from the horses' mouth, (so to speak, lol).
But I bet that some will still find conspiracies lurking behind every bush.
acaligunner
07-06-2009, 1:42 PM
Did you ever talk to an attorney or did you just try and get your information from the DOJ, the source of most misinformation?
Either something is legal or it isn't. OLLs are 100% legal. OF COURSE someone could be (and people have been) WRONGFULLY arrested for a crime for owning legal weapons. Hell, people get wrongfully arrested for many things. That doesn't mean they were committing a crime.
I suppose as long as you tell customers that you made a business decision not to deal in OLLs (instead of saying, they are of questionable legality or that the customer will go to jail if he buys one) that is all fine and good. Just don't spread BS. BBs and OLLs are not open to "interpretation." There is legal, and not. Read the PC and CCR (I can provide the relevant sections if you want) and you can understand it for yourself.
In the meantime, I absolutely respect your right to choose not to sell them, but don't spread bull**** to potential customers just to make a sale of a closed mag well lower or some other firearm.
EXACTLY!!!
I talked too the 2 brothers & there staff, and got the same exact statements, "
I Was going to be in a whole lot of legal troubles (raided), and would have to spend thousands of dollars in court defending myself, over ownership of a Ar -- OLL, or AR with mag lock".
I can understand your stand on the issue, but you really should get your act together.
The reference, or talk about how certain groups are 'nazi's', (For not letting you do buisness) Is not true, and MBR's is only holding themselves back, ie- selling a legal product, (oll, or AR's with mag locks).
I hope that the lies (about OLL's, AR's with locks, etc), Stop.
There is no need for all the false statements.
acaligunner
bwiese
07-06-2009, 1:50 PM
For a competent gun dealer w/representation, there's little a local PD can do to cause them much trouble.
Some of this may be self-imposed fear by MBR.
sgtbuck
07-06-2009, 2:59 PM
:popcorn:
gn3hz3ku1*
07-06-2009, 4:12 PM
why cares what they sell? they don't want to make money that is their business.. just go to another store... plenty in the LA area now...
ajaffe
07-06-2009, 4:31 PM
It is not their inventory that is the concern here, it is the fact that they are spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt regarding OLLs. Specifically, the FUD is a creation of their own for the most part.
bigger hammer
07-06-2009, 4:48 PM
DOJ is pissed about OLLs
This is like saying that "the police are pissed …" SOME members of DOJ may be pissed but I'm just as sure that some really don't care. They do their job with little concern for the politics involved.
I think that it's politicians who "get pissed" about evasions and work–arounds of their "carefully legislated" laws.
They left the window open with the list and smart Californians took advantage of the opportunity.
Stupid laws will always result in stupid evasions of those laws. We all know that an OLL changes the efficiency of an AW (hate that term) little.
There has already been an OLL case and I believe the charges were dropped on BWO.
Can you supply a link to that case. If it's true, perhaps you'll change their minds!
Plenty of dealers selling OLLs in California, plenty of manufacturers shipping lowers and EBRs into California, plenty of dealers passing their audits that are selling OLLs in California, plenty of people using OLLs in California that are not in jail.
So what's the problem with one dealership not wanting to carry them. Do you demand that your Ford dealer sell GMC products, or do you just go elsewhere?
Your fears are just that, your fears. Spreading FUD has no excuse. Simply tell customers, "Hey, we do not sell OLLs because we are afraid of the DOJ, but you can buy them somewhere else like _________."
Now you're insisting that your Ford dealer tell you the address and phone number of the nearest GMC dealer. LOL.
No need to get into telling people they are going to jail because they bought an OLL.
If that's their opinion, there's nothing wrong with them giving it. Being wrong certainly hasn't stopped some from writing here!
Do you know what 5 chiefs in 5 years is an indication of?
MMmm - hatred of Martin B Retting??
.
KaTooM
07-06-2009, 7:37 PM
I have done business with MBR in the past, I bought my Colt Python there(right after the LA riots), and my M1A loaded six years ago. They always seem to have a nice stock of used guns, as well as new Handguns. There customer service has always been good from my experience.
I respect there decision not to sell OLL, but am very disapointed to hear they are spreading disinformation. I myself spent countless hours reading Calgun threads before I took the leap of faith. I finally bought a complete rifle, OLL, with BB, off the shelf new from a SoCal dealer.
If I want to do a PPT I call the shop that is closest, if they say no, I call the next closest. If I want a FFL for a OLL, I call the...ect ect. I don't bash them for there decisions, I just move on. (Call first!)
Hopefully, they will choose not to spread FUD after seeing and responding to this thread.
Chris
SimpleCountryActuary
07-06-2009, 7:48 PM
Every small business has to decide what to sell and what not to sell. If you try to sell everything you will not be profitable. Other stores can make a profit selling OLL's. They deserve your business if that's what you want.
There are many good gun people scared to death of the DOJ and their FUD. A guy I bought a C&R from insisted on going through a FFL simply because he wasn't 100% sure a face-to-face was OK. I accomodated him out of respect. Maybe MBR is more cautious than necessary. I like the store and the guys so they get my business.
With the support of Calguns, CRPA and the NRA (and now apparently Moonbeam himself), maybe we can gradually clear away the FUD and the fear. As FDR might have said, "We have nothing to fear but FUD."
It doesn't ring the same as the original, I admit.
ajaffe
07-06-2009, 8:19 PM
This is like saying that "the police are pissed …" SOME members of DOJ may be pissed but I'm just as sure that some really don't care. They do their job with little concern for the politics involved.
No it is not. It is nothing like that. It is saying that the DOJ is pissed the lawmakers left the door open for EBRs, AKs, FALs, and such to get into the state and they(DOJ cannot do anything about it but are expected to.
I think that it's politicians who "get pissed" about evasions and work–arounds of their "carefully legislated" laws.
I agree wholeheartedly, I also must add that again, the DOJ is probably a bit perturbed that they have to deal with all of the "loopholes" that were left.
Stupid laws will always result in stupid evasions of those laws. We all know that an OLL changes the efficiency of an AW (hate that term) little.
Huh? Efficiency? Elaborate a bit on this one because I am a little confused. Are you referring to how the rifles function?
Can you supply a link to that case. If it's true, perhaps you'll change their minds!
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58110 is one of the opening threads providing some information.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=78984 is where his charges were announced as being dismissed.
So what's the problem with one dealership not wanting to carry them. Do you demand that your Ford dealer sell GMC products, or do you just go elsewhere?
Your GMC to Ford Analogy makes no sense as they are two different brands of 4 wheeled vehicles, but they are still one in the same in function. If you would have said, a car dealership not carrying flying cars, then that could have made sense. But still, both are legal. I do not have a problem with a car dealership not carrying flying cars, I do have a problem with a dealership saying flying cars are illegal when they are very much legal.
Now you're insisting that your Ford dealer tell you the address and phone number of the nearest GMC dealer. LOL.
When did I insist that? I simply said, if they are too afraid to sell the flying cars, they should suggest somewhere that does sell them if they are truly about serving the customer. Instead, MBR has chosen to declare that the customer will go to jail for buying a flying car which is spreading FUD as they are completely legal.
If that's their opinion, there's nothing wrong with them giving it. Being wrong certainly hasn't stopped some from writing here!
Do you like it when someone tells you you are going to go to jail for doing something that is completely legal? Now to go one further since you probably know OLLs are legal, do you feel it is still correct to instill their fears on people that do not know any better and are still ignorant to the laws? Do you think that this ripple effect is worthy to the cause of people fighting to maintain their 2nd Amendment rights?
In bold, please stop grasping for argument material.
West coast
07-06-2009, 8:35 PM
This is good!!!:popcorn:
gtcs08
07-06-2009, 8:48 PM
I don't know if this thread was high jacked (stopped reading after the 3 post) but here is my 2 cents on MRB.
Bought my .45 SA from them and they were very nice and easy to deal with, however they told me the same BS (you get thrown in jail if you buy an OLL). So I got scared away for about 4 months and then stopped by CWS and saw the massive collection on ARs they had. So here I am a year or so later after taking the plunge in the gray zone.
I would say it's personal decision if you want to take a risk with the OLLs, then go to a place that sells them and ask questions or search this forum. All I can say is that every time I go to the range I see at least 2 ~ 3 ARs/AKs around. But what do I know I dont own any guns, dont know what a gun looks like or what it sounds like!
otalps
07-06-2009, 11:06 PM
I bought my first handgun there. I have been there often as they are pretty much the closest gun store to me. When the OLL thing first started happening I was in there looking at 1911's I had just found calguns and had just heard of OLLs.
I asked the salesman about OLL's and he was really cool about it; he kept my number and called me back a few times as MBR was deciding whether or not they would carry them or even order one for me. This was just about the same time period as that bozo was selling welded up listed receivers for gangs of cash and spreading fud.
Long story short, MBR was kind of apprehensive about getting into the whole OLL thing and at least as far as I was told said they wouldn't get involved because of the grey area of the whole 58 DA thing. The salesman I had been talking to however, never questioned the legality just said it was a business decision.
Maybe some of the newer salespeople might be spreading FUD but I have never encountered any personally.
And as far as the CCPD goes, I have been in that store hundreds of times and can recall few occasions where there wasn't CCPD officers either coming or going or in the store while I was there.
tortoisethunder
07-06-2009, 11:34 PM
It's quite simple. MBR, thinks that if you buy a OLL that which could be converted or built into an AW, you have a high probibility of going to jail. This is like saying that if you have a car that is capable of being modified into an illegal street racer, you have a high proability of going to jail. (Even if you don't modify it!) So, how flawwed is their thinking?
Very well stated. Owning one of these AR or AK style guns does require some knowledge of the CA laws. I feel you must know the "flowchart" on this site and be able to explain why your AR or AK is NOT an assault weapon. I have spoken with too many new AR/AK owners that do not understand the bullet button or magazine locks, especially the 10 round limit.
tortoisethunder
07-06-2009, 11:59 PM
Another thing about the sales people that work at gun stores, I'm in sales so I kinda know a thing about selling...most stores treat their customers or potential customers terrible. I have been in stores around the So Cal area and cannot believe the lack of respect given to potential buyers.
