Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General gun discussions This is a place to lounge and discuss firearm related topics with other forum members.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 07-17-2019, 9:13 AM
Jwalt Jwalt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by concept27 View Post
Because in the upside-down chaotic world of GD, where incompetent family members are given senior positions, where said senior managers may or may not take their medicines regularly, thus making them unstable, inconsistent and incoherent humans who are interacting with the general public, they probably do go to the gopher to get better treatment.

From what I can see reading the rules of Yelp, retaliating against you for a review might be a violation of terms of use.

It's very clear that any inducements to reward you for a good review is absolutely a breach, a bit fuzzier on retaliation.

You could always contact Yelp about "Palmer".
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 07-17-2019, 9:29 AM
concept27 concept27 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwalt View Post
From what I can see reading the rules of Yelp, retaliating against you for a review might be a violation of terms of use.

It's very clear that any inducements to reward you for a good review is absolutely a breach, a bit fuzzier on retaliation.

You could always contact Yelp about "Palmer".
I honestly didn't even think of it...but you're absolutely right. Thanks for the tip. I'll see what the DOJ says and in the meantime, I'll prepare a statement for Yelp, as well.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 07-17-2019, 9:37 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,965
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by concept27 View Post
I honestly didn't even think of it...but you're absolutely right. Thanks for the tip. I'll see what the DOJ says and in the meantime, I'll prepare a statement for Yelp, as well.
Just curious since its been about 12 days. Did the seller start their DROS?
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:09 AM
Win231 Win231 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,006
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A couple of years ago, I posted a bad review on Yelp after a company refused to honor their warranty. Someone from the company (manager, owner, employee) actually was stupid enough to phone me & cuss me out. LOL.
That didn't work out very well for them - I edited my review & added detailed info about the phone call & also said a police report for telephone harassment would be made.
A few weeks later, the business closed. The manufacturer honored the warranty.

Last edited by Win231; 07-17-2019 at 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:09 AM
concept27 concept27 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
Just curious since its been about 12 days. Did the seller start their DROS?


Yes. He DROS’ed his own gun back into his name on the 10th. We’re meeting this Saturday at another FFL to DROS it to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:20 AM
concept27 concept27 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Win231 View Post
A couple of years ago, I posted a bad review on Yelp after a company refused to honor their warranty. Someone from the company (manager, owner, employee) actually was stupid enough to phone me & cuss me out. LOL.

That didn't work out very well for them - I edited my review & added detailed info about the phone call & also said a police report for telephone harassment would be made.

A few weeks later, the business closed. The manufacturer honored the warranty.


Glad you got what you wanted. I’m not here to ruin anyone’s livelihood or shut down anyone’s place of business. I just want them to admit that one of their employees, in this case a senior manager and a family member was being immature and disrespectful to a customer, retaliated against a bad review and may or may not have broken the law by canceling the DROS. I am and continue being courteous to my customers who put food on my table on a daily basis and inexchange I expect the same from busisnesses who provide services to me, especially the ones I am forced to use because of the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by concept27; 07-17-2019 at 3:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 07-17-2019, 11:51 AM
AragornElessar86's Avatar
AragornElessar86 AragornElessar86 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: N. SD Co.
Posts: 1,662
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *_* View Post
Turner's does not sound too bad these days 😶.
I've done business at multiple Turner's locations over the years and never had a bad experience. If Turner's is an option in an area I'm not familiar with, I always prefer them.
__________________
Quote:
Wish I was rich instead of so damn good looking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213
I'll worry about Hannibal Lecter having too many rights when the rest of us get ours in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Dave View Post
Any American who isn't on a government watch list should be ashamed of themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 07-17-2019, 3:21 PM
concept27 concept27 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AragornElessar86 View Post
I've done business at multiple Turner's locations over the years and never had a bad experience. If Turner's is an option in an area I'm not familiar with, I always prefer them.
I've done all my purchases for new guns and PPT with me as a seller at Turner's. Never had any issues. I just don't like being demanding when I am a buyer and prefer giving the seller the option to pick his preferred FFL which in this case ended up being GD.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 07-17-2019, 3:54 PM
sfarchitect's Avatar
sfarchitect sfarchitect is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,304
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

OP, this is STILL going on huh. Well sounds like its all going to work out fine despite the behavior of your initial FFL. Your seller is being more than reasonable about this. Find out what the man drinks and get him a bottle/twelve pack for going above and beyond the proverbial call.

