Moral Obligations of an FFL

[Rob Pincus]

This is related to the current discussion in "too sensitive" thread, but I thought I'd give it a home of its own.

I hard a at time heated discussion with a fellow LEO at the department the other day.

Here's the circumstances:

Two drug dealers were arrested with body armor and a receipt for that body armor from a local dealer.

One of us is of the opion that gun dealers (or anyone else selling BA) have a moral obligation to "check out" who is going to have BA and why they want it. Since this FFL did not do taht, he should be boycotted by all LEO personnel ( a large portion of his business, BTW)

The other side of the argument is that there is no law governing the sale of BA (yet) and the dealer may not have sold the BA directly to those individuals (who looked like typical drug dealers).


What do you guys think? Does an FFL or police supply shop have a moral obligation to screen their customers and restict sales beyond the scope of the law?

Before you answer, please consdier this:

If you say "Yes, he does" then you are opening your mind up to the idea that YOU may also be refused the opportunity to purchase ammo or BA at some point, becuase of what you are wearing, how your hair is cut, or what tattoos are showing. "Jim Crow Sales Policy"

If you say "No, he does not", then you are taking the position that a known felon can walk out of a shop with a bag full of rifle/pistol ammo and a Level III vest.

"Middle ground" answers will undoubtedly be plentiful, so let's hear from some people who are not on the fence.

Also, note that we are not discussing the right of a business man to sell his product to whoever he wants, we are talking about an obligation to society.

Personally, I saw that he does not.

------------------
-Essayons

 

[DC]

Definately not a fence sitter:

No, unequivocally. There are laws and regulations and restrictions governing the sale and possession of weapons (means to inflict harm) and now you wish to restrict the right of passive self-defense as well???!!
Therefore, you are saying that only LEO and other "qualified people" can have the means of passive self-defense.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

[Rob Pincus]

Me?

No... I say that he does not have a moral obligation to restrict sales.



[This message has been edited by Rob (edited February 28, 1999).]

 

[Morgan]

No, he does not. It's a freedom thing.

As on off-topic rant, it's The War Against Drugs that caused this situation, and are causing some LEOs to desire MORE restrictions on OUR rights. Hey, if only LEOs can get body armor, why not handguns? Why not long guns?

We cannot allow a blurry line here, or it WILL keep moving.

 

[DC]

sorry (I thought you meant he doesn't have the right to sell to anybody he wants to...last paragraph)

The thought that crossed my mind was of convenience and liquor store workers late at night. These people need body armor, half of them get killed for the hell of it.

This continuing polarization of "us" vs "them" is destroying us. Recall we had the thread of the change in attitudes between older LEO and younger LEO. If the powers that be continue to create and establish an elite separate class, they will have to maintain it with blood.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited February 28, 1999).]

 

[Jim V]

I am a retired LEO, on a medical retirement, and many of the guys I worked with could not wait to get out after seeing the new officers that were being hired. No common sense, no concern for the tax payer, no respect for the older officers and no desire to learn any of those things.

I do not think gun shop owners should be to judgemental about who buys body armor. I would hate to think that if I wanted to buy new armor I would be turned down because I have a beard and wear jeans most of the time. The dealer can not tell what a person does by his/her dress, hair length or skin color. I think that a gun shop owner that refused to sell any legal product to a person due to his/her appearance should be expecting some type of civil rights complaint to be filed.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum



[This message has been edited by Jim V (edited February 28, 1999).]

 

[Rich Lucibella]

One more vote for the scruffy citizen's right to buy body armor. i know a *lot* of you out there are LEO. I didn't choose the profession and I don't expect any of you to take a bullet for me at your pay rate. I'll do anything to support you guys short of giving Uncle Sam a blank check on individual rights.

In short, I can't continue to bargain away this nation's founding principle of the right of the individual to live unfettered from govt interference, in the name of safe streets for cops. To me, the answer is for LEO's to recognize that the armed citizen is the best deterrent to violent crimes committed against cop and citizen alike.

I'm sorry, but there it is.
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited February 28, 1999).]

 

[GMike]

I believe citizens should have the same protection avaliable to them as L.E.O.

 

[Daren Thompson]

I share the feeling that body armor should be sold to every body. Body armor is not an offensive weapon. If I was a gun dealer I would not feel guilty about selling body armor to anyone. I do feel that most people who would buy it do so without plans of doing wrong.
Later
Daren

 

[Phil Degraves]

No he does not. Especially since most "bad guys" don't buy any of this stuff through legal means or at least regular retail means anyway. Why would you prevent the law abiding citizen who is not a LEO the ability to protect himself?

 

[Rob Pincus]

Good, lots of people who understand the importance of avoiding the "Jim Crow" scenario.

But....

Phil,

We are not necessarily talking about "law abiding citizens"... we are talking about citizens in general. There are no legal restrictions on body armor.

 

[Ed Brunner]

I would have to favor unrestricted sale until things change.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed

 

[ATM]

No he does not have an obligation. One, that would imply he is responsible for the criminal acts which maybe perpetrated by the buyer, not true. Two, the law abiding citizen has as much right to use passive protection as an LEO, and in this case how do you tell the lawabiding citizen from the criminal? Profiling? I thought that was no longer able to be used by LEO's (in particular for traffic stops), so why should service be refused based on it?

