Big Five Manager Resigns After Begin Forced to Sell Gun To “Erratic” Customer

[Catskillkid]

Big Five Manager Resigns After Begin Forced to Sell Gun To "Erratic" Customer
https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/...signs-begin-forced-sell-gun-erratic-customer/
So would you sell this gun to that particular customer? I'm not sure that I would.

 

[NirvanaFan]

I've never been behind the counter, but I don't think I would. The guy sounded very erratic, and there is no way that I'm going to be personally responsible for arming him. She was acting within ATF guidelines.

 

[togmaster]

She resigned and is now suing for wrongful termination? Something about her story rubs me the wrong way. I'd like to hear the store's version of what happened.

 

[Phauxtoe]

That's her side of the story and since gun paranoia is out of control I don't necessarily believe her

I have worked in retail a long time and some people just don't get along with other people

 

[Celt]

Need to hear more info, maybe she was a real nasty person and pissed the guy off???

If what she says is true its good she didnt want to sell him a gun.

 

[masterswimmer]

Cannot ever render a decision based on only one party's account of the 'facts'. If that is the case then our entire judicial system needs to be reworked and our jail system needs to be grossly expanded.

If her rendition is accurate, no way in hell would I have released any firearm to that character.

 

[NirvanaFan]

She resigned and is now suing for wrongful termination?

She (her lawyer) will probably argue that she had no other choice because the employer made a hostile work environment.

 

[Doc8404]

Which one of you was trying to buy a gun this time?

 

[eagleridge357]

Her lawsuit is justified. She had feelings that a transfer to this person was not proper, based on her interaction with him, so yes she had every right to refuse the sale/transfer. She will win the lawsuit.

 

[WileyX585]

Not a damn chance I would have released that fire arm to him. Hope she wins the lawsuit.

 

[Pale Rider]

Her lawsuit is justified. She had feelings that a transfer to this person was not proper, based on her interaction with him, so yes she had every right to refuse the sale/transfer. She will win the lawsuit.

I believe she was justified in not wanting to sell to the customer, but I think she might have trouble suing for unlawful termination when she clearly resigned.

 

[C3D]

 

[togmaster]

My point above is that we are only hearing her side of the story. Based on the one sided article I don't think anyone can say who is right or wrong.

 

[NirvanaFan]

I believe she was justified in not wanting to sell to the customer, but I think she might have trouble suing for unlawful termination when she clearly resigned.

If she was following federal guidelines and her employer forced her to complete the sale anyways, it could be considered a hostile environment. The courts in CA are pretty pro gun control, so they may side with her on this. It's also very possible that she's suing to get money. It may be cheaper just to pay her off than to actually go to court and challenge it.

 

[capitalcrew]

#Imwithher

 

[Deplorable Me]

Sounds like an upper manager didn't back his line manager's decision. (Understanding that there are two sides to every story. )

 

[eagleridge357]

Based

My point above is that we are only hearing her side of the story. Based on the one sided article I don't think anyone can say who is right or wrong.

Based on what we were told, she had misgivings about the transfer. She was representing the FFL, and had every right to refuse the transfer, no matter what the story is from the other side.

 

[GOPerfect]

I have worked Gun sales in retail, I worked At Gander for almost five years. There were many times that I did not sell a gun to a customer for various reasons. Each and every time, my manager backed my decision. Never a question as to why.

I do not believe her entire account of the story.

 

[eagleridge357]

OK, but technically she was acting as a rep for the FFL and is immune from any argument saying she acted improperly. She used her judgment, in accordance with ATF regulations.

 

[togmaster]

OK, but technically she was acting as a rep for the FFL and is immune from any argument saying she acted improperly. She used her judgment, in accordance with ATF regulations.

Then why wouldn't management back her up considering all they have to loose? I don't think we are hearing the truth here.

 

[togmaster]

It may be cheaper just to pay her off than to actually go to court and challenge it.

This is the problem with our legal system today. Unfortunately it is controlled by lawyers who bennifit from and promote frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If he came in drunk to a private bar, the barkeep can refuse to serve him alcohol.

If he went into a liberal restaurant and declared he was a Trump supporter, the owner can refuse him service.

The government isn't infringing on him. The private establishment is.

I learned something from @Darth.

 

[Glenn B]

Her lawsuit is justified. She had feelings that a transfer to this person was not proper, based on her interaction with him, so yes she had every right to refuse the sale/transfer. She will win the lawsuit.

How is it that you are aware of the fact that she was telling the truth and not grossly exaggerating the story or even completely fabricating everything she said about the customer's demeanor? Do you have information we don't have available to us? I ask because, based on your reply, you seem so absolutely certain she is telling the truth. Is it possible that the other supervisor in the store was aware that the store clerk in question was a troublemaker or prone to gross exaggeration or was possibly vehemently anti-gun?

