Skip to comments.Obama Supporters Banned From Arizona Gun Shop
Posted on 11/19/2012 9:25:43 AM PST by yoe
It was reported over the weekend that the owner of a gun store in Arizona is telling Pres. Obamas supporters he doesnt want their business.
Cope Reynolds, the owner of Southwest Shooting Authority, a gun store located in Pinetop, Arizona, took out a full page ad in a local newspaper that read: If you voted for Barack Obama your business is not welcome.
The New York Daily News reports that Mr. Reynolds also posted a sign on the stores front door:
If you voted for Obama, please turn around and leave! You have proven you are not responsible enough to own a firearm.
It is not known how Reynolds will identify Obama supporters and it doesnt seem likely that one would admit to having voted to reelect the president if they wish to purchase a gun at his store.
Sounds like polite advice rather than a ban. The owner would not refuse a sale. Just trying to make a point and ridicule a potential Democrat gun buyer.
Exactly. It is just a statement of protest.
My guess is that this move will result in bumper business for him. I’d certainly go if I were within a hundred miles of his locality.
Hard to imagine someone who DID vote for Barry being interested in legitimately buying a weapon. I doubt they could pass the background check.
I bet all of Holder's people buy their guns on the street corners and in the back alleys...
In an earlier article about this shop the owner said that if a potential customer did admit to voting for Obama they were asked to leave.
I hope this guy doesn’t get sued.
I’ve seen a significant plurality of Obama supporter looking people at gun shows the past few years. That spike in gun sales is not all on one side.
Well, let’s just hope he’s more with the “asking” to leave than ordering. I’d hate to see him get buggered by Holder’s People in the DOJ...
I wouldn’t trumpet that too loudly, lest you gain the unwanted attention of the ATF, DHS, or DOJ. I’d hate for this guy to lose his FFL.
Why would he get sued?
Imagine that. I don't want their business, either
Apologize in advance for the other website content - I haven't updated it for the last four years. Big changes coming over the holidays - new and different tech and services.
“Why would he get sued?”
Here is a hint:
Is there one of these posters in his establishment?
Do you think that changes the liability?
Look, how many corporations have expressed support for gay marriage? That is just a way of telling the normal Americans you don’t want their business, right?
You do not have to sell to everyone who walks in your store.....unless they’re an illegal, a muzzie, gay or black.
Well I was messing with you, giving you a hard time for advising a business owner to be a wimp and just shut up, go along, to get along. That is the net result of your advice by the way.
BUT - I don’t think this stupid sign, that does not even appear to be official government signage, changes the Constitution. There are pockets in this country where businesses have lost the ablity to refuse service, but such is not the law of the land. Businesses, by and large, do reserve the right to refuse service. If we capitulate on that, we will certainly lose it totally one day however.
Anyone can be sued for anything at any time. If you live in fear of that, you are a sheep.
Yes, by all means, let’s all shut the hell up so we don’t offend any bureaucrats.
“You do not have to sell to everyone who walks in your store.....unless theyre an illegal, a muzzie, gay or black.”
Right. And the guy is not going to sell to Obama voters, so...
“Anyone can be sued for anything at any time. If you live in fear of that, you are a sheep”
And if you shove your hand into a grinder you are a fool.
I don’t know what the store owner’s profits are, or what the particular burdens are to sell guns, and whether that ability is a ‘right’ or a ‘privilege’, but law suits are expensive things, and administrative law is a tyrannical thing, and this guy is courting the loss of his business from a couple of angles.
As for ‘wimp’, ‘fear’ and so on, the Celts thought that body armor was an indicator of cowardice. Romans did not. The results which followed demonstrated some doctrinal deficiencies on the part of the Gauls. I am with Patton. The point of the exercise is to make the other son of a bitch die for his country, not throw oneself on a theatrical sword.
According to the Civil Rights Center of the Dept of Labor, your sign is only applicable to the following:
"CRC is committed to providing its customers with clear and easy-to-access information on how to comply with federal equal opportunity and nondiscrimination laws and regulations that (1) prohibit discrimination in DOL funded programs and activities, and (2) prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by certain public entities and in DOL conducted activities."
Note it is very specific to DOL funded programs and activities as well as some disability (ADA) discrimination by public entities.
From what I can find, and unless you can provide evidence otherwise, the gun store owner is not subject to this unless he's discriminating against hiring people or otherwise discriminating against his employees.
Patton also knew that someone had to stand out there in the face of strafing planes and shoot at them with a pistol - to show leadership, bravery, courage.
I fully expect that this business owner, unlike your elitist atitude, knows full well the calculation he has made and has made it anyway. Step to the rear. Make way for the leaders.
Once upon a time you were worth reading.
“your elitist atitude,”
What else would you call your attitude? Your POV is that you, and only you, have the wisdom to know if and where the gun store owner should draw the line in the sand? Your POV assumes, yes it does, assumes that the owner of the store is not capable of making that calculation on his own.
That is elitist, by definition. Period.
It does represent the direction of federal government actions in many areas though, usually under the interstate commerce clause. This is not merely the sale of hotel accommodations or hamburgers either. Some ACLU type will suddenly remember the 2nd Amendment right and plead that these poor customers were denied access to that right.
We’ll see what happens. My whole comment was that I hoped the owner does not get sued for being candid in what is an emerging totalitarian state.
Obamas supporters should be required to wear hockey helmets and socks on their hands
That is a whole lot of conjecture about my point of view based on my hope that this guy does not get sued, despite my expectation that he will.
Trust me, you do not have a clue about what my attitude is regarding citizens and government.
Before you ask, I am not going to set those forth, but I am sure you can make some up in the mean time.
Thankfully, so far, the limits to public accommodation with respect to products that have moved in interstate commerce (Civil Rights Act 1964 Sec. 201, 42 USC 2000a(a)) is that who you voted for or your political party affiliation is not a protected class.
As for the ACLU, that would be quite possibly the first time the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment, though I imagine that it would fail as the plaintiff would have to show that they were denied their right to “keep and bear arms”. Sufficient remedy would be to go to another seller.
Less likely to be sued, more likely to get an intense examination of his bound books by the BATFE to find any violation worthy of pulling his FFL.
Don’t over estimate my interest in your entire attitude towards citizens and government - I could care less - but simply in the world of forums, where each conversation is unto itself, I accurately defined your POV within the context of this conversation.
“I accurately defined your POV within the context of this conversation.”
Well, in fact you have not, but if it gives you pleasure to think so then by all means enjoy your delusions.
Great answer. I too admire the business owner for the guts to do this. We need more strong conservative leaders. God bless him.
You just cannot recover from that Patton analogy reversal.
Actually it was quite inane, but you seem to be running that table today. Not up to your usual standards at all.