------------------
Freedom is not Free

 

[Jim V]

One more thought, I think New Jersey had defiend concealable body armor as a firearm. Of course NJ is the state where even off duty cops can not, I say again, CAN NOT, carry hollow point ammo. Hollow point pistol ammo possession is a felony. May their legislature rot in hell.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum

 

[Rob Pincus]

New Jersey gun law is a pet project of mine, as I grew up there and still visit often. There is a lawyer who has written the definitive work on NJ gun law and I credit that book with the providing the following info:
______________________
According to N.J.S. 2C:39-13. it is crime to wear or use body armor in the commission of a crime.

A "law-abiding" citizen in New Jersey may own and wear body armor, as long as they remain law abiding.
______________________

This is one of those "tack-on" crimes. It is deisgned not so much to limit body armor, but to add to the sentance of a criminal who uses it.

Normally, NJ is among the most restrictive, and they would be likely to be the first state to ban BA for civilians, but they haven't yet.


New Jersey is also unique in that most Police Department policies madate that officers carry all the time. Yes, all the time. Bars, beaches, etc.... Some policies may have been changed in the last decade or so, but all the LEOs I know there still wear a gun in and out of the local pubs, for better or worse.

------------------
-Essayons

 

[Michael Carlin]

If there is no legal restriction to the sale of SBA to citizens then he has no legal obligation not too sell. If he decides on his own from external appearances, how does he know he is not turning down a legitimate sale.

Or a sale that would save a life, even the criminals. Lets say the dealer has other dealers on his case.

I am sorry, but I do not feel he has any basis for refusing to sell. Legally he may even be open to a suit himself if he refused to sell SBA to a "qualified" buyer.

LEO desires and the rights of citizenry are sometimes not entirely congruent. In those cases lets us err on the side of freedom!

------------------
Ni ellegimit carborundum esse!

Yours In Marksmanship
http://www.1bigred.com/distinguished

michael



[This message has been edited by Michael Carlin (edited February 28, 1999).]

 

[Grayfox]

I agree that the dealer has every right to sell any legal item to any customer. The situation Rob described falls into one of those gray areas that the antis love to find. How much do you want to bet that sooner or later the antis will start a hard campain against civillian onwership of body armor because only bad guys would need it? Once again they will be creating the un-needing civillian vs privledged LEO scenario that only serves to divide our forces.

 

[thaddeus]

Freedom means that the store owner can also sell to whomever he likes. "We retain the right to refuse service to anyone.....". If the buyer doesn't like it, he can go to the competition.

For instance, my friend wants to buy a handgun from me after his wife tried to kill him. I refuse to sell it to him, as he is still with her, and they are seeking no counseling. I don't want to live with the fact that my friend died from a handgun I sold him.
Gun dealers are no different on a larger scale. If I were a dealer, you bet I would govern who I sell to, within reason. If I had reasonable doubt as to the intentions of the buyer, I would not sell any item to them. I believe it to be a moral obligation and the only way I could sleep at night. Let the questionable folk buy from some other unscrupulous person and let it rest on their shoulders.
This only counts if I feel truly that the person I am selling to is a BG or I KNOW that they are a BG. After several years of weeding out BG's I can smell them a mile away. If you don't know what I am talking about, be careful before you chastise me. Once you have dealt with enough, you can see the signs as plain as day. Like when I was in the gun store and some obvious gangstas wanted to buy ammo for their "nine-gun". I wouldn't have sold it to them either...and I believe that if it is MY shop, I have the right to sell to whomever I like. As I said, capitalism has a nice failsafe in that area, in that if I get snooty and turn away too many people, then my competition flourishes and I go under!

(donning my flameproof suit),
thaddeus

 

[thaddeus]

I wanted to elaborate a little more on where I am coming from. As a bouncer and doorman of several years, it is my JOB to weed out the troublemakers, and I must say, I am pretty darn good at it.
At the door, I have the right to turn away anyone that I feel I need to. This is not an elitist thing, it is my JOB to keep the peace and keep our liquor license.
If something doesn't look right on a person's license, the signature or the picture, _I_ make the call and I have the final word...no "if's and's or but's".
Like I said though, if I throw off attitude or turn away too many people, the capitalism fixes that and my club goes under. It is my call to #1 make sure that everyone that gets in is legit and 21 years of age.
#2 my job it to get troublemakers out or not let them in. If someone gives me lip at the door and I feel that they are going to be further trouble later, they don't go in, period. There are too many people out for a good time for me to let one troublemaker make our club look uninviting. Once again, this is not an elitist thing, it is my JOB to keep the peace. Show me that you have a chip on your shoulder at the door, male or female, and you don't get in.
#3 my job inside is to SPOT the troublemaker and either "escort" him out before he makes life unpleasant for the nice guests, or I am to be on him immediatly when he strikes so that he doesn't have time to do damage. This means sometimes tailing people around the club that I spot as a troublemaker. Elitist? I don't know, and I don't care. I am good at my job and I am right %99.9 of the time. For the few times that I am wrong? Well, sorry, someone is inconvenienced or insulted, but it is far outweighed the rest of the time that I am right and I prevent trouble.
The idea is to weed out most troublemakers, and know that the very few times you are wrong is outweighed by the many times you are right and prevent the injury of innocents. No one is right all the time, but if you are even right most of the time, you are preventing much more damage than you are causing.

just so you understand where I am coming from,
thaddeus

Ps- and BTW, I am a BioChemistry major at UCSD, so bouncing is not my carreer choice, just a job (that I kinda like).

 

[thaddeus]

Oh yeah, and I AM one of those tattooed, goateed, body pierced freaks. So, if someone refused to sell to me on that premise, I respect his right to run his business how he likes.

thaddeus