It seems to me most sales people that work at gun stores are:
1. The best shooter EVER and know EVERYTHING there is to know about guns, ammo and, everything in the gun world.
2. They also are a lawyer in their spare time and know all the laws.
3. Most never LISTEN to the customer and address their needs in a calm and assuring manner.
4. Most of them served in some elite unit of the armed forces and were either a SEAL, Sniper, or something they can't speak about because it would cause a national emergency if word got out.
5. Most have just BAD attitudes and make you feel bad because you have a question, or are asking about a certian type of gun, for some reason they hate.
Now I know there are some "Great" guys out there...you are just rare, and I hope to meet you some day.
There is nothing better than to go into your local gun store, look at a few guns, maybe buy one, and shoot the S%@t with the sales staff and other customers.
If your ever near Simi Valley stop by Fort Courage, they have done it right, great sales staff, knowledgable and nice, even though you just asked the SAME question that has been asked dozens of times before you got there. Plus there are some good guys that just stop by and talk guns.
sickboy774
07-07-2009, 1:15 AM
I don't really care. They don't sell hunting licenses but will sell you hunting firearms and ammo. I have dealt with some guys that thought they are gods gift to firearms. And they are expensive! Even if they sold OLL's they would be high priced.
bigger hammer
07-07-2009, 7:56 PM
Earlier I wrote, This is like saying that "the police are pissed …"
No it is not. It is nothing like that.
It's EXACTLY like that. You've assumed (based on your words) that the DOJ is a completely–united–on–all–fronts unit. It's not. there are people who work there who don't like some of the policies and some who do. To say, as you did "the DOJ is pissed …" is to forget, or ignore, this fact.
It is saying that the DOJ is pissed the lawmakers left the door open for EBRs, AKs, FALs, and such to get into the state and they(DOJ cannot do anything about it but are expected to.
AGAIN, you've made the same assumption. The DOJ is not one person or of one mind.
Earlier I wrote, I think that it's politicians who "get pissed" about evasions and work–arounds of their "carefully legislated" laws.
I agree wholeheartedly, I also must add that again, the DOJ is probably a bit perturbed that they have to deal with all of the "loopholes" that were left.
I know that you're wrong. I know many individuals who work for the DOJ who don't give a damn about the "loopholes." Again, it's the legislators who get pissed because they're unable to write effective laws to try and control guns that they don't like the looks of.
Earlier I wrote, We all know that an OLL changes the efficiency of an AW (hate that term) little.
Huh? Efficiency? Elaborate a bit on this one because I am a little confused. Are you referring to how the rifles function?
Yes.
Earlier I wrote, Can you supply a link to that case. If it's true, perhaps you'll change their minds!
ajaffe supplied these links.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=58110
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=78984
I definitely have too much spare time. I read every post in both of those links AND every post in every link that they contained. I now back MBR's decisions not to carry OLL's EVEN MORE. It would only have take one more line of text in the complaint against Mr. Corwin to include the dealer who sold him the OLL, and press charges against him. I'd guess that defending that complaint would have cost that dealer about $250,000 - $500,000 even with the win. I doubt that many here would have been willing to help out the dealer as many have contributed to Mr. Corwin's defense. I don't know many companies that can take that big a hit.
Earlier I wrote, Now you're insisting that your Ford dealer tell you the address and phone number of the nearest GMC dealer. LOL.
When did I insist that?
When you wrote this, "Simply tell customers, "Hey, we do not sell OLLs because we are afraid of the DOJ, but you can buy them somewhere else like _________." [Emphasis added]
Earlier I wrote, If that's their opinion, there's nothing wrong with them giving it. Being wrong certainly hasn't stopped some from writing here!
Do you like it when someone tells you you are going to go to jail for doing something that is completely legal?
No but it doesn't stop them. It happens quite often right here on this list.
But let met make sure that I've gotten this right. You're saying that people at MBR should not be giving people their opinion that OLL's might get them thrown into jail. It sounds to me as if you're advocating the suppression of THEIR 1st Amendment rights to free speech, just because you think (and you may be right) that they're wrong? And you do this in the name of the 2A? Interesting double standard you have there.
While Mr. Corwin was eventually exonerated he WAS thrown into jail! Looks as if the MBR employees making this statement were right.
Now to go one further since you probably know OLLs are legal, do you feel it is still correct to instill their fears on people that do not know any better and are still ignorant to the laws?
I think it's just a matter of time before another DA tries the same sort of BS that was inflicted on Mr. Corwin. No matter if the charges were dismissed or not, he lost time and money that can never be replaced.
Do you think that this ripple effect is worthy to the cause of people fighting to maintain their 2nd Amendment rights?
Easy to say.
ajaffe
07-07-2009, 8:05 PM
Stop grasping. You are just trying far too hard to prove a point that is far too off base from what is good business and personal ethics. Of all your posts on this forum, the majority have been on this thread and in support of MBR, we knowwwwww where your allegiances lay, just stop trying to convince us that your gun shop is in the right on this one, as spreading FUD is never the right thing to do.
Corwin's case was a test case. I applaud him for stepping up and showing the rest of us Calgunners and non-Calgunners that OLLs and such Off list weapons are legal to own. I do not applaud you or MBR telling us or anyone else that Mr. Corwin's sacrifices meant nothing and they are still illegal.
bigger hammer
07-07-2009, 8:28 PM
Stop grasping.
Wondering, do you ever get tired of giving orders that you can't enforce?
You are just trying far too hard to prove a point that is far too off base from what is good business and personal ethics.
I've proven my point repeatedly. You just won't accept it. LOL.
Of all your posts on this forum, the majority have been on this thread and in support of MBR
Yes, and?
we knowwwwww where your allegiances lay
My allegiances lie with the truth. You may or may not recall that this thread took off on a tangent when J-cat made the statement that MBR didn't carry OLL's because "the cops hate [MBR]." That was nonsense as has been pointed out.
Now it's morphed into the wise business decision by them not to carry something that's gotten one list member into quite a bit of a legal hassle. You object to them telling people what has turned out to be the truth, that they might get thrown into jail for buying an OLL. That's exactly what happened to Mr. Corwin. He was eventually exonerated but that's quite some time later.
just stop trying to convince us that your gun shop is in the right on this one, as spreading FUD is never the right thing to do.
MBR is hardly "my gun shop." I make purchases in many places. My attention was drawn to this post by the absurd comment about why they decided not to carry OLL's.
As I've said I think that they've made the right business decision for them. I don't feel a need to convince anyone else.
Corwin's case was a test case. I applaud him for stepping up and showing the rest of us Calgunners and non-Calgunners that OLLs and such Off list weapons are legal to own.
Me too. But that hardly means that a different DA won't take on another case that he thinks differs enough to make it worth his while.
I do not applaud you or MBR telling us or anyone else that Mr. Corwin's sacrifices meant nothing and they are still illegal.
It's always amusing when people try to put words into my mouth. Except that it makes liars of them. Please show us a post where I or MBR said that Mr. Corwin's actions "meant nothing." While you're at it, please show us where anyone in this thread has said that OLL's are "illegal." Do so and I'll eat my keyboard! Nice try at misleading the readers, except that now YOU've been caught in the act! I wonder why people do this?
eaglemike
07-07-2009, 8:39 PM
I definitely have too much spare time. I read every post in both of those links AND every post in every link that they contained. I now back MBR's decisions not to carry OLL's EVEN MORE. It would only have take one more line of text in the complaint against Mr. Corwin to include the dealer who sold him the OLL, and press charges against him. I'd guess that defending that complaint would have cost that dealer about $250,000 - $500,000 even with the win. I doubt that many here would have been willing to help out the dealer as many have contributed to Mr. Corwin's defense. I don't know many companies that can take that big a hit.
When you wrote this, "Simply tell customers, "Hey, we do not sell OLLs because we are afraid of the DOJ, but you can buy them somewhere else like _________." [Emphasis added]
But let met make sure that I've gotten this right. You're saying that people at MBR should not be giving people their opinion that OLL's might get them thrown into jail. It sounds to me as if you're advocating the suppression of THEIR 1st Amendment rights to free speech, just because you think (and you may be right) that they're wrong? And you do this in the name of the 2A? Interesting double standard you have there.
While Mr. Corwin was eventually exonerated he WAS thrown into jail! Looks as if the MBR employees making this statement were right.
I think it's just a matter of time before another DA tries the same sort of BS that was inflicted on Mr. Corwin. No matter if the charges were dismissed or not, he lost time and money that can never be replaced.
Easy to say.
I snipped out some of your post, but I'm confident I didn't change the intent. I did add emphasis to one part.
First of all, see this: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/news/1-latest-news/48-bright-spot-pawn This is one instance - see also the John Contos situation.
This has been done. Bright Spot is still selling OLL's, etc. They seem (to me) to continue the good fight.
It's one thing for MBR to calmly explain the various aspects of legal firearm ownership, explain what is legal and what isn't, and then explain why they choose not to sell certain things. Unfortunately many shops don't seem to have the ability to do this. The nest time I'm close to them, I'll cruise in and see if they can tell me what the law is, and why they do or don't sell certain semi-automatic centerfire rifles.
Many people here believe strongly that the 2A has been thoroughly infringed. Some actually believe strongly enough they even support efforts like this forum and the CGF with money! Just something to think about....
all the best,
Mike
aplinker
07-07-2009, 8:51 PM
I think you need to spend some more time reading through the available information.
DOJ has admitted that BB rifles are legal.
Multiple times property has been returned to dealers (Stockton, Bright Spot, U-15).
There are PDs that now are publishing/distributing memos that describe BB-equipped rifles as being legal.
It's been pretty well established that the issue is closed; everything else is just posturing by Brady campaign pocketed underlings within the DOJ who are forced to tow the line and maintain the obfuscation and abdication of responsibility to us as citizens - aka "58 DAs...."
I'd equate it to a fight where they're cuffed, on the ground, but you've still got to be vigilant.
Wondering, do you ever get tired of giving orders that you can't enforce?
I've proven my point repeatedly. You just won't accept it. LOL.
Yes, and?
My allegiances lie with the truth. You may or may not recall that this thread took off on a tangent when J-cat made the statement that MBR didn't carry OLL's because "the cops hate [MBR]." That was nonsense as has been pointed out.