I'm the same way when I buy via PPT. What I'm after is the price I want it for. If you can agree on that, being a reasonable person then necessitates you make it easy for the seller. So I've also, more often than not, gone to the FFL that was easier for, or the choice of the seller.

It just went sideways this time. It happens. Now you know to avoid FFL man-baby.

Last edited by sfarchitect; 07-17-2019 at 3:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 07-17-2019, 9:58 PM
Elgindy25 Elgindy25 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,403
iTrader: 22 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gleam View Post
Unprofessional manners are not illegal, and I'm not seeing anything they did was illegal even if "not cool".

They have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Yes, they MUST do PPTs by law, but if they feel there is a hostile animosity that could lead to an unpleasant or confrontational situation by that customer returning to their store, no matter how misguided or unlikely that may be, as such that they do not wish to have an individual back in their store, they would be within their right to deny continued service that would include the customer picking up the firearm.

That might not be the best way for them to go about it, but it's not apt to cause the DOJ or ATF to do anything about this. If DOJ/ATF asked, they merely have to say they felt the customer was hostile and they did not want him to return to their store for any reason.

I don't see how any laws or protocol was broken other than possibly bad manners and a customer being denied service due to a misunderstanding they would not like to escalate.


Um no? They are the ones who instigated the hostile attitude, they know they are mandated by law to process a PPT, they gave the customer a hard time and at first tried to not do it. They can not just cancel a dros because the customer made a bad review, in fact there argument that you claim they would use would be dead in the water, because they took that action after he made a review, that would easily show that them banning the OP and cancelling his dros was purely retaliatory, if this was brought before a jury, no jury would ever see it your way, sorry.

Any one would be upset if they spent gas and time to drive to an FFL AFTER MAKING AN APPOINTMENT to do a PPT then getting blown off and mistreated. The customer didnt act hostile and if that store has cameras, the OP could use the footage as evidence to prove that. The OP could have driven hours to meet the guy at this FFL out of all others and to be treated poorly, any normal person would be unhappy. In fact the OP did the right thing by leaving a review rather then getting hostile in the store. Yes he should have waited for the firearm to be picked up, but the FFl is obligated to fulfil the transaction, the dros should not have been cancelled unless the buyer was prohibited from owning a firearm, the firearm itself was illegal or there was an error made in the paperwork, but to just cancel it because of a negative interaction is going to far and is an over reach by the business, this transaction cost both parties money and gas and time, which would be considered damages. The other party who now has to pay more money to get the gun back, has to lose more money and spend
More gas and if he is an honest guy, probably give the seller his money back, he also has real damages he could claim.

They both should definately file a complain with the DOJ and even BBB.

This business hurts the firearms community as a whole, they are making it harder for customers to legally transfer firearms to each other which is already a difficult process.

You dont like PPTs, dont own a firearms business, you made that choice to do so in CA, you have to follow the appropriate laws.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:00 PM
Elgindy25 Elgindy25 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,403
iTrader: 22 / 96%
Default

And turning away ppts is a stupid thing for any ffl business, because they not only mistreat those customers, but they also turn away two potential customers who may have also purchased merchandise or firearms at that business either then or later, or even telling others in the community about them driving business to them, instead these idiots did the opposite. No body made them be a dick, they made that choice, they deal with consequences, sorry but i dont think the OP did anything wrong assuming everything he stated was true.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 07-20-2019, 1:03 AM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,864
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgindy25 View Post
Um no?

Correct, no.


They are the ones who instigated the hostile attitude (the DOJ will see this as opinion and feelings, but give a nod to their plea that a need to cancel the active DROS was justifiable, to keep the peace and civility), they know they are mandated by law to process a PPT (but not without a right to refuse service), they gave the customer a hard time (and the resulting actions proved unsavory enough to give them cause to feel the customer returning to the store for any reason would be a bad idea, so they ceased all service relationship) that and at first tried to not do it. They can not just cancel a dros because the customer made a bad review, in fact there argument that you claim they would use would be dead in the water (nope), because they took that action after he made a review (the review expresses an unpleasant situation that does not appear resolvable) , that would easily show that them banning the OP and cancelling his dros was purely retaliatory (or not, possibly one of preserving the peace no different than dis-inviting someone from your home for any reason, which is all they need to claim), if this was brought before a jury, no jury would ever see it your way, sorry.

