Physical problem = No gun for some

[deadin]

I have to go with mpmarty on this one. Nowhere did he say that ALL people with a physical disability shoudn't be allowed firearms. Only those that can't safely handle them and keep them pointed downrange. In the OP's own words:

I have terrible nerve damage that cause me to shake and twitch almost non stop.

He didn't say how bad the shaking and twitching is, just that it's constant.
If it's bad enough to appear to be a danger to people around him while shooting (i.e. having a bad case of the twitches right after racking the slide on something with a 15 round magazine), I can understand why someone wouldn't sell him a gun. If it isn't, I'm sure he can find a dealer somewhere that will sell to him.

 

[ishida]

And how is he a danger?

That's completely subjective, and currently subject to discrimination laws.

Many would consider a slight eye twitch as "dangerous", while others who are actually tolerant of others take the time ot find out what is causing the twitching.

 

[cliffy]

Hate Lawsuite and Litigation

If we had less lawyers, there'd be fewer lawsuites. However, if wronged and embarrassed due to a physical condition, nail their butts to the wall. How dare they treat us any differently than sprinters and cross-country champions! How many people are physically perfect regarding firearm purchases? Maybe they should set a 36 inch-waist standard as maximum for purchasing fiearms. I'd miss the cut now-a-days, by a few belt-sizes. If they really want to evaluate our competence to own firearms, they should give us IQ tests prior to purchase. Call it CALIBER by INTELLIGENCE. cliffy

 

[deadin]

I can hardly wait for the blind to start hitting the hiways.

 

[tigre]

What's wrong with taking your business elsewhere?

The guy may be a jackass, but do we really want so much control in our lives that a man can be compelled to sell to people when he doesn't want to? Is that freedom or liberty?

And before anyone starts down that old race road, remember that the culture these days generally frowns upon race discrimination. A shopowner known for refusing service to blacks is likely to lose even more business due to public pressure and backlash. That is the appropriate response, not lawsuits or being compelled by the gubbamint. If a black guy is refused service in a store because he’s black, he then can and should expose the shopowner for what he is. Spread the word. THAT’S American. Not this nanny state, sue-happy garbage that some so called freedom lovers around here seem to be hitching their wagon to.

Freedom is risky and painful. People’s feelings will get hurt. I’d rather have it that way than the alternative.

I agree. This is not a Second Amendment issue. That only applies to the government and its inability to prevent you from owning a gun, not to a store owner's ability to refuse to sell his property to you. Your best course of action would be, IMO, to get some kind of documentation from your doctor and to take your business elsewhere. I'm very sorry you're in this situation, I really am, but people should not be forced by the government to sell their property against their will.

 

[springmom]

Forgive the slight diversion, but how on earth do you mange to handload if your tremors are that noticeable? Granted, it's not brain surgery, but it takes some steadiness of hand to pull every 10th case and weigh the powder charge, steady the bullet on the case, etc.

I'm sorry that the guy was such a jerk, and I'm with those that say "go back and have a reasoned discussion with the manager." Maybe you still end up writing them off; if so, then you know YOUR behavior was above reproach and you can decide your next course of action accordingly. Myself, I'd avoid lawsuits. They're expensive, you need a lot of witnesses, and in the end you're unlikely to gain much. Find another place to buy the gun if a repeat visit doesn't take care of things.

Springmom

 

[HANDLOADER]

I am offended by the fact that certain people here springmom and tigre have the believe that people with physical problems can't do everything that "REGULAR" people can do. And tigre why should I have to prove my disablities do not affect me. I am a law abiding citizen who had his right to buy a firearm jerked out from under him. This is not a sitution where my tremors are safety issues which are documentent. Which they are not because they do not pose a safey issue at all. This is a case where some one looked at me and made the assumtion I was not fit to own a gun. It is the same as not wanting to sell a gun to a person of color. I call it discrimation and I for one have had enough of being pushed aside by our "FRIENDS IN THE GUN INDUSTRY" just because I have a physical disablitie. I have had to take mental exams to many times than I would like to reamber to get jobs where people without physical problems have not. And guss what for all those who think that this man has a mental problem I have news for you I have been proved every time to be mentaly sain. Other words proved not crazy. I know just stand down and don't sue them just take it like a man but I have news for everyone here I will place suet and if need be I will try to put this shop out of business. So thank you to every one who has stated or inferred that people with physical problems don't need or desirve to own a gun.

 

[tigre]

I am offended by the fact that certain people here springmom and tigre have the believe that people with physical problems can't do everything that "REGULAR" people can do. And tigre why should I have to prove my disablities do not affect me. I am a law abiding citizen who had his right to buy a firearm jerked out from under him.

You have not had any rights denied to you. You have simply seen the consequence of another person's right to dispose of their property in the manner in which they see fit. I never said you have to prove anything. But if you want someone to sell their property to you, you might have to take additional measures in order to convince them to do that. I understand that you're upset about this, but don't take my words and twist them around to sound like I'm somehow bashing physically disabled people. I'm simply supporting a person's right to conduct their own business as they chose to without being coerced by the government. You don't have any more right to buy a gun from a particular dealer than you have to say anything you want on this website. Neither of those things are protected by the Bill of Rights, because it only applies to government, not to individuals or other private entities.