Now it's morphed into the wise business decision by them not to carry something that's gotten one list member into quite a bit of a legal hassle. You object to them telling people what has turned out to be the truth, that they might get thrown into jail for buying an OLL. That's exactly what happened to Mr. Corwin. He was eventually exonerated but that's quite some time later.
MBR is hardly "my gun shop." I make purchases in many places. My attention was drawn to this post by the absurd comment about why they decided not to carry OLL's.
As I've said I think that they've made the right business decision for them. I don't feel a need to convince anyone else.
Me too. But that hardly means that a different DA won't take on another case that he thinks differs enough to make it worth his while.
It's always amusing when people try to put words into my mouth. Except that it makes liars of them. Please show us a post where I or MBR said that Mr. Corwin's actions "meant nothing." While you're at it, please show us where anyone in this thread has said that OLL's are "illegal." Do so and I'll eat my keyboard! Nice try at misleading the readers, except that now YOU've been caught in the act! I wonder why people do this?
bigger hammer
07-07-2009, 9:11 PM
I snipped out some of your post, but I'm confident I didn't change the intent. I did add emphasis to one part.
It's hard to tell which emphasis you added and which emphasis I originally included. But it's not that big a deal.
First of all, see this: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/news/1-latest-news/48-bright-spot-pawn This is one instance - see also the John Contos situation.
Looked at them both. Don't see your point.
This has been done. Bright Spot is still selling OLL's, etc. They seem (to me) to continue the good fight.
Good for them. Still don't see the point. MBR has made the business decision not to fight that fight. That doesn't affect other dealers who decide that they want to or who decide that they don't want to.
It's one thing for MBR to calmly explain the various aspects of legal firearm ownership, explain what is legal and what isn't, and then explain why they choose not to sell certain things.
Their manager has already appeared here and said why they decided not to sell them.
bigger hammer
07-07-2009, 9:20 PM
I think you need to spend some more time reading through the available information.
DOJ has admitted that BB rifles are legal.
I've never said that they're illegal. Not sure where you get this from.
It's been pretty well established that the issue is closed;
Yes, and what has this to do with this discussion?
bigmike82
07-07-2009, 9:24 PM
I'd like to thank Alex for posting here clarifying why they refuse to deal with certain legal firearms. As a Culver City resident, I'd like to say that I'm saddened by this policy and will therefore continue taking my business elsewhere (Ammo Bros, Entreprise, etc). I wish a gun store with the long rich history of MBR wasn't scarred off this easily, but I can respect their decision.
eaglemike
07-07-2009, 9:27 PM
BH,
I can't tell if you are trolling or what.... You are obviously new here with a limited history.
My point is that some dealers have already been through some portion of the wringer. They believe strongly in the 2A. Evidently MRB doesn't currently believe as strongly as others - at least IMO. Is that clear? While the post here by MBR is helpful - will that same communication be always present at the store?
Evidently others think as I do, thus this thread......
bigger hammer
07-07-2009, 9:55 PM
BH,
I can't tell if you are trolling or what....
Nope not at all. Let me remind you now I got into this. It was when J-cat made an absurd statement that MBR wasn't carrying OLL's because the local police "hated" the store.
I've not said a word about OLL's being illegal yet a few have tried to attribute it to me.
You are obviously new here with a limited history.
Yes, and? I've been shooting for longer than most members of this list have been on the planet. I've been a Life Member of the NRA for decades. I regular phone and email my legislators to express my view on upcoming legislation on firearms. I support the 2A. Of what importance is it, how long I've been on this forum?
My point is that some dealers have already been through some portion of the wringer. They believe strongly in the 2A. Evidently MRB doesn't currently believe as strongly as others - at least IMO. Is that clear?
Crystal. MBR has made a business decision not to carry them. Is that clear? Some want to turn that into a 2A matter. I don't think it is. As I said, when I had an FFL there are some guns that I refused to carry too. Alex has told us that it's a business decision. There's no reason not to believe him.
While the post here by MBR is helpful - will that same communication be always present at the store?
Alex came here after I phoned him to get some details. He gave me information that I was about to post, but he beat me to it. I won't try to predict the future, especially when I have no control over it.
Evidently others think as I do, thus this thread......
Another "yes and?" moment. Some think as I do. So what? Do you not think that there's room for more than one onion here?
CSACANNONEER
07-07-2009, 9:56 PM
The bottom line is that if MBR doesn't want to stock or sell AR/AK type firearms, it's their choice. No one here should have any problem with a bussiness owner running his own bussiness the way he wants to. We (including the owner of MBR) still live in a country where we have some freedom to choose how we do bussiness. On the other hand, MBR is doling out false information and refuses to follow the laws which regulate their bussiness when it comes to PPTs of legal firearms. By law, as an FFL holder in this state, they are required to do any and all legal PPTs. So, although I respect MBR's right to coose what firearms they want to stock or order for customers, I also realize that it is MBR's bussiness practices which are ILLEGAL and could end up costing them $250,000-$500,000 to defend themselves and their FFL, even if they end up winning in court! I also know for a fact that very few CGers other than BH would even consider donating money to their defense since we all know that what they are doing is regarding PPTs is ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bigmike82
07-07-2009, 9:59 PM
There is that too.
MBR's policies on PPTs have been a long-standing sore point. I'm honestly amazed that more FFLs haven't been sued over it.
bigger hammer
07-07-2009, 10:08 PM
…MBR is doling out false information and refuses to follow the laws which regulate their bussiness when it comes to PPTs of legal firearms. By law, as an FFL holder in this state, they are required to do any and all legal PPTs.
What the heck are you talking about. I did TWO PPT's at MBR just a few weeks ago.
since we all know that what they are doing is regarding PPTs is ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pray tell, what is it that they're doing that's "illegal?"
aplinker
07-07-2009, 10:12 PM
I'll reflect this:
1.) MBR is well within their right to not sell anything they choose. This isn't an issue, but I choose to support dealers who are willing to fight the good fight.
2.) MBR spreads misinformation as fact, which is a problem.
3.) MBR refuses to do PPTs in any reasonable or respectful way; this is a huge problem.
4.) I bought approximately 8 firearms from MBR in 18 months (plus tons of accessories) when I got to LA, but I will not buy another because of how I was treated when I went to do a PPT and how I've personally seen them treat others. It's illegal and downright rude.
5.) MBR benefits from a prime location and near-monopoly of gun sales in the West LA area - with a near infinite pool of transplants I suppose they might be right in just assuming they'll never run out of customers.
The bottom line is that if MBR doesn't want to stock or sell AR/AK type firearms, it's their choice. No one here should have any problem with a bussiness owner running his own bussiness the way he wants to. We (including the owner of MBR) still live in a country where we have some freedom to choose how we do bussiness. On the other hand, MBR is doling out false information and refuses to follow the laws which regulate their bussiness when it comes to PPTs of legal firearms. By law, as an FFL holder in this state, they are required to do any and all legal PPTs. So, although I respect MBR's right to coose what firearms they want to stock or order for customers, I also realize that it is MBR's bussiness practices which are ILLEGAL and could end up costing them $250,000-$500,000 to defend themselves and their FFL, even if they end up winning in court! I also know for a fact that very few CGers other than BH would even consider donating money to their defense since we all know that what they are doing is regarding PPTs is ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I never said you did. I said your attitude shows a lack of knowledge about what has occurred. For MBR to conclude there's significant issues with dealing in OLLs is pretty outright ridiculous.
For your consideration: how many people own OLLs? How many people are currently in jail for OLLs?
I've never said that they're illegal. Not sure where you get this from.
Yes, and what has this to do with this discussion?
bigmike82
07-07-2009, 10:14 PM
I've been told that I had to arrive within half hour of them opening to do a PPT, and they wouldn't do it if I arrived later. Obviously, you're friendly with the shop and may have more leeway than most of us. ;)
I refer you to:
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#9
"Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request."
MBR isn't the only shop to screw around with PPTs, but they're definitely one of the ones who inspire the most anger.
CSACANNONEER
07-07-2009, 10:24 PM
What the heck are you talking about. I did TWO PPT's at MBR just a few weeks ago.
Pray tell, what is it that they're doing that's "illegal?"
So, let me get this straight, you did two PPTs of AR/AK style centerfire firearms at MBR? I highly doubt that. Just try it. They will order you out of the store if you bring an OLL in! Since they refuse to PPT legal firearms, they are breaking the law. How hard is this for you to understand???????? YES, that's right, as a CA FFL holder, they are REQUIRED, by law, to PPT ALL firearms which can be legally transfered in this state, PERIOD! There is one exception though. If they do not sell handguns, they can refuse to PPT them.
bigger hammer
07-07-2009, 10:32 PM
I'll reflect this:
2.) MBR spreads misinformation as fact, which is a problem.
It's just your opinion that they're spreading misinformation. I'll assume (yes, I know) that you're referring to the "thrown in jail for possessing an OLL" statement. I'll respond with the TRUTH that some people have been.
3.) MBR refuses to do PPTs in any reasonable or respectful way; this is a huge problem.
I did two PTT's about a week apart just recently. Never had the slightest bit of trouble. What does "… refuses to do PPTs in any reasonable or respectful way." mean?
4.) I bought approximately 8 firearms from MBR in 18 months (plus tons of accessories) when I got to LA, but I will not buy another because of how I was treated when I went to do a PPT and how I've personally seen them treat others. It's illegal and downright rude.
Please elaborate as to what's been done illegally.
5.) MBR benefits from a prime location and near-monopoly of gun sales in the West LA area - with a near infinite pool of transplants I suppose they might be right in just assuming they'll never run out of customers.
To be precise, they're in Culver City, not West LA. I realize that you wrote "West LA area."
I never said you did. I said your attitude shows a lack of knowledge about what has occurred.
You did not say a word about my "attitude."
Here are your words on this, "I think you need to spend some more time reading through the available information.
DOJ has admitted that BB rifles are legal. [Emphasis added]
It sure looks to me as if you're saying that I said, or at least insinuated, that these rifles are illegal. Somehow I missed your comment in that sentence about my "attitude." Can you point it out?
For MBR to conclude there's significant issues with dealing in OLLs is pretty outright ridiculous.
Thanks for your opinion. I disagree, and so, it's obvious, do they.
For your consideration: how many people own OLLs?
I have no idea. Can you tell us?
How many people are currently in jail for OLLs?