It would never make it to a "jury".

It may not be cool or fair, but it's within their right to cancel the DROS given the situation. The review presented a perspective of events from one side, and best way to avoid it escalating may be, out of their perception, which is all that is required, to cease the relationship. That is all that Guns Direct needs to claim.

They have the right at any time, given the circumstances to disallow someone from returning to their private store no different than you may wish to not have anyone ever in your home again; it's still a private location, and they still have the right to sever ties to service at any time. They must still do PPTs, but at any time they feel there could be a problem with a customer, they can break that link. If the only thing standing in the way of parting ways is an active DROS, I think you'll find that the DOJ will side with them that it's a best course of action if they feel there would be no way to keep the peace but to cancel the DROS; as would a law-enforcement officer, as would a judge, as would a "jury" if even applicable.

Walking the other way to avoid a bad situation from getting worse, even when armed. How many times have we heard this expressed?

Burden of proof would be to show it was retaliatory more so than their opinion the situation could become hostile, at a gun store. DOJ and Law Enforcement will error on the side of caution for such a location, guaranteed, and would rather see the DROS canceled than an unpredictable situation arise from something that has tension and can be avoided.

You seem to be confused thinking I agree with that, or how Guns Direct handled this; that is not the case at all. I'm not making that argument. However, I am being realistic, and have a good bet the DOJ will also adopt that perspective of avoidance and ceasing a relationship gone sour no matter which side is to blame - and allow it unconditionally.


Any one would be upset if they spent gas and time to drive to an FFL AFTER MAKING AN APPOINTMENT to do a PPT then getting blown off and mistreated. The customer didnt act hostile and if that store has cameras, the OP could use the footage as evidence to prove that. The OP could have driven hours to meet the guy at this FFL out of all others and to be treated poorly, any normal person would be unhappy. In fact the OP did the right thing by leaving a review rather then getting hostile in the store.

I agree; he has every reason to be upset. And with being upset, the dignity has dissolved post by post. He has expressed in an equal manner that he is upset, even angry, in writing that indicates a beef that is seemingly no longer civil, and unintentionally gave Guns Direct a written record of a reason in which to point that cancelling the DROS was justified, and explaining to the DOJ they felt their actions were warranted.

The O/P's further enhanced and devolving retorts over it here on Calguns have edged even further into the realm of crudity and crass, which help to frame an argument posing he could be a problem if he returned to the store, if taken solely at their face-value, and if you have no more idea about him than these posts. (Sorry O/P, nothing against you, but I don't know you; so if I only knew you from your posts here on Calguns, I would tend to error on the side of caution and find it easier to avoid you than engage.


Yes he should have waited for the firearm to be picked up, but the FFl is obligated to fulfil the transaction, the dros should not have been cancelled unless the buyer was prohibited from owning a firearm, the firearm itself was illegal or there was an error made in the paperwork, but to just cancel it because of a negative interaction is going to far and is an over reach by the business - (nope, not really) - this transaction cost both parties money and gas and time, which would be considered damages. The other party who now has to pay more money to get the gun back, has to lose more money and spend More gas and if he is an honest guy, probably give the seller his money back, he also has real damages he could claim.

OK, so then he should pursue it in small claims court; I agree, but he won't find a "jury" there.

Yet don't be surprised if again, the court favors the caution of the gun dealer, due to sensitive nature of the business, an agrees that Guns Direct canceling the DROS was justified protocol in the interest of all parties, the idea of keeping the peace by ceasing the connection entirely. At most, the dealer should return his $35 for the cancelled DROS, and return the cost the seller had to pay to DROS his gun back, if any.


They both should definately file a complain with the DOJ and even BBB.

Yeah.... and about as much will result from reporting it to DOJ as did the 'BBB'. That's going to get a whole lot of....

And if there is any possibility of the seller having sold more than 6 handguns so far this year, he would want to be careful to just with whom he puts a spotlight on this issue.

This business hurts the firearms community as a whole, they are making it harder for customers to legally transfer firearms to each other which is already a difficult process.

Sort of, but not really. I've done PPT's at Guns Direct without any trouble whatsoever, and without an appointment. And as this story gets out, inevitably it won't hurt the "firearms community" - if anything, it will strengthen the resolve, reinforce what good service is important even for doing PPTs, and the example will serve as a lesson of what tactic gun stores should avoid. It may even serve well in ways that causes Guns Direct to change their tune too and improve their attitude about doing PPTs.

