Posted on 02/26/2012 5:56:52 AM PST by marktwain
CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV) - A Charlotte couple says Dick's Sporting Goods refused to sell them a gun because of their last name and race.
Bernard and Francine Miller tell us they went to the store on W. T. Harris Boulevard looking for a rifle because they spotted a coyote in their yard.
After forty minutes of shopping and working with the sales agent, they settled on the one that fit their price range. A 22-rifle that cost just over $200.
Bernard was then asked to fill out paperwork. But the couple says after filling out the paperwork, a salesperson refused to sell them the rifle.
"I get ready to hand him the papers back, that's when he come out with a silly grin on his face talking about how he couldn't sell me the rif... how HE wasn't going to sell me the rifle," Miller told WTBV. "HE MADE the decision! He said HE MADE the decision not to sell me a rifle."
-----------------------cut----------------------
We asked the company for a response to this story but they had no comment. But we did hear that audio tape Francine Miller says she recorded in the store.
In it, the manager said this wasn't a prejudiced act, rather, that it's a federal offense to sell someone a gun which they believe is intended for someone else.
(Excerpt) Read more at wbtv.com ...
Millions of Mexicans are safer because of your decision! Thank you!
This is the first time that I’ve seen the media upset because someone COULDN’T buy a gun.
where i live, if you need a gun, just start a rumor and youll get one...theyll come to you if youve got the cash
Right, I carry a tape recorder everywhere I go.....just in case.
Recording the sale alone smells setup and the clerk probably checked the residence and found it to be a high rise or a parking lot.
The clerk did the right thing.
And refusing service to anyone for any reason? That issue has long since been settled.”
It isn’t settled. The law requires you to refuse service in various cases. Moreover, no one has a legitimate right to receive service, whether its you, me, or one of Holder’s people.
Probably the most falsely named law in a country known for laws with false names.
Or maybe the name originally included “Infringement and destruction of”, but due to typo or space limitations that part got deleted.
The civil rights act has been a creeping disaster ever since it was implemented. Its done nothing but allow an ever growing list of group rights to overrun the rights of the individual.
Probably the single biggest hammer in the socialist toolbox.
We own a retail store and I can and have refused to sell to people and I'm sure I will again.
Just last week I had some one try and play us against another dealer on pricing. I called the other dealer on the phone confirmed the person was lying and refused to sell to them even though they wanted the original deal. I've already caught them in a lie and I'll be damned if I will sell them anything.
I have to warranty what what I sell.
My store, my stuff, I'll sell or refuse to sell to who ever I want.
How many decades ago was that?
Regarding the couple making a recording:
Small digital recorders are relatively inexpensive (not to mention that many cellphones have a recording capability).
I’ve read comments on other forums from people who carry them and leave them on all day, erasing them as needed. They do so because they want a recording of events to prove their side in the event of a confrontation with a robber, the police or some trouble maker claiming sexual harassment, discrimination, etc.
Some people carry them and only turn them on as they think necessary for the purposes noted above.
Some carry them to take verbal notes and so forth and might turn them on for the purposes noted above.
Some don’t carry them and wish they had a recording of certain events.
As reported in the story, that the couple in question had a recording of the events doesn’t say much except that we should all be aware that the “other person” might be recording our interaction. And maybe that we should get a digital recorder ourselves.
Did anyone consider the fact that both of the stores likely have security cameras and the salesman in the second store was able to view the tape from the first store?
That denied sale tape, and the flagged name used, showed that it was in fact the same person?
The article says they were there for 40 min., plenty of time to check the tape and list of flagged names.
This doesn't pass the smell test and who the hell records themselves buying something? Try that in Ca. and you will quickly find out it's illegal if you don't notify the other person, unless you're a dem.
While I'm here, $200 for a .22? Really, these people were haggling over a $200 purchase? I've seen people this cheap before when I worked retail, they're the reason restocking fees were invented.
CORRECT
Jup, that’s the point. They don’T have to provide any reason to refuse to sell something, why should they?
I don’t understand the point though, what’s that about the name ? Couldn’T he just show his ID, or doesn’T he have to do so anyways? ( I obviously never have bought a gun up to this point)
“My store, my stuff, I’ll sell or refuse to sell to who ever I want.”
If you refuse to sell something to a homo or based on race, you WILL be in deep trouble, and may lose your business. The protected categories have expanded, but you haven’t had the right to refuse business for many years now.
Based on the story - the store messed up.
You really don’t understand strawman gun purchases and liability. I don’t give a rats patoot what your dad did in the 50’s
See #54
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.