I don't know. How many people have been, as is the alleged statement "Thrown in jail for possessing them?"
bigmike82
07-07-2009, 10:35 PM
BiggerHammer, look at the law.
A dealer HAS to do a PPT on request. The only thing they can refuse to do are handguns. Look at the AG website link I pasted.
bigger hammer
07-07-2009, 11:01 PM
I've been told that I had to arrive within half hour of them opening to do a PPT, and they wouldn't do it if I arrived later.
We were told something similar. They're a busy store and I agree with them that it's unfair to take a salesman away from dealing with customers for as much time as it takes to do a PTT. That is NEITHER illegal nor rude. It's business. You seem to think that they're required to drop everything to accommodate your transfer. How rude and how ridiculous!
Obviously, you're friendly with the shop and may have more leeway than most of us.
I love the way that some people make assumptions here. I didn't make the call to set up the appointment and they had no idea that I was involved until I showed up. Yes I am friendly with them but that had nothing to do with how it was handled.
I refer you to:
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#9
"Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request."
If you think that requiring you to show up at a specific time so that they can give you the appropriate service is a violation of the law I IMPLORE you to press charges. PLEASE write this up and take it to a local DA for prosecution. I can hear the laughter already!
"Upon request" does NOT mean that they have to do it at a time that YOU deem appropriate. This is as silly as showing up two minutes before closing and DEMANDING that they do your PPT because the law "requires it." How illogical!
bigger hammer
07-07-2009, 11:02 PM
Earlier I wrote, What the heck are you talking about. I did TWO PPT's at MBR just a few weeks ago.
Pray tell, what is it that they're doing that's "illegal?"
So, let me get this straight, you did two PPTs of AR/AK style centerfire firearms at MBR?
Love how you folks try to make ME wrong by trying to move the goalposts. Please show us where there was ANY mention made of "AR/AK style centerfire firearms" in the previous statement about PTT's.
I highly doubt that. Just try it. They will order you out of the store if you bring an OLL in! Since they refuse to PPT legal firearms, they are breaking the law.
How do you know this? Have you tried? Or is this another assumption?
How hard is this for you to understand???????? YES, that's right, as a CA FFL holder, they are REQUIRED, by law, to PPT ALL firearms which can be legally transfered in this state, PERIOD! There is one exception though. If they do not sell handguns, they can refuse to PPT them.
There's been absolutely no evidence presented that this has happened. If you have some, please present it. AND THEN please show us the prosecution for this violation.
bigger hammer
07-07-2009, 11:03 PM
BiggerHammer, look at the law.
A dealer HAS to do a PPT on request. The only thing they can refuse to do are handguns. Look at the AG website link I pasted.
I looked at the link you supplied. "On request" does not mean "at YOUR convenience" or "when you deem it appropriate."
CSACANNONEER
07-07-2009, 11:22 PM
I love the way that some people make assumptions here. I didn't make the call to set up the appointment and they had no idea that I was involved until I showed up. Yes I am friendly with them but that had nothing to do with how it was handled.
I have to point out the fact I have never once said "Obviously, you're friendly with the shop and may have more leeway than most of us." Yet, you have qouted me saying this. I'm not even sure how to respond to this feable attempt to put words in my mouth. I realize that you did not do PPTs of OLLs at MBR because they won't do them. But, this thread is about their OLL policies and that's why I brought up their refusal to do certain PPTs. Maybe I should have be a little more specific. But, if I had been, you won't have been able to say that you had done two of them recently. Anyway, the fact is that MBR will not allow anyone to PPT an OLL. Yes, this has been tried. Why don't you call and ask them if they will do it. Have they been charged with commiting a crime because of this? Not to my knowledge but, that doesn't make it right. Does it? Seriously, why don't you call and ask them about their policies regarding PPTing OLLs? I have! Again, I will defend their right to choose what kind of products they want to stock and/or sell in their store. But, that does not give them the right to violate the law!
CSACANNONEER
07-07-2009, 11:38 PM
There's been absolutely no evidence presented that this has happened. If you have some, please present it. AND THEN please show us the prosecution for this violation.
Use the search function. This has happened to more than one CGer over the last few years. I know that you are new here but, just because you were not on this forum the last 20 times this subject has come up, it doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of evidence of it happening time and time again.
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 12:03 AM
I have to point out the fact I have never once said "Obviously, you're friendly with the shop and may have more leeway than most of us." Yet, you have qouted me saying this. I'm not even sure how to respond to this feable attempt to put words in my mouth.
I obviously was responding to several posts at once and wrongfully attributed this statement to you. The statement was made by Big Mike and I've already corrected the error. This was a mistake. Anyone who thinks that I was trying to "put words in [your] mouth" is an idiot. I’m not one of those around here who try that method of arguing.
I realize that you did not do PPTs of OLLs at MBR because they won't do them.
Your attempt to mislead the readers by getting them to believe that I did a PPT of an OLL is laughable. You just got caught.
But, this thread is about their OLL policies and that's why I brought up their refusal to do certain PPTs. Maybe I should have be a little more specific.
More specific? I'd say more "honest."
But, if I had been, you won't have been able to say that you had done two of them recently.
But you DID NOT SAY THAT so you now can't make that allegation.
Anyway, the fact is that MBR will not allow anyone to PPT an OLL.
I don't know that for a fact. Anything to back it up?
Yes, this has been tried.
Has it? How do you know?
Why don't you call and ask them if they will do it.
I'm supposed to call to support your argument? Don't think so. LOL.
Have they been charged with commiting a crime because of this? Not to my knowledge but, that doesn't make it right. Does it?
No but it's fairly good evidence of a couple of things. It could be that it's not true that they won't do the transfers. It could be that in spite of all the "I support the 2A (and other gun rights)" talk we hear, that it's just talk to those who have had it happen to them. If a violation of the law has occurred why hasn't there been any prosecutions for it? If there have been prosecutions, and, as a few of you maintain, they'd have lost, the policy would have changed. Yet you maintain that it has not. This leads me to believe that in spite of your opinion that it's a violation no legal authority agrees with you. Lots of people have ideas as to things that are legal and not legal. That hardly makes them right.
Seriously, why don't you call and ask them about their policies regarding PPTing OLLs?
Because it's not my job to do your research.
I have! Again, I will defend their right to choose what kind of products they want to stock and/or sell in their store. But, that does not give them the right to violate the law!
If you know of violations of the law why haven't you taken them to the proper authorities so they can be prosecuted?
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 12:04 AM
Earlier I wrote, There's been absolutely no evidence presented that this has happened. [referring to the allegation that MBR has refused to do legal PPT's] If you have some, please present it. AND THEN please show us the prosecution for this violation.
Use the search function. This has happened to more than one CGer over the last few years. I know that you are new here but, just because you were not on this forum the last 20 times this subject has come up, it doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of evidence of it happening time and time again.
Let me tell you about a little thing called "the burden of proof.
YOU are the one alleging that something has happened. Therefore "the burden" to show that it has, rests with you. As I've said, I have no intention of doing your research for you.
When you get around to it, if you ever do, please don't forget to show us "the prosecution" that I asked for. Allegations from anonymous sources do not constitute "evidence" anywhere except on the Net. Be sure to bring those posts to court when you go.
eaglemike
07-08-2009, 12:38 AM
BH,
You've said you have no financial interest in MRB. Would you tell us what you relationship is with that place?
Numerous threads about that place. Here's a few:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=194678&highlight=Retting
mentioned here:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=194446&highlight=Retting
mentioned a couple of times here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=140445&highlight=Retting
see post 13 here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=156283&highlight=Retting
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=159396&highlight=Retting
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=142368
You did say earlier in this thread that others shared you thoughts about MRB. My impression (and your impression ight be different)) is that they have been there a long time - but they currently have some issues, to put it mildly. I would say that the posts above support my position. This is a partial list, but enough to show the trend, IMO.
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 1:15 AM
BH,
You've said you have no financial interest in MRB. Would you tell us what you relationship is with that place?
I'm a sometimes customer and have friends (through the business) that work there.
Numerous threads about that place. Here's a few:
Let's review. Here's something that I wrote earlier, (twice actually) There's been absolutely no evidence presented that this has happened. [referring to the allegation that MBR has refused to do legal PPT's] If you have some, please present it. AND THEN please show us the prosecution for this violation. [Emphasis added]
I would guess that the links you supplied were in response to that request.
It's always entertaining when I ask for something specific and people supply information that DOES NOT MEET A SINGLE SPECIFICATION that was asked for. Perhaps we have a different idea of what constitutes evidence. I consider it to be something that could be presented in court to convince a judge or jury that something happened or that a condition exists. NOT ONE OF THE LINKS YOU PROVIDED would do that. I'm sorry but I don't consider posts written anonymously on an Internet Forum to be "evidence." They're closer to "urban legends" than evidence.
Also, not one of them had any discussion of a prosecution that's occurred because of a refusal to do a PPT, something that was specifically requested.
You did say earlier in this thread that others shared you thoughts about MRB.
Yes, you can refer to the same threads that you sent me as showing this. Quite a few in them, say that they like MBR.
My impression (and your impression ight be different)) is that they have been there a long time - but they currently have some issues, to put it mildly.
If you look long enough you can find adverse comments made about just about any store on the Net. You can't satisfy all the people all the time. Notice that they've been in business in the same locations for over 50 years. Not many business have such a record. EVERY business, "h[as] issues" at some point, with some people.
I would say that the posts above support my position. This is a partial list, but enough to show the trend, IMO.
Notice the COMPLETE absence of what I asked for, prosecutions for the alleged violations of the law. Some reason for that?
eaglemike
07-08-2009, 1:39 AM
BH,
There's an old saying about arguing, and I will admit you are wearing me down with your experience.
You are again attributing things to one person (me, in this case) that someone one else brought up. To actually answewr your question (regarding prosecution)- most people would rather leave a store of less than optimum value open than call the DOJ and deal with the loss of a store and ensuing time requirements to suppoort the prosecution. This sort of situation has been oft discussed on this forum, but I realize you don't have the experience here to be familiar with this situation.
You may tell yourself you prevail in this discussion, as I no longer wish to waste my time showing you how others perceive MRB.
capntroy
07-08-2009, 2:27 AM
BH,
There's an old saying about arguing, and I will admit you are wearing me down with your experience.