It always amazes me how anyone, in this day and age of purely made up bullshit that gets into the news so folks can get their 15 minutes of fame or commence a lawsuit, immediately believes a one sided story, something they have seen on the Internet or in print, even when the initial article about it questions or at least wonders about its veracity.

 

[Frankly]

I don't know how we can judge unless we know the political, racial, sexual preferences, and other identifying characteristics of all parties?

 

[spat]

How is it that you are aware of the fact that she was telling the truth and not grossly exaggerating the story or even completely fabricating everything she said about the customer's demeanor? Do you have information we don't have available to us? I ask because, based on your reply, you seem so absolutely certain she is telling the truth. Is it possible that the other supervisor in the store was aware that the store clerk in question was a troublemaker or prone to gross exaggeration or was possibly vehemently anti-gun?

It always amazes me how anyone, in this day and age of purely made up bullshit that gets into the news so folks can get their 15 minutes of fame or commence a lawsuit, immediately believes a one sided story, something they have seen on the Internet or in print, even when the initial article about it questions or at least wonders about its veracity.

For all we know she was really fired for stealing, and just made up this customer out of whole cloth. Without the other side, we will never know.

OTOH, for the purpose of discussion, we can assume she isn't lying, because our discussion has as much bearing on the real world as a discussion of whether Neil Armstrong could have open carried when he stepped on the moon.

 

[eagleridge357]

NO, you do not get it. She is acting as an employee of an FFL which gives her the authority to legally refuse to transfer a firearm even if the buyer has passed NICS. The question of her lying or guessing or even plainly making an erroneous judgment,or even her boss or another manager not agreeing with her decision, is totally irrelevant. Leaving open the option of the FFL to exercise judgment is perfectly legal, no matter how the FFL came to that decision. The ATF knew that such questionable judgment as this is possible when it placed this option on the FFL. ATF could have prevented this kind of mis-use of judgment by simply not allowing so much discretion on the part of the FFL, but it chose to allow it because the alternative is not acceptable IE having a transfer completed even if the transferor (FFL) has an indication (however vague or later shown to be mis-applied) the transfer if made would jeopardize public safety. Pure and simple. She made the right choice and should not be expected to work with others who jeopardize public safety by slacking on the authority given to them by ATF. She has a solid stance and a strong case against her employer.

 

[eagleridge357]

Also, the employer could be charged by ATF for a questionable transfer after the other manager completed the transfer which the woman initiated. Whoever completes part B or denies transfer MUST also complete and sign part D. If the woman initiated the 4473 part B and someone else completed the transfer by signing part D that is an invalid transfer by ATF definition. Stated right in the 4473 instructions and on the 3rd page of the 4473 itself.

 

[spat]

NO, you do not get it. She is acting as an employee of an FFL which gives her the authority to legally refuse to transfer a firearm even if the buyer has passed NICS. The question of her lying or guessing or even plainly making an erroneous judgment,or even her boss or another manager not agreeing with her decision, is totally irrelevant. Leaving open the option of the FFL to exercise judgment is perfectly legal, no matter how the FFL came to that decision. The ATF knew that such questionable judgment as this is possible when it placed this option on the FFL. ATF could have prevented this kind of mis-use of judgment by simply not allowing so much discretion on the part of the FFL, but it chose to allow it because the alternative is not acceptable IE having a transfer completed even if the transferor (FFL) has an indication (however vague or later shown to be mis-applied) the transfer if made would jeopardize public safety. Pure and simple. She made the right choice and should not be expected to work with others who jeopardize public safety by slacking on the authority given to them by ATF. She has a solid stance and a strong case against her employer.

Her employer is the holder of the FFL who has that discretion, she does not hold any license herself. She has every right to refuse the transfer of course, but her employer has every right to cease her employment as well....

 

[eagleridge357]

Her employer is the holder of the FFL who has that discretion, she does not hold any license herself. She has every right to refuse the transfer of course, but her employer has every right to cease her employment as well....

Her employment was ended because she was expected to work with others who jeopardize public safety. She asked for a transfer, a reasonable request, and was denied. The employer should be charged by ATF with an improper transfer and reckless business practices.

 

[Eddie Gunks]

Funny how "you" all seem to think you need more info. Sounds like you question her motives.

Funny place this nygf.

Bottom line. ATF says "you" can stop the sale or transfer at anytime. You do not need a reason.

In the end. The store should always back the employee, if the employee thinks NOT transfering the gun is the way to go.

Employees at my shop have my full support in this manner. I explain that on day 1