Mungo
Regular Member
imported post
So, for whatever reason, I was going through the forms a local dealer has for you to fill out when purchasing a firearm. One of the forms, from the "Professional Gun Retailers Association" actually states:
"In my words to the retailer, in my dress, manner, actions and general appearance, there is nothing for a reasonable person to think I am NOT qualified to make a firearms purchase."
This was actually one of the bullet points a firearms purchaser has to check off and then sign the form.
I'm not one to be easily offended - but this phrase actually put me off a bit. The salesman joked, "Yeah, I don't get paid a commission, so I don't want to have it on my conscious if someone goes out and kills someone."
A couple of things hit me. In ANY other arena, other than firearms purchase, the decision to do something or not do something based on someone's appearance is prejudice and in a lot of cases ILLEGAL. So why is it legal when purchasing a firearm?
I recently read in a 2nd Amendment magazine that likened legislation that requires one to pass a written test to purchase a firearm to the old literacy tests for voting. Each civil right is equally important - none being more important than the other. So, how is it a store clerk, who has no psychological background or experience, can determine if I am qualified to buy a firearm BY MY APPEARANCE ALONE?
So, I wonder if this salesperson's conscious would be equally weighed down if he denied the sale of a firearm to someone based on their appearance and they subsequently left the store and was killed by a person with malicious intent? He effectively has the authority to determine if someone has the right to defend themselves.
Forget what the new administration may do to gun ownership. Joe Blow behind the counter has just as much authority to deny a sale.
Granted - you can go to another firearms dealer, but firearms dealers aren't like gas stations or drug stores. Going to another dealership may be a hardship on someone - especially if they don't have the means to dress in a certain manner or other wise look the part.
To me this is outrageous. It's one thing to have this as an "unwritten policy" but to blatantly come out and have it in writing?
So, for whatever reason, I was going through the forms a local dealer has for you to fill out when purchasing a firearm. One of the forms, from the "Professional Gun Retailers Association" actually states:
"In my words to the retailer, in my dress, manner, actions and general appearance, there is nothing for a reasonable person to think I am NOT qualified to make a firearms purchase."
This was actually one of the bullet points a firearms purchaser has to check off and then sign the form.
I'm not one to be easily offended - but this phrase actually put me off a bit. The salesman joked, "Yeah, I don't get paid a commission, so I don't want to have it on my conscious if someone goes out and kills someone."
A couple of things hit me. In ANY other arena, other than firearms purchase, the decision to do something or not do something based on someone's appearance is prejudice and in a lot of cases ILLEGAL. So why is it legal when purchasing a firearm?
I recently read in a 2nd Amendment magazine that likened legislation that requires one to pass a written test to purchase a firearm to the old literacy tests for voting. Each civil right is equally important - none being more important than the other. So, how is it a store clerk, who has no psychological background or experience, can determine if I am qualified to buy a firearm BY MY APPEARANCE ALONE?
So, I wonder if this salesperson's conscious would be equally weighed down if he denied the sale of a firearm to someone based on their appearance and they subsequently left the store and was killed by a person with malicious intent? He effectively has the authority to determine if someone has the right to defend themselves.
Forget what the new administration may do to gun ownership. Joe Blow behind the counter has just as much authority to deny a sale.
Granted - you can go to another firearms dealer, but firearms dealers aren't like gas stations or drug stores. Going to another dealership may be a hardship on someone - especially if they don't have the means to dress in a certain manner or other wise look the part.
To me this is outrageous. It's one thing to have this as an "unwritten policy" but to blatantly come out and have it in writing?