You are again attributing things to one person (me, in this case) that someone one else brought up. To actually answewr your question (regarding prosecution)- most people would rather leave a store of less than optimum value open than call the DOJ and deal with the loss of a store and ensuing time requirements to suppoort the prosecution. This sort of situation has been oft discussed on this forum, but I realize you don't have the experience here to be familiar with this situation.
You may tell yourself you prevail in this discussion, as I no longer wish to waste my time showing you how others perceive MRB.
+1.
Bigger Hammer has shown me the light! Praise Jesus!
Before, I thought that MBR was just a FUD spreadin', OLL hatin', PPT dodgin', pitiful excuse for a gun store, but now I see them for what they truly are; the arbiter of all things legal!
gotgunz
07-08-2009, 3:10 AM
I feel like I have just sat through 8 pages of Romper Room!
RP1911
07-08-2009, 6:18 AM
bigger hammer:
I made a special trip all the way from Sacramento to MBR to do a PPT. Buyer and seller (me) walked in at 4 PM +/- 10 minutes. We were flat out denied to do a PPT on a Browning BDA .380 acp.
The place was somewhat busy but not busy enough not to do a PPT. I even offered to pay $20 plus the $25 so we could get it done.
Buyer was one of their customers (several times over). Clerk knew him by name. Still we were told no. Not even "wait we can get around to you." Flat no.
We drove a few miles out and did a PPT transfer at Turners in less than 20 minutes.
Because of their attitude, they lost a previous customer.
Okay…how about a post from a legit source…
We understand and appreciate the fact that there are many parties involved in the OLL issue who (quite legitimately so) feel that OLL’s and rifles built in “bullet button” configuration are perfectly legal. We understand that it is a very emotional issue for many individuals.
Unfortunately, at this time, we have chosen not to stock or deal in OLL’s. This was a business decision reached after careful consideration of relevant facts and consultation with the CA DOJ. Like any business decision, it was not arrived at lightly.
Trust me when I say that we would love to be able to, in good conscience, sell all of the different “black” rifles that seem to be all over the place. The problem, and what we feel is a potentially critical issue, is total and complete lack of guidance from the CA Attorney General’s Office. Pure and simple, our current Attorney General (Brown) does not issue opinions. On several occasions, officials at the DOJ have skirted my direct, and sometimes not so direct, questions about the matter. They simply answer that this (DOJ) office does not issue opinions. Their official stance is that they prefer to leave enforcement up to the individual Counties and Municipalities. In the future, if more guidance from the CA Attorney General becomes available, we would certainly revisit the issue.
I can relate, anecdotally, that during our last DOJ audit, the first question asked by the DOJ investigator was whether “we were messing around with off-list lowers?” (His words, not mine). Read into that whatever you will….but I feel it’s an indication of the DOJ attitude about OLL’s.
We simply decided that it would put us in a position of selling items that we could not unequivocally state were 100% legal. We have always felt our customers deserve an expectation that the merchandise being offered is completely legal and they will be free from prosecution during its legitimate use. This is the primary reason that we do not stock or handle OLL’s. We also decided that defending any legal challenge would cost more than any potential profit from OLL sales. So there it is, just a simple business decision, nothing more, nothing less.
In response to the other “sub topic”, our relationship with our City’s Police Department, Chief of Police and City Council have always been and will continue to be outstanding. I can’t imagine where anyone got any other impression.
As always, if any of you have any questions regarding our policies…..please feel free to give me a call before you listen to someone that obviously doesn’t have a clue.
Best regards,
Alex Reyes
Manager
Martin B. Retting, Inc.
310-837-2412
Thanks for the information.
Why don't you instruct your employees to give out that information instead of all the FUD?
bigmike82
07-08-2009, 6:59 AM
BiggerHammer...on request means ON REQUEST. It says an FFL holder MUST perform a PPT. It doesn't say 'may'.
If you are refused, they are breaking the law. So yes, if you show up two minutes before closing, per the AG, they MUST perform the PPT.
Don't get all upset if we assume you're friendly with the shop, especially when you said several times that you had friends working there, and, more importantly, when you can call the manager and have him post here on Calguns on one of the threads about that store.
Why hasn't anyone taking MBR to court over this? I don't know. I have no desire to despite my dislike of that place. And the gun community, as a whole, has been working harder on more important issues to really worry about the whole PPT issue, and I don't think that'll be a focus anytime soon.
Sig226
07-08-2009, 7:09 AM
BiggerHammer...on request means ON REQUEST. It says an FFL holder MUST perform a PPT. It doesn't say 'may'.
This is 100% accurate. If anyone can locate contradicting PC please do....
Why hasn't anyone taking MBR to court over this? I don't know. I have no desire to despite my dislike of that place. And the gun community, as a whole, has been working harder on more important issues to really worry about the whole PPT issue, and I don't think that'll be a focus anytime soon.
Because the majority of us gun owners don't want to see ANOTHER gun store go down in flames. A couple calls and MBR would be in the proverbial DOJ hot seat, but what does that accomplish?
CA residents loose out on yet another establishment that caters to their passion/hobby.
That being said--- a long time ago I decided to spend my money elsewhere.
If MBR ever takes another look at their position and re-invents their perspective with a lot less FUD and fear mongering then I might check them out again. If they step up their FUD slinging then I would suggest another look at the PPT issue....
acaligunner
07-08-2009, 9:53 AM
Okay…how about a post from a legit source…
We understand and appreciate the fact that there are many parties involved in the OLL issue who (quite legitimately so) feel that OLL’s and rifles built in “bullet button” configuration are perfectly legal. We understand that it is a very emotional issue for many individuals.
Unfortunately, at this time, we have chosen not to stock or deal in OLL’s. This was a business decision reached after careful consideration of relevant facts and consultation with the CA DOJ. Like any business decision, it was not arrived at lightly.
Trust me when I say that we would love to be able to, in good conscience, sell all of the different “black” rifles that seem to be all over the place. The problem, and what we feel is a potentially critical issue, is total and complete lack of guidance from the CA Attorney General’s Office. Pure and simple, our current Attorney General (Brown) does not issue opinions. On several occasions, officials at the DOJ have skirted my direct, and sometimes not so direct, questions about the matter. They simply answer that this (DOJ) office does not issue opinions. Their official stance is that they prefer to leave enforcement up to the individual Counties and Municipalities. In the future, if more guidance from the CA Attorney General becomes available, we would certainly revisit the issue.
I can relate, anecdotally, that during our last DOJ audit, the first question asked by the DOJ investigator was whether “we were messing around with off-list lowers?” (His words, not mine). Read into that whatever you will….but I feel it’s an indication of the DOJ attitude about OLL’s.
We simply decided that it would put us in a position of selling items that we could not unequivocally state were 100% legal. We have always felt our customers deserve an expectation that the merchandise being offered is completely legal and they will be free from prosecution during its legitimate use. This is the primary reason that we do not stock or handle OLL’s. We also decided that defending any legal challenge would cost more than any potential profit from OLL sales. So there it is, just a simple business decision, nothing more, nothing less.
In response to the other “sub topic”, our relationship with our City’s Police Department, Chief of Police and City Council have always been and will continue to be outstanding. I can’t imagine where anyone got any other impression.
As always, if any of you have any questions regarding our policies…..please feel free to give me a call before you listen to someone that obviously doesn’t have a clue.
Best regards,
Alex Reyes
Manager
Martin B. Retting, Inc.
310-837-2412
After reading the above, I have chosen not to support MBR's.
If you do not want to stand up with us, how many other times will you chose to fold.
Nothing against your store, I will just deal with another vendor.
your former customer
acaligunner
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 4:34 PM
BH,
To actually answewr your question (regarding prosecution)- most people would rather leave a store of less than optimum value open than call the DOJ and deal with the loss of a store and ensuing time requirements to suppoort the prosecution.
You've made the assumption that the only remedy for this alleged violation is closing the store down. That's not very likely. What is likely is that they'd be forced to obey the law as you believe it's written and do the PPT's on those OLL's.
This sort of situation has been oft discussed on this forum, but I realize you don't have the experience here to be familiar with this situation.
This is NOT the only place on the planet where this situation has been discussed. This is NOT the only forum on the Internet.
You may tell yourself you prevail in this discussion, as I no longer wish to waste my time showing you how others perceive MRB.
Don't flatter yourself that you revealed anything new here.
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 4:35 PM
+1.
Bigger Hammer has shown me the light! Praise Jesus!
Before, I thought that MBR was just a FUD spreadin', OLL hatin', PPT dodgin', pitiful excuse for a gun store, but now I see them for what they truly are; the arbiter of all things legal!
Great argument there. Very logical, reasonable and well stated. ROFL.
Do any of you legal eagles know if the cases that you've cited on this have been published? If not, they can't be cited as precedent.
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 4:36 PM
bigger hammer:
I made a special trip all the way from Sacramento to MBR to do a PPT.
I don't think so. I think that MBR just happened to be a convenient place to do the PPT. It's not a tourist destination except for a very few tourist, mostly from Japan.
Buyer and seller (me) walked in at 4 PM +/- 10 minutes. We were flat out denied to do a PPT on a Browning BDA .380 acp.
How close was that to closing time? A store is not required to stay open after hours to accommodate you.
The place was somewhat busy but not busy enough not to do a PPT.
Sounds as if the sales people disagreed with your assessment. And since they know the place and you're only guessing, I'll have to side with them. You may not realize that what "the floor" looks like has nothing to do with what's going on in any retail establishment. They knew if they had the personnel to spare, you've assumed that they did. Many possibilities exist. They may have just received a big shipment and had to get it off the truck so the driver could leave. They may have had people leaving early. There are scores of reasons why they could not accommodate you.
Buyer was one of their customers (several times over). Clerk knew him by name. Still we were told no. Not even "wait we can get around to you." Flat no.
I've worked retail sales enough and dealt with people enough to know that they often either misunderstand or do so purposefully.
Can anyone suggest a reason as to why they'd refuse to do a PPT on a firearm about which there is no controversy? I know it's not very much money for them, but it is profit and it's required by law. This is defying common sense.
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 4:36 PM
BiggerHammer...on request means ON REQUEST. It says an FFL holder MUST perform a PPT. It doesn't say 'may'.
