Skip to comments.Store refused gun sale because of name, race, Charlotte couple says(NC)
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."
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 ...
Yep, and that’s not a mistake either.
But we did hear that audio tape Francine Miller says she recorded in the store. .............................. Sounds like a set up went bad?
Not enough facts in excerpt but salesperson did do something wrong - offering the .22 as appropriate for the coyote. Not really something an ethical person would do from a hunter’s perspective.
Why would the salesman work with them for 40 minutes if he wasn’t going to sell them a gun only based on their race? An obvious questions that the libtard reporter doesn’t bother to ask.
I watched one of ‘Holders people’ do the shopping for a firearm in my local gunstore....and then make his ho buy it because he was a convicted felon....
I did not stay in the store long enough to find out if the salesman made the sale or not...
I would NOT have made that sale....
I'm sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Holder, but I just don't feel safe selling you a gun.
Why would these people be recording their conversation?
Were they looking to cause an incident?
Normally, how many people RECORD conversations in stores? How many would call the media and cry racism? Something smells here and it’s not coyote poop.
Agree with the store clerk’s decision in this case. If it ever gets out, I’m sure there will be some inappropriate comments on the tape that justify the clerk’s action. Given the level of perceived (thanks to our out-of-control legal system) liability associated with the sale of a firearm, erring on the side of caution is the right thing to do.
You don’t buy a 22 rifle to shoot coyotes in your back yard. You could end up shooting your neighbor. A shotgun would be the appropriate tool. They were either lying or they were idiots.
I suspect that since they recorded the transaction they were shopping for a lawsuit.
it is not up to the salesman to steer the sale when the buyer has a fixed dollar amount or wants a particular gun for whatever reason.
I have walked out of gun stores when I told the salesman I want a ‘Ruger such and such’ and he asked me...’well why the hell would you want to buy a ‘Ruger such and such’ when we have these ‘Taurus such and suchs’ cheaper and are better guns?...'
I walked into the store around the corner and got the gun I asked for in the first place....seeing as how I was not asking the salesman's opinion but buying a specific firearm....I find there are a considerable % of gun sales personnel who are obnoxious and overly opinionated, like that.....
Based on the story - the store messed up. I’m disappointed at the rationalizations on this thread. And refusing service to anyone for any reason? That issue has long since been settled. My dad lost his job as manager of the Houston bus terminal because he integrated the building and the restaurant in it in the late 50s.
It sounds as if they spent 40 minutes and then ended with a statement that made it clear (even if unintentionally) that they were purshasing the rifle for someone else.
The “silly grin” sounds like an employee who is pretty sure he is the the subject of a heavy handed ATF sting.
“And refusing service to anyone for any reason? That issue has long since been settled.”
As I stated, gun stores can get in a lot of trouble for *not* refusing service. People have been jailed and lost their livelihood.
“In contrast, a family in New Mexico has languished in jail for almost six months. They have been denied bail, their assets have been seized, and threatened with civil forfeiture. They have yet to be convicted of anything.”
I am a gunsmith, FFL holder and gunstore owner. The store did EXACTLY what the BATFE instructs us to do. In any case that there is ANY doubt or the slightest possibility that it is a straw purchase then we are to err on the side of caution and NOT complete the sale. Period.
Your opinion is exactly that, and uninformed.
That issue was set down in 1776, but clearly not settled.
Per this couple, having an FFL obligates the holder (or agent thereof) to prohibit straw purchases. Anything this couple said to indicate that it was a straw purchase (even wife buying for husband) would have put the seller in legal jeopardy, if they completed the sale. Spousel straw purchases are tricky, as a spouse (or any person) can purcase a firearm as a present, so there must be an indication of circumventing a background check, such as, "Hey, we need to put this through on my wife's name, if you know what I mean."
Maybe the address that was given could not possibly have coyotes in the back yard. He may bave determined the couple was being deceitful and so he terminated the sell.
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.