PDA

View Full Version : Do you think an FFL has a moral obligation to not take advantage of someone?


TonyNorCal
12-16-2006, 5:15 PM
Here's the scenario (and no I haven't witnessed this, it's hypothetical)...

Let's say a widow comes to a gun store looking to sell her deceased husbands collection. Let's say there are some extraordinarily valuable pieces.

Do you think it's appropriate for an FFL to literally give her pennies on the dollar? Offer a hundred or so on items that are worth in the multiple of thousands range?

Obviously there's no requirement and the FFL is running a business.

However, sometimes in life there are moral implications to things.

Just wondering what you guys feel would be the right thing to do? What would you do if you were that FFL?

JHC
12-16-2006, 5:23 PM
My feeling is that if she is selling off her dead husbands toys and doesn't care enough to find out what she has then she deserves whatever she gets.

tankerman
12-16-2006, 5:53 PM
I have witnessed this senario at "Grant Boys" in Costa Mesa. This employee used an underhanded tactic, telling the old woman that the shop was not interested in her guns, but he had a friend that might want to buy them. This knucklehead then told her what his friend was willing to pay and sent her on her way with his friends phone number in hand. F---in scumbag.

notsodopeydwarf
12-16-2006, 6:05 PM
Here's the scenario (and no I haven't witnessed this, it's hypothetical)...

Let's say a widow comes to a gun store looking to sell her deceased husbands collection. Let's say there are some extraordinarily valuable pieces.

Do you think it's appropriate for an FFL to literally give her pennies on the dollar? Offer a hundred or so on items that are worth in the multiple of thousands range?

Obviously there's no requirement and the FFL is running a business.

However, sometimes in life there are moral implications to things.

Just wondering what you guys feel would be the right thing to do? What would you do if you were that FFL?

Theft by fraud under certain circumstances. If the FFL was hired to appraise the value of the firearms and lowballed them so he could buy them up at a cheap price and she caught wind of what he had done he could have some serious problems.

The RIGHT then to do would be to take them on consigment. He makes a profit and she gets fair value for the firearms. It ain't cool to drive hard bargains against little old ladies or against anyone for that matter.

PIRATE14
12-16-2006, 6:26 PM
How is an FFL any different from your average gun buyer?

Most guys shop around for the cheapest they can find, look at guys doing group buys on LPKs to save a dollar on shipping.

There was a shopkeep around here who tried to get top dollar for the same gun two or three times.....right.

MORALE obligation??? They call them DEALERS......there are only a few I actually trust.

Now if someone brings in a firearm and asks me what it's worth, I usually give them a range based on the current market.

If I really want the firearms I offer a mid range value, that way everyone is happy:D

Dr. Peter Venkman
12-16-2006, 7:17 PM
Yes, they have a moral obligation.

I wouldn't feel right myself telling someone with no clue about guns that the FG-42 they have is pretty much worthless because they are fragile, which is why not a lot were made, and paying $350 for it.

Give people what their stuff is worth. Undercutting and bull**** like that should only happen between competitive businesses.

Pthfndr
12-16-2006, 7:33 PM
Buy low, sell high. Supply and demand. It's the basis of our republican, capitalist society.

Givng someone a "fair" price for their firearm would be giving them the market price. That's just not how things work. Doing it that way would result in no profit. A business person has moral, and fiduciary, responsibility to purchase his goods for resale for the lowest price he can to insure business growth, profit growth, and pay growth to his employees.

If someone takes some firearms into a gunstore and asks for an APPRAISAEL, then the store has a moral responsibility to give an honest assessment of their fair market value. The shop can then exlain that if THEY were to purchase them for resale they would only pay such and such price.

A gun store has no moral obligation to cover the sellers lack of research into the value of their item. Whether it's a little old lady or college kid who bought that fancy Kimber on impulse.