It doesn't say "drop everything." It doesn't say, "at the instant of the request," and it doesn’t say "immediately." It DOES say they MUST NOT perform a PPT if they believe that it's not lawful. Apparently it's their opinion that there's some legal question, and the anecdotes told here bear out, that there may be a problem. Since DOJ doesn't give opinions on what will be prosecuted and what won't, and they also may change their minds at any given moment without notice, MBR has made the business decision NOT to engage in dealing with OLL's. If you folks had a leg to stand on, you'd do something other than complain about it here.
You apparently have made the decision NOT to prosecute. So sniveling on an Internet forum isn't going to change anything. Venting here may make you feel better and if so, I'm happy for you. But it's not going to change anything.
If you are refused, they are breaking the law. So yes, if you show up two minutes before closing, per the AG, they MUST perform the PPT.
BULL***. Show us where it says THAT in the law. You probably have a legal right to purchase a firearm. Try showing up at midnight and demanding that right.
Don't get all upset if we assume you're friendly with the shop, especially when you said several times that you had friends working there [Emphasis added]
What other possible assumption could you make after I've told you these things? LOL.
and, more importantly, when you can call the manager and have him post here on Calguns on one of the threads about that store.
I'm not the slightest bit upset that you assume that I'm friendly with the store. I AM and have said so several times. But for you (not just you) to assume that because of that "friendship" my PPT was handled differently than someone else's is twaddle. As I said, they didn't even know I was involved until I walked in the door. The other party made the calls and the arrangements. So how would they know that I was involved?
And BTW I didn't "get the manager [to] post here." He did it all by himself. I called to get some information regarding this thread. While we were discussing it he signed on and read the thread. He's a big boy, he decided to post all by himself. He joined on the day that he posted and that's the only post he's made here.
Why hasn't anyone taking MBR to court over this? I don't know. I have no desire to despite my dislike of that place. And the gun community, as a whole, has been working harder on more important issues to really worry about the whole PPT issue, and I don't think that'll be a focus anytime soon.
I think that whining over and over again that something is illegal but doing NOTHING about it is pitiful.
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 4:37 PM
Earlier bigmike82 wrote, BiggerHammer...on request means ON REQUEST. It says an FFL holder MUST perform a PPT. It doesn't say 'may'.
This is 100% accurate. If anyone can locate contradicting PC please do....
If anyone "can locate" a requirement to "drop everything" and do the PPT "please do."
Because the majority of us gun owners don't want to see ANOTHER gun store go down in flames. A couple calls and MBR would be in the proverbial DOJ hot seat, but what does that accomplish?
What nonsense. "A couple calls …" would result in MBR getting a phone call from the DOJ asking if they've refused to do PPT's. I'm sure that's as far as it would go. As I've said, MBR has been in business for over 80 years. They've been in the same location, doing the same thing for over 50 years. I'm pretty confident that over the many years that you folks allege that this has been going on, that at least ONE PERSON would have made such a phone call. Yet here they are, still in business. Some people here GREATLY overestimate their importance if they think that making such a phone call will close down a business.
That being said--- a long time ago I decided to spend my money elsewhere.
If MBR ever takes another look at their position and re-invents their perspective with a lot less FUD and fear mongering then I might check them out again. If they step up their FUD slinging then I would suggest another look at the PPT issue....
Several of you have made this statement. Yet MBR just keeps on keepin' on. LOL. Doesn't sound as if you've very effective in this.
Remind me to spend some more money there to make up for the millions that you're costing them. ROFL.
ajaffe
07-08-2009, 5:06 PM
Slippery slope fallacies are not your friend. You may think you are doing MBR a service by posting here, but in reality you have caused 3 customers to never shop there again. Great representation :).
bigmike82
07-08-2009, 5:08 PM
"So sniveling on an Internet forum isn't going to change anything."
Rofl. And you dare whine when people resort to 'personal attacks'?
"BULL***. Show us where it says THAT in the law."
Uhm....what i posted pretty much says that. I fail to understand how you can introduce all kinds of "ifs" "ands" or "buts" into a simple statement like "A dealer MUST perform a PPT on request."
RP1911
07-08-2009, 6:28 PM
I don't think so. I think that MBR just happened to be a convenient place to do the PPT. It's not a tourist destination except for a very few tourist, mostly from Japan.
Actually the buyer picked the place. Turners was just as convenient after the fact.
How close was that to closing time? A store is not required to stay open after hours to accommodate you.
At least one hour to 2 hours before.
Sounds as if the sales people disagreed with your assessment. And since they know the place and you're only guessing, I'll have to side with them. You may not realize that what "the floor" looks like has nothing to do with what's going on in any retail establishment. They knew if they had the personnel to spare, you've assumed that they did. Many possibilities exist. They may have just received a big shipment and had to get it off the truck so the driver could leave. They may have had people leaving early. There are scores of reasons why they could not accommodate you.
I've been in retail for 20 years, owned my own retail store and I know when clerks are busy selling or when customers are just wasting the clerk's time.
I've worked retail sales enough and dealt with people enough to know that they often either misunderstand or do so purposefully.
Sorry I don't buy that, at least for this attempted PPT.
Can anyone suggest a reason as to why they'd refuse to do a PPT on a firearm about which there is no controversy?
Arrogance, power trip or not willing to do a PPT because it is an inconvenience for them?
I know it's not very much money for them, but it is profit and it's required by law. This is defying common sense.
Tell me about it.
BTW, I used to shop there between 1984-86 before I moved north in 1986.
Rob454
07-08-2009, 8:47 PM
Fud. Well at least for 2 more weeks.
What happens in two weeks?
GunSlinger1975
07-08-2009, 8:58 PM
Fud. Well at least for 2 more weeks.
What is 2 more weeks??
ajaffe
07-08-2009, 9:46 PM
It is a joke. Back when OLLs were the new kids on the block I believe the DOJ issued a statement saying the list would be revised in two weeks. Well years later it still has not happened.
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 9:48 PM
Slippery slope fallacies are not your friend. You may think you are doing MBR a service by posting here, but in reality you have caused 3 customers to never shop there again. Great representation .
I'll suggest that it was the store's policies that caused them to stop shopping, not Alex' posting here.
That policy may have saved them from what Mr. Corwin went through. That SAVED them in the vicinity of $250,000 - $500,000 in legal fees (perhaps more). It's doubtful that those three customers would EVER have spent that amount there.
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 9:49 PM
Earlier I wrote, So sniveling on an Internet forum isn't going to change anything.
Rofl. And you dare whine when people resort to 'personal attacks'?
Do you think that there's a "personal attack" in my statement? I seem to have missed it. Please point it out.
Earlier I wrote, BULL***. Show us where it says THAT in the law."
Uhm....what i posted pretty much says that.
No it does not. NOWHERE does it say that. That's YOUR interpretation of it. If you can show me some support for that statement I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong. Until then …
I fail to understand how you can introduce all kinds of "ifs" "ands" or "buts" into a simple statement like "A dealer MUST perform a PPT on request."
It's called common sense. Going by your literal read of the requirement, if you stopped one of the owners as he was walking to his car after closing and asked him to perform a PPT, he'd have to go back in, open the store and complete it. If you ran into him at a party you could require the same thing. Ditto for seeing him at the beach. That's beyond nonsense and well into, as I said, BULL***.
By this standard, you could walk into a gun store that used a take–a–number system to wait on customers and DEMAND that someone stop waiting on a customer and take your PPT immediately.
And so AS I'VE SAID, If anyone can locate a requirement to "drop everything" and do the PPT please do.
Please don't just repeat the phrase again. Back it up with some case law that supports your statement. I look forward to reading it.
bigger hammer
07-08-2009, 9:50 PM
Earlier I wrote, I don't think so. I think that MBR just happened to be a convenient place to do the PPT. It's not a tourist destination except for a very few tourist, mostly from Japan.
Actually the buyer picked the place. Turners was just as convenient after the fact.
As I thought. So your earlier statement I made a special trip all the way from Sacramento to MBR to do a PPT. wasn't accurate. It WAS NOT A "SPECIAL TRIP TO MBR …"
The motivation for the trip was to buy a gun. It just so happened that MBR was a convenient place to make the transfer. You made it sound as if you traveled all that way JUST for the express purpose of visiting MBR.
Earlier I wrote, Sounds as if the sales people disagreed with your assessment. And since they know the place and you're only guessing, I'll have to side with them. You may not realize that what "the floor" looks like has nothing to do with what's going on in any retail establishment. They knew if they had the personnel to spare, you've assumed that they did. Many possibilities exist. They may have just received a big shipment and had to get it off the truck so the driver could leave. They may have had people leaving early. There are scores of reasons why they could not accommodate you.
I've been in retail for 20 years, owned my own retail store and I know when clerks are busy selling or when customers are just wasting the clerk's time.
EVEN IF "customers are just wasting the clerk's time." they were there first and they have the right to be waited on before you. You have absolutely no way of knowing when one of those people you now allege were "just wasting the clerk's time." would turn into a sale unless you're capable of reading minds. Are you?
Earlier I wrote, Can anyone suggest a reason as to why they'd refuse to do a PPT on a firearm about which there is no controversy?
Arrogance
Arrogance? Why on earth would anyone be "arrogant" about doing a PPT. This makes no sense.
power trip
Ditto.
or not willing to do a PPT because it is an inconvenience for them?
It's not inconvenient. It's part of their business. They make a profit from it, just as they do from a small sale. In fact, since there's no purchase for inventory it's ALL profit. (Of course ignoring business costs, salaries, turning on the lights, etc.)
AGAIN this make no sense at all.
Earlier I wrote, I know it's not very much money for them, but it is profit and it's required by law. This is defying common sense.
Tell me about it.
Just did. Usually when something defies common sense, especially about business decisions, there's a reason. None of your reasons make sense. But they do suggest quite a bit of paranoia on your part! I've found that this is not unusual on gun forums where some see conspiracies to take away their guns behind every bush.
bigmike82
07-08-2009, 10:10 PM
"Please point it out. "
Sniveling seems pretty damn close to a sarcastic insult. I don't take offense at something so trivial, but let's not be too hipocritical, shall we?
"NOWHERE does it say that."
Yeah, it does. It's plain friggin' english man. Look up the definition of must. Then look up the definition of may.
