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.
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.
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.
Since Fast & Furious, Gunwalker and such criminal conspiracies by Holder, word has likely spread about the deceit used by ATF and sales personnel won't even trust an ATF OK as it might be a Gunwalker sale and ATF will lie about giving the OK to the gun shop to cover their own criminal acts.
Sending ringers technically over the line for a straw purchase to complain and sue when refused, intimidates the salesperson to risk a questionable sale in the future.
The sales person is stung for complying with the letter of the law.
It sounds like Dicks (heavily corporate) was being paranoid about a straw purchaser which is a big deal. The question I have is was this other Miller at the same address? If so, I'd deny the sale. If not, I would have sold it if he passed NICS. Miller is a common last name, so it's hard to tell based on that alone. I'm wondering what the address is of that other Miller they want to avoid.
a) He was clearly within his right.
b) Since your federal government prefers that black men don't have guns at all(and I don't care who's in the white house or attorney general), especially since they may be the first to 'go off' in a um... non-pro-government manner when more and more people start to realize we're living under a criminal regime. I think they'll just give this gun dealer a pass.
Point is, if your resident media morons think they see racism, it's a story - the truth be damned.