WokMaster1
12-16-2006, 8:16 PM
As much as we think that it is the wrong thing to do, there is really nothing much anyone could do about it. I don't think it's against any law unless someone can show us a statue that says otherwise.

look, most of us here have good morals & the only thing we can do to scumbags like these is just to spread the word not to do business with them. Believe me, if I have a choice, but let's not go there!:mad:

eckerph
12-16-2006, 8:28 PM
What comes around go's around,Karma can be a B***h.

Schlamoo
12-16-2006, 8:48 PM
I'm going to guess Tony saw my thread in another post and asked this question about morals. As I saw it happen I found it rather disgusting. Yes the shops are in the business to make money. But, with that said, I work for a distributor, some of the items I sell unfortunately come from China. There is a 70% mark-up on those import items. There is NO WAY I, in good faith, can sell the items at full list price. If I did at some point my customers are going to find out I'm ripping them off and stop doing business with me or karma is going to bite me in the butt and my sales will go to my competitors.

I think a business has a moral obligation to treat people in a civilized manner. In my case, those customers I deal with, who I know do dirty business I don't either service or service well. Those of you who think that its OK a gun shop should take all advantage of the folks who come through thier door remember they then are out to screw you too. Or God forbid you die or become disabled and your spouse needs help and goes to a gun shop for advise and they become the prey.

Personally, I won't do business with vultures. I am the first one to try and get a "deal", but there is a difference between negotiating and stealing from some one, especially kind old women.

Edit to add: Tony, thanks for the topic, very interesting. Based on the responses, I guess who I do, and don't want to do business with in the future.

Dr. Peter Venkman
12-16-2006, 11:02 PM
A gun store has no moral obligation to cover the sellers lack of research into the value of their item. Whether it's a little old lady or college kid who bought that fancy Kimber on impulse.

Taking advantage of a person's lack of knowledge is bastardly imo.

AJAX22
12-17-2006, 8:00 AM
While there is nothing wrong with a buisness making a profit, there is no reason to take advantage of someone.

I'm not a big believer on Karma in the hippey tree hugger way, but the way you treat people does get around, and if you offered that little old lady a low end fair price, instead of lowballing her, she might bring the rest of the collection to you to sell.

I agree that consignment is the most ethical way to handle this scenario, its also better for your customers since then they can buy as many of the handguns as they want in one month without waiting. :)

BigMac
12-17-2006, 9:04 AM
I do not, and will not, take advantage of little old ladies. It does not keep them from trying to take advantage of me.

When a little old aldy comes in with her husbands stuff. I grade the stuff right in fron of her and make her an offer based on the NRA grading and current value.

It never fails.. I get a question like are you sure you cant give me a little more, in a weak sounding voice..

markymark
12-17-2006, 9:30 AM
I think people in general (and not just FFL's) have a moral obligation to not take advantage of others.

Pthfndr
12-17-2006, 9:33 AM
Taking advantage of a person's lack of knowledge is bastardly imo.

I didn't say a person should get screwed over because of their lack of knowledge.

I said
A gun store has no moral obligation to cover the sellers lack of research into the value of their item. Whether it's a little old lady or college kid who bought that fancy Kimber on impulse.

It's not the same thing.

If some widow goes into a shop with her husband's collection and has no idea of their worth, but just wants to get rid of them, I would expect the store to make an initial offer of the LOWEST fair market price. That's just good business.

On the other hand, you see every day on WTS forums guys trying to sell some rifle that they paid WAY too much for and ***** like crazy that people are trying to screw them by offering $100 less than what a new one goes for. Even see it here.

Is it taking advantage of someone because they over paid and can't get their money back out of it?

Here's another example. In the housing market there are lots of people who are in way over their heads. Can't make the payments and the bank is going to foreclose. So they try to sell their house but can't sell it quick enough at the price they need to pay off the bank. You, as the savvy real estate person have done research and know what's going to happen. Instead of buying their house at the fair market price, wait for the bank to foreclose and buy it at auction for pennies on the dollar. YOU just screwed the (now ex) home owner because you wouldn't give them a fair price for the house. I know that happens because I know some people who do just that.