"It's called common sense."
Something which doesn't apply to California gun laws. Wanna try again? :)
"And so AS I'VE SAID, If anyone can locate a requirement to "drop everything" and do the PPT please do."
It doesn't need to. I'm beating a horse to death here, but the law does NOT allow the dealer to refuse, except under certain specific circumstances.
If the PPT is pure profit for MBR, why the huge reticence to carry them out? Unfortunately, it's not 'pure' profit. It's a huge time suck with limited reward. It doesn't defy common sense that FFLs don't like doing PPTs. Go over to the FFL forum and ask them how many like performing PPTs. I'm willing to bet money that at least half, if not more, will say they don't.
I can understand where your coming from, and I understand your desire for wanting to defend a gun shop you like. However, if I may point something out, you're refusing to see things from the perspective of those of us annoyed with them. We didn't all just wake up one morning and say "I'm going to stop shopping at MBR and diss them on Calguns." There are very valid reasons for it.
My experience with MBR is limited to "We only do PPTs within an hour of opening, and only on weekdays." Again, in total contravention to what the Attorney General posted on his website.
Let's compare it to...say...Ammo Brothers. They are as busy, most times, as MBR if not busier. And yet, every time I've come in, no matter what time of day, I've had consistent courteous and quick service. Same with Entreprise Arms. Same with Ade's Gun shop.
ajaffe
07-08-2009, 10:19 PM
I'll suggest that it was the store's policies that caused them to stop shopping, not Alex' posting here.
That policy may have saved them from what Mr. Corwin went through. That SAVED them in the vicinity of $250,000 - $500,000 in legal fees (perhaps more). It's doubtful that those three customers would EVER have spent that amount there.
Bright Spot and Matt Corwin went through the sacrifices to ensure that it would be proven that OLLs are legal. And they did so at the expense of their bank account and freedom. To assume that DAs are standing by ready to try and prosecute again after losing twice is illogical and ludicrous. But what MBR chooses to carry is their business, but it should not be their, or your business to disrespect those that made the sacrifices as being non-consequential in regards to helping the OLL movement along and showing that it is indeed, legal. Also, can you show me where Matt Corwin's FFL(s) that sold/transferred the OLWs got taken to court? You act like it happened when I have heard nothing of it.
You have chosen to represent MBR, and have effectively used a bigger hammer to put the nail in the coffin in regards to people willing to spend money there.
Again, slippery slope arguments are not your friend.
bigger hammer
07-09-2009, 10:27 AM
[your use of the word] "sniveling" seems pretty damn close to a sarcastic insult.
It's certainly sarcastic but neither is it an insult nor is it a personal attack as you tried to characterize it.
I don't take offense at something so trivial
Yet you thought it important enough to bring up. lol
but let's not be too hipocritical, shall we?
When I've called "foul" when I've been personally attacked – that's clearly what was happening. One poster said that I was "… unable to read and understand and convese in abstract terms." There's no doubt there. In my statement no one was even identified.
Yeah, it does. It's plain friggin' english man.
Sorry but it's not "plain friggin english" It's legal language. Had the legislators wanted dealers to drop everything to accommodate PPT's they'd have said so. They'd have used language such as "immediately" or "without any delay." But they did not. They understand that these are businesses and that it may take some time to free up a salesperson.
Look up the definition of must. Then look up the definition of may.
You make no sense here. So far all we have is one anecdotes that MBR has ever refused to do one PPT, except for OLL's.
Earlier I wrote, "It's called common sense."
Something which doesn't apply to California gun laws. Wanna try again?
Now you're just being silly. Common sense would be involved in the interpretation of the law. Since it does NOT say, "immediately" or words to that effect it's common sense AND reasonable to believe that they're not required to "drop everything" to do the PPT.
"And so AS I'VE SAID, If anyone can locate a requirement to "drop everything" and do the PPT please do."
It doesn't need to. I'm beating a horse to death here, but the law does NOT allow the dealer to refuse, except under certain specific circumstances.
Yes, that's correct. Remember waaaay back when this conversation was about OLL's? The "certain specific circumstances" are that their interpretation of the law is that OLL's are problematic. As the law says, (and as I've said before) they MUST NOT perform a PPT if they believe that it's not lawful. Apparently it's their opinion that there's some legal question, and the anecdotes told here bear out, that there may be a problem with OLL's.
If the PPT is pure profit for MBR, why the huge reticence to carry them out?
I've never found it to be so. I've done many PPT's there and NEVER has there been the slightest "reticence." On none of them did they know it was me that was involved so my "friendliness" with them had nothing to do with it. I just did two within the past month or so and many more in the months before that.
I completely understand their refusal to do OLL's.
Other than that all we have is the message from an anonymous poster that they refused to do one on an obviously unquestionable gun. I don't place much credibility in that, particularly since he said that he did nothing but go elsewhere.
Unfortunately, it's not 'pure' profit. It's a huge time suck with limited reward.
"huge time suck????" ROFL. Mine took less than ten minutes.
It doesn't defy common sense that FFLs don't like doing PPTs.
It does to me.
Go over to the FFL forum and ask them how many like performing PPTs. I'm willing to bet money that at least half, if not more, will say they don't.
ROFL. AGAIN you want me to do your research. Not gonna happen.
It's certainly more profitable for the dealer to do a PTT than it is to spend 20 minutes (about the time if takes to complete the PTT if one is slow) explaining (for example) what a "snap cap" is. Why the customer should use one for certain guns. Why it's not necessary for some. How it can be used to check function or to improve one's trigger work or do malfunction drills. Other ways that dry firing can be accomplished. Why there are different types of snap caps. Why some are plastic and some are aluminum. And why, after using one, the customer should be sure to reload his SD gun with real ammunition. Often the customer will want to open the package so that he can touch the snap caps so he knows what they feel like. ALL THIS FOR A $7 sale.
I can understand where your coming from, and I understand your desire for wanting to defend a gun shop you like.
It's really not about "defending a gun shop that [ I ] like." It's about something said about a gun shop that I know not to be true. I'd have responded no matter whether I liked the shop or not if the comment had been made that they have a certain policy because (if you can remember the original comment) the Culver City cops "hate"MBR. The conversation then veered to where we are now.
However, if I may point something out, you're refusing to see things from the perspective of those of us annoyed with them.
You're right. I have a different perspective. I thought that was obvious! In any case, because of that different perspective I have a different opinion about some of the things that are under discussion. But you folks won't permit me to have one. You insist that you're right about everything and that I'm wrong about everything. I really don't care about OLL's one way or the other. But there are quite a few statements that have been made by some of you folks that are simply wrong.
We didn't all just wake up one morning and say "I'm going to stop shopping at MBR and diss them on Calguns." There are very valid reasons for it.
I'm sure that you think that there are. I just happen not to agree. My experience with them is based on having dealt with them very frequently, probably several times a month over the course of about 30 years. I've not come across ANY of the things that some of you claim has happened to you. And this goes for when I first started going in there, long before I became friends with them.
My experience with MBR is limited to "We only do PPTs within an hour of opening, and only on weekdays." Again, in total contravention to what the Attorney General posted on his website.
Sorry but you're STILL wrong about this. I've asked repeatedly for case law that agrees with your "drop everything and do the PTT" statements and so far NO ONE had supplied one. That's leads me to believe that it doesn't exist. And so the common sense response is that "when we get a salesman free, we'll handle it" is the true meaning of the statute.
No one I know has ever had your experience and I know LOTS of people who have not had it. This leads me to believe that either you misunderstood, you didn't like being told to wait because you think that the law requires them to INSTANTLY spring into action to serve you and ignore all other customers and that led you to embellish (or at least put your own spin on) these incidents.
I've found the "elitist" attitude that some describe in many different kinds of shops. The worst I've ever found was at bicycle shops that cater to racers. But I've also found it to exist in SCUBA shops, small sporting goods stores, especially tennis pro shops, golf pro shops, small mountaineering shops and more.
Some people here have made comments (to the effect) that all people who work in gun shops are wannabe commandos who couldn't hit a wall from inside a bathroom. Yet I know one employee from MBR who won a stage of the Steel Challenge not too long ago. He was a world class shooter!
Let's compare it to...say...Ammo Brothers. They are as busy, most times, as MBR if not busier. And yet, every time I've come in, no matter what time of day, I've had consistent courteous and quick service. Same with Entreprise Arms. Same with Ade's Gun shop.
That's just wonderful for you. I've had both good and bad service from all kinds of gun shops. I've found that it's more about the salesman than about the gun store. I've also had good and bad service at Home Depot, Ralph's and the Ford dealership. But I don't spend hours on an internet forum complaining about it. Your experience is hardly universal. If it was MBR would have gone out of business long ago. People go to such places for many reasons. If the prices are very good, many will put up with poor service. But we know that MBR's prices are not that much better, some report that they're even higher than elsewhere. Perhaps people are putting up with poor service because of the inventory. Nearly always being able to get what you want when you want it, might make some put up with poor service. But I think that if poor service was the rule, rather than the exception, no matter (within reason of course) how good the prices or the inventory were, people would soon stop going to that shop. Yet MBR shows no sign of collapsing. They've been there for over 50 years, someone keeps saying.
bigger hammer
07-09-2009, 10:27 AM
Earlier I wrote, I'll suggest that it was the store's policies that caused them to stop shopping, not Alex' posting here.
That policy may have saved them from what Mr. Corwin went through. That SAVED them in the vicinity of $250,000 - $500,000 in legal fees (perhaps more). It's doubtful that those three customers would EVER have spent that amount there.
Bright Spot and Matt Corwin went through the sacrifices to ensure that it would be proven that OLLs are legal.
You may have noticed that a few posts back I asked if the legal decisions in that case had been "published." If not, it can't be cited as a precedent in later cases. If not, what you think has been "proven" really HAS NOT BEEN. All that happened is that Mr. Corwin and Bright Spot had their charges dismissed. It doesn't stop the DOJ or a DA from doing the exact same thing to someone else.
If you can show that the decision has been published, then you're right. Without that proof dealers and individuals are open to the same sort of charges being brought against them. This is not a matter of my opinion but one of fact.
To assume that DAs are standing by ready to try and prosecute again after losing twice is illogical and ludicrous.