You dont like PPTs, dont own a firearms business, you made that choice to do so in CA, you have to follow the appropriate laws.

To this I agree; it's true, the law says that FFL's must perform PPTs; however, the law does not mandate they must do so under a situation where they feel they are threatened or a such a service-based relationship could escalate to dire consequences. They are in their right to cancel and tell you to go somewhere else to do the PPT because of the right to refuse service to anyone, active 4473/DROS or not. The DROS, that relationship is not over until the buyer has picked up the gun and left the store.

That service may still be refused at any time, and if they felt a heated situation was being cultivated, warranting their right to refuse service, I highly suspect the DOJ will side with them on that point.

You might not like it, the O/P surely doesn't like it, I bet I wouldn't like it, but none of that matters. As I previously said, it wasn't cool, but they are slaves.

They can quit the relationship and refuse service for any reason, at any time. And since they can't transfer the DROS service to another dealer, their only option is to cancel it.

It's not a good situation, no, but their right to refuse service to keep the peace is paramount, and shall not be infringed.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?

Last edited by The Gleam; 07-20-2019 at 1:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 07-20-2019, 1:21 AM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,864
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgindy25 View Post
And turning away ppts is a stupid thing for any ffl business, because they not only mistreat those customers, but they also turn away two potential customers who may have also purchased merchandise or firearms at that business either then or later, or even telling others in the community about them driving business to them, instead these idiots did the opposite.
I agree 100%, and have stated this ever since the law took hold in year 2000, even when shortly thereafter I often had to carry the language of SB-15 and the law that came out of it, with Bill Lockyer's legal opinion and "bulletin" to gun dealers, to show dealers they were required to perform PPTs, and not allowed to charge more than the $35.00, that it wasn't limited to the one-per-month anti-gun agenda, and other technicalities.

Some 5 years went on thereafter of blatant abuse until Calguns really grew some legs and people were sharing their stories here of dealers trying to game gun owners.

So it's good that the O/P shared his story here, I agree with that too. However, as to what came of it with them cancelling the active DROS and what DOJ might do? Don't expect much. Their right to refuse service will likely stand.

I also agree how dumb it is to lambaste those seeking PPTs; here it is, you sell guns, ammo, and guns accessories, and have one guy in your store that just came into a lot of money, and another guy that just bought a gun.

One has money to spend, another has a new toy for which he will need accessories and ammo, and there they are, ripe consumers in the moment.

Any gun store that can't sell in that situation to BOTH of those guys should get out of the retail business entirely. Any gun store that would turn away such prospects should have their heads examined... by their lenders.

All this said, will I have reservations about doing a PPT at Guns Direct in the future? Maybe not as much as others, but more so than before that I might just reconsider somewhere else before Guns Direct.

All this aside, the story does have impact, and they should have thought about that before taking the track of cancelling his DROS.

That is a much more worse result for them than anything from the DOJ they might see, as I really don't expect them to see any consequences from that faction. Less traffic to their store is much more dastardly outcome.

It'll be a whiff from the DOJ, but a hard-wack from disillusioned customers.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?

Last edited by The Gleam; 07-20-2019 at 1:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 07-20-2019, 5:31 AM
foothillman's Avatar
foothillman foothillman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 208
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gleam View Post

I also agree how dumb it is to lambaste those seeking PPTs; here it is, you sell guns, ammo, and guns accessories, and have one guy in your store that just came into a lot of money, and another guy that just bought a gun.

One has money to spend, another has a new toy for which he will need accessories and ammo, and there they are, ripe consumers in the moment.

Any gun store that can't sell in that situation to BOTH of those guys should get out of the retail business entirely. Any gun store that would turn away such prospects should have their heads examined... by their lenders.
^^^^^ Did a PPT. as a buyer. The seller had the cash and was walking around LGS and noticed a CZ he had been "thinking" about. Well that cash was burning a hole in his pocket. Before the PPT paperwork was finished the LGS was selling him a CZ.

Why advertise? To get you into the store
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 07-20-2019, 2:50 PM
mikeinla mikeinla is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles(N. Hollywood)
Posts: 2,676
iTrader: 174 / 100%
Default

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:47 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.