FML: My LGS Supports Antifa

[GimpsUnlimited]

Good job, OP. I would have done the same. And yes, I knew of those two organizations from youtube videos, showing them providing armed "security" for their ANTIFA brethren at various "protests".

[sethrus]

Why yelp? Use their Facebook page

Sent from my SM-T377V using Tapatalk

They can delete that. And, block you.

However, I don't think Yelp is that big of a statement either.

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

[colossians323]

Why do they have a rainbow "flag" up?
Are they white supremacists?

Christians . You know, Gods promise!

[colossians323]

It is possible to disagree without name calling.

This isn't the OT?

[colossians323]

Am I the only person that does not look at Yelp prior to going to a gun store? Maybe I'm just old, but I still go by word of mouth by folks I know. I can see looking at Yelp when I'm going to eat somewhere. I would have talked to the owner/manager and then if they blew me off maybe then Yelp it.
I understand there is nothing "owed" to the store, however, I believe to voice my disapproval in person. That way there is a face to the problem and it is up to them to better their business.

Again, that is just me.

yelp is filled with a bunch of whiners. Love the southpark yelp episodes

[colossians323]

why not? they'll redo your fries.

In a Christian style rainbow container only for the month of June

[Tonyson]

I am going to call the store tomorrow and see what they say.

please give us an update.

[readysetgo]

These guys are already "do not patronize" in my book.

You guys don't remember when they threatened to report a customer to DOJ?!

Same place, right?

Here you go:

Abraham,

THANK YOU for making this post and bringing this situation to my attention.

First, I will be the first to admit, YES..WE TEND TO BE VERY CONSERVATIVE ON GUN REGS AND LAWS. We understand this is not popular with a few people, but when it comes to our FFL, we tend to be a little protective.

I wanted to make sure we did not sell the firearm in question as it seemed to be reflected in your post, because YES, it is our understanding that this particular firearm in order to be CA legal must in fact have a bullet button as well as set up as a single shot only. However, to make sure we are not in error, we have forwarded this post with your information & firearm information to DOJ, and am awaiting their response. Once I get their written response, I will gladly post it here as well.

YES, I will agree...there should have been pre-inspection of your firearm. (FYI...now will more than likely be a firearm inspection prior to entering the range). We ASSUMED that the TWO signs (one on the counter and one just before entering the range stating: NO (in 4 inch red letters) PISTOL STYLE AR OR AK-47 RIFLES ALLOWED IN RANGE would suffice but obviousley as noted in your post, we were wrong and as a result will be changing our policy.

YES, I will agree and as I stated before, it is our policy to tend to be conservative at times when interpretting the constantly changing gun laws. I will speak with the staff to insure they represent this correctly when discussing these situations with our customers. There could very well be times when in FACT OUR POLICY MIGHT EXCEED ATCUAL GUN LAWS...but when it comes to safety and the fact it is our licensing at risk...WE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSERVATIVE when setting range policies!

To the person whom stated there were the range master whom kicked Abraham off of the range, we have no idea whom you are. We would appreciate it if you did not represent yourself as an employee of our company....THANK YOU!!

PLEASE...we understand...we are not perfect but are working very hard to insure everyone has a safe & fun environment to shoot....while trying to enforce the rules we have established. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS...FEEL FREE TO DROP ME A MESSAGE!! If I can help or improve on anything....I will gladly listen!!

THANKS AGAIN!!!!






a

[readysetgo]

Yeah, I checked, they have the two locations, so my post above is accurate to them.

So, it's probably good you walked out. They'll send all your information to big daddy gov to try and burn you in retaliation.

[njineermike]

These guys are already "do not patronize" in my book.

You guys don't remember when they threatened to report a customer to DOJ?!

Same place, right?

Here you go:

Holy crap. I didn't realize it was those assclowns.

To the OP, you have my full and humblest apologies. That is one place your actions were 100% warranted. I owe you whatever you drink and, several rounds of it at that.

[Tasty]

These guys are already "do not patronize" in my book.

You guys don't remember when they threatened to report a customer to DOJ?!

Same place, right?

Here you go:

This is calguns. People's memories here can be short. I'm always amazed every time I drive by either location that GFOS did well enough to open a 2nd store.

[MrOrange]

These guys are already "do not patronize" in my book.

You guys don't remember when they threatened to report a customer to DOJ?!

Same place, right?

Here you go:

That doesn't read like they threatened, it reads they already have. If you're out in the world, you should know whatever you say/do/possess is potentially gonna get reported to the overlords, if not photographed/recorded, put on display, and circulated for one and all. If whatever the CGer was doing was legal, then he shouldn't have a problem with it being reported. If one chooses to do something illegal, then you make your choices and you live with the consequences.

[HectorEscaton]

Sounds like somebody got triggered...

[readysetgo]

If whatever the CGer was doing was legal, then he shouldn't have a problem with it being reported.

Do you routinely call the police on your paying customers?

Guessing you didn't read the thread. The way you contextualize that is a little off IMO. I didn't claim any right to privacy, that wasn't the issue.

[MrOrange]

Do you routinely call the police on your paying customers?

Guessing you didn't read the thread. The way you contextualize that is a little off IMO. I didn't claim any right to privacy, that wasn't the issue.

If you had read the thread, you'd see that I read the thread.

And no, I don't call the police on anybody that's not doing anything illegal, because it wouldn't matter, good or bad. That's the issue.

The quoted post shows GFOS asking the DOJ for a clarification, rather than reporting a non-crime. The fact that they included the customer's info is moot, unless you were under the impression that the DOJ was unable to access that info otherwise.