You're wrong. If that case was not published, it's EXACTLY what's afoot.
But what MBR chooses to carry is their business, but it should not be their, or your business to disrespect those that made the sacrifices as being non-consequential in regards to helping the OLL movement along and showing that it is indeed, legal.
Neither I nor MBR has disrespected Mr. Corwin. If that exists at all, it's only in your head.
Also, can you show me where Matt Corwin's FFL(s) that sold/transferred the OLWs got taken to court? You act like it happened when I have heard nothing of it.
AGAIN you're wrong. Show me where I said that Mr. Corwin's FFL's were taken to court. You can't, I've never said it. Yet ANOTHER attempt to put words into my mouth. Quite disgusting!
You have chosen to represent MBR
Wrong again. I represent ONLY myself here. I've spoken on behalf of MBR, but I've NEVER "represented" them.
and have effectively used a bigger hammer to put the nail in the coffin in regards to people willing to spend money there.
According to the board stats there are over 31,000 members of this board. There are nearly 11,000 active members. So far three or four members have said that they won't shop at MBR any more. I think that at least one of them has moved out of the area and so for him, it's a moot point! Even if there are 20 times that number who have made an identical decision but have not written about it, still that's only (let's use the upper figure) 80 people (probably many of those who don't live in the area either) but let's stick with that number). To defend against another Corwin type arrest I've said would cost a dealer from $250,000 to $500,000, and that's a conservative estimate. Actual figures may easily be triple the upper figure. Let's see, to make that up each of those 80 people would have to spend $3,125 to $6,260 at MBR. Using the extreme number, we're talking about almost $19,000! I doubt that the average shooter is going to spend that amount of money there in a lifetime. A very few may, I know I've easily tripled the extreme upper figure, but at one time I had lots of disposable income. And that was before the economy went into the tank.
I believe in standing up for what you believe in but I also believe in being practical. Taking your money elsewhere may make you feel better but in reality, it's not going to do much. People line up outside the MBR door 20 minutes before opening on weekends. All you've done is reduce the wait time.
Again, slippery slope arguments are not your friend.
It's a good thing that I've not made any then.
ajaffe
07-09-2009, 10:54 AM
Earlier I wrote,
AGAIN you're wrong. Show me where I said that Mr. Corwin's FFL's were taken to court. You can't, I've never said it. Yet ANOTHER attempt to put words into my mouth. Quite disgusting!
It's a good thing that I've not made any then.
I'll show you where you keep saying that MBR is avoiding the legal bills of which the numbers you obtained from me linking you the case. To try and plead ignorance and the fact that "someone is trying to put words in your mouth" is disgusting. Stop grasping and realize what you have said before. While it may not be black and white, the implications are surely there.
You have made PLENTY of slipper slope arguments. OLLs and prosecution. Refusing PPTs and extreme circumstances. Re-read what you say, because again, your words are not black and white when said in conversation, you imply plenty, and represent MBR poorly.
I could care less if you do the math that way, you still fail to realize you are representing a shop that is doing unethical, immoral, and illegal practices. From spreading FUD to the uneducated to refusing PPTs. Yikes. Also, perhaps they are lining up to do PPTs because the shop has a ridiculous policy that refutes the law.
eaglemike
07-09-2009, 12:01 PM
It's a good thing that I've not made any then.
Actually, your method of argument is what you accuse others of doing. IMHO you need a wake up call. Your last comments to me we nothing other than silly - something about "don't flatter yourself" - let me reflect that one back.
You continue to alter and deflect, rather than clearly address. You did not take the time to read the threads I posted links to, in which several people shared their experiences at MBR regarding PPT's. You then make the statement "
Other than that all we have is the message from an anonymous poster that they refused to do one on an obviously unquestionable gun. I don't place much credibility in that, particularly since he said that he did nothing but go elsewhere."
You also are an anonymous poster - as such you rate the same credibility that you give other anonymous posters.
RP1911
07-09-2009, 12:37 PM
bigger hammer:
I'm not annonymous. A little research on your end will get you at least a first name.
A few CalGunners here know who I am.
If you want to question my credibility, ask me via PM and I'll be glad to enlighten you.
Otherwise, STFU.
bigger hammer
07-09-2009, 12:59 PM
I'll show you where you keep saying that MBR is avoiding the legal bills of which the numbers you obtained from me linking you the case.
I can barely figure out what that sentence means; care to try again? In any case, this is real simple. You said that I said something that I NEVER said. You were challenged to show us the post where you think I said it. You have not done so.
To try and plead ignorance
I've also never "pled ignorance."
and the fact that "someone is trying to put words in your mouth" is disgusting.
Stop doing it and I'll stop pointing it out.
Stop grasping and realize what you have said before.
STILL not grasping. ROFL. And I'm perfectly aware of what I've said before. YOU are the one who keeps trying to twist it.
While it may not be black and white, the implications are surely there.
You are free to read any "implications' into what I write that pleases you. But if you get it wrong, as you apparently have, I'll point it out. It's probably BEST if you don't try to read between the lines.
You have made PLENTY of slipper slope arguments.
Think so? Let's look!
OLLs and prosecution.
Matt Corwin and Bright Spot. There WAS a prosecution wasn't there? It's hardly a slippery slope argument to believe that it could happen again. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable, given the political climate that we live in to believe that IT WILL happen again.
Refusing PPTs and extreme circumstances.
What "extreme circumstances." are you referring to? I don't recall any.
Re-read what you say, because again, your words are not black and white when said in conversation,
Sorry can't figure this sentence out either.
you imply plenty, and represent MBR poorly.
Oddly, when I had Alex, the manager on the phone and he was reading the thread, he thought that my comments were fine. And AGAIN I don't represent MBR except in your obviously bewildered mind. I've said that I have no financial connection. I've said that I'm nothing but a customer who is friendly with some of the staff. My comments are my own. I represent ONLY myself. Got it this time?
Here's ANOTHER example of you trying to put words into my mouth. In this case it's that I "represent" MBR. I've said a number of times that I don't, yet you persist in this fable. DISGUSTING!!
I could care less if you do the math that way, you still fail to realize you are representing a shop
STILL not representing MBR. ROFLMAO.
that is doing unethical, immoral, and illegal practices.
It's only your opinion that their refusal to deal with OLL's is "unethical, or immoral." I disagree. As to "illegal," I'll challenge you to put up or shut up. If you think it's illegal make the call or show us a prosecution. Otherwise you're just expressing an opinion that has value only to you and a few others. YOU don’t get to decide what's legal or illegal. The Justice System does that.
From spreading FUD to the uneducated to refusing PPTs. Yikes. Also, perhaps they are lining up to do PPTs because the shop has a ridiculous policy that refutes the law.
As before, I challenge you to put up or shut up. I maintain that their PPT policy is NOT against the law. Wondering, are you now or have you ever been in the criminal justice system? Wondering where your knowledge and expertise in making these pronouncements as to legality and illegality comes from? Are you an attorney? A judge? A police officer? DOJ agent? DA? Do you play one on TV? lol
bigger hammer
07-09-2009, 12:59 PM
Actually, your method of argument is what you accuse others of doing.
Show us the posts Mike. Without that you're just making empty accusations.
IMHO you need a wake up call.
Wide awake here.
BTW didn't you write this just a few posts back? You may tell yourself you prevail in this discussion, as I no longer wish to waste my time showing you how others perceive MRB.
And yet here you are again. Looks like your not much of a man of his word!?
Your last comments to me we nothing other than silly –
" … we nothing other than silly??????" sorry can't decipher this.
something about "don't flatter yourself" - let me reflect that one back.
You wrote the above statement, about no longer wishing to waste your time, and then I replied, Don't flatter yourself that you revealed anything new here.
You continue to alter and deflect, rather than clearly address.
I'll disagree. I think that I've responded to just about every comment that someone has made here. YOU OTOH have deliberately avoided a very simple question that I asked. Here it is again. How about if you answer this time, OK? Here's something that I wrote earlier, [It's been THREE TIMES NOW]There's been absolutely no evidence presented that this has happened. [referring to the allegation that MBR has refused to do legal PPT's] If you have some, please present it. AND THEN please show us the prosecution for this violation. [Emphasis added]
Instead you supplied anecdotes. FYI anecdotes are not evidence, especially when they're supplied anonymously.
You did not take the time to read the threads I posted
AGAIN you're wrong. I read them. Let me ask; how would you know that I didn't read them. Truth is YOU'RE GUESSING.
links to, in which several people shared their experiences at MBR regarding PPT's.
I read them. I've already said that you seem to have trouble with the word "evidence." AGAIN, anonymous anecdotes are not evidence. Evidence of illegality, is arrests, crime reports, court documents, transcripts, judgments, etc. Heck at this point I'd even take news stories that discuss these things. But all you've given is anonymous anecdotes.
Earlier I wrote, Other than that all we have is the message from an anonymous poster that they refused to do one on an obviously unquestionable gun. I don't place much credibility in that, particularly since he said that he did nothing but go elsewhere.
You also are an anonymous poster - as such you rate the same credibility that you give other anonymous posters.
I'm not the one making the claims of Illegality. That would be you and some others. I'm merely asking for EVIDENCE to support your claims. I don't need any credibility in this kind of discussion. I'm not the one making the accusations. That would be you and a few others.
bigger hammer
07-09-2009, 1:00 PM
bigger hammer:
I'm not annonymous. A little research on your end will get you at least a first name.
A few CalGunners here know who I am.
If you want to question my credibility, ask me via PM and I'll be glad to enlighten you.
If I do some research I'll be able to find your first name. A bunch of other anonymous people know who you are and you think that provides you with some an identity so that you're NOT anonymous. ROFLMAO
Otherwise, STFU.
Now you're REALLY being funny. When you get to be a moderator, my boss or my parent THEN you can give me orders like this one. Until then, you're just some anonymous name on a board looking as ineffective as you really are.
But thanks for the gratuitous profanity, a sure sign that I've won an argument. Lol.
Brutish
07-09-2009, 1:01 PM
Is this really still going on? Really? Wow.
RP1911
07-09-2009, 1:34 PM
I gave you the option to PM me to discuss my credibility. Since you did not bother, it says a lot about you.
Kestryll
07-09-2009, 1:45 PM
it's getting heated in here.
We're done with this topic.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.