 

[Reyn]

I really am, but people should not be forced by the government to sell their property against their will.

Do you believe someone should be able to deny a sell for any reason?

Race,ethnic backgorund etc.

 

[brassdog]

It's kind of a double standard though.. That anyone who has an obvious physical handicap has to endure additional scrutiny against those who are self appointed in their beliefs to ensure safety. It's one thing to say that you are all for safety when you are not that one being challeged but once you start to suffer physical problems, your entire world is turned upside down.

I've no idea how serve Handloader's trembling is but I'm pretty sure the OP had to drive to the gun store in order to be denied. We all worry about who's getting guns but what about who's getting behing the wheel? I would worry more about being run over by a car than shot.
Do we start denying the other basics of life as well?

As this is stated in general terms since it is impossible to assume that all people who suffer from physical problems would be unsafe. Now that doesn't mean that resonable precautions can be ignored, ie: blind people driving. Each individual has to be assessed on their own and that's what the store owner failed to do because he didn't want to.

 

[cliffy]

My New Ruling . . .

You must have less than a 37 inch-waist, and weigh less than 185 pounds to buy a firearm from my estabishment. Furthermore, you must hold your hand perfectly motionless for more than thirty seconds, then you may take my pre-purchase aptitude test regarding general intelligence. If you succeed in all aspects of my pre-gun testing, you may purchase a firearm from me. If you don't succeed in passing my tests with an IQ score of 110 or higher, go to Wal-Mart to buy your firearm. I have the right to establish standards I deem necessary for firearm ownership. cliffy

 

[tigre]

Do you believe someone should be able to deny a sell for any reason?

Race,ethnic backgorund etc.

Yes. It's their property. They should be able to do whatever they want with it as long as it does not involve force or fraud against another person.

 

[paintballdude902]

i would talk to the owner/manager first it may just be some stupid guy looking for some extra scratch and doesnt know squat

but if that doesnt help then u should go to court bring documentation about your medical condition/medicin that makes you shake

a buddy of mine takes medican for a for an injury he had in the state football champoinship last year and a side effect is the shakes he was also turned down by some guy when he was trying to buy his first gun i went in with him and brought the perscription with us and talked to the manager he gave my frined 50 bucks off the rifle and appologized, then said that his employee should have asked about it then said something like "im sorry sir but could you please show me some kind of proof just so i can be safe"

 

[springmom]

I am offended by the fact that certain people here springmom and tigre have the believe that people with physical problems can't do everything that "REGULAR" people can do

Get off your high horse. I am disabled, Handloader. I have rheumatoid arthritis and related conditions bad enough that I can no longer work in the profession I was trained in (a school psychologist). I live in pain, pretty much all day, every day, every week, all year long. Sometimes it's just a 3 on that stupid 1-10 scale. A lot of times it's an 8 or a 9. I have to figure out how to carry and shoot and work around my disability just like you. Nobody looks at me and thinks I shouldn't have a gun...but then they don't know the medications I'm on for pain management...doses that I know some would say should keep me from carrying (at least if they were used "recreationally".) I wasn't insulting you. I was asking how you do what you do. Period.

In point of fact, I happen to admire you for doing that. My POINT was that it must be difficult, and I wanted to know if there was anything you did to make it easier on yourself. But all you want to read are insults, where none are given.

Forget it. But you might watch out for that chip on your shoulder. They can be most inconvenient, in my experience.

Springmom

 

[Jdude]

You must have less than a 37 inch-waist, and weigh less than 185 pounds to buy a firearm from my estabishment. Furthermore, you must hold your hand perfectly motionless for more than thirty seconds, then you may take my pre-purchase aptitude test regarding general intelligence. If you succeed in all aspects of my pre-gun testing, you may purchase a firearm from me. If you don't succeed in passing my tests with an IQ score of 110 or higher, go to Wal-Mart to buy your firearm. I have the right to establish standards I deem necessary for firearm ownership. cliffy

...and your business will fail in a week, as it should.
All you shooters who got shunned at cliffy's, Visit Jdude's gun shop.
If you want something, we have two in stock.
Free stack of targets that say "cliffy" with every purchase.
No offense, cliffy.

(sorry my gun shop is not real.)

 

[Trapper Ed]

People with physical handicaps CAN'T do everything that nonhandicapped people can do. To pretend otherwise for the sake of political correctness is just naive.

Gun dealers have a moral and legal OBLIGATION to use their best judgment when selling weapons to the public. They may be held liable for those who use the guns in an unsafe manner.

Lastly, some folks on this site sure are quick to run to the lawyers and cry "I'll sue!" Whatever happened to the rugged individualist mentality of the gun owner?

 

[RX-178]

Yes, they are under the obligation to use their best judgement.

In this case, the best judgement of this store owner was very poor.

The problem is ignorance. This shop owner saw a man with shaking hands and instantly jumped to the conclusion that this man was either a substance abuser, or mentally incapable of handling a firearm. We can tell that was NOT the case.

You can argue that it is 'common sense' to deny a purchase to a man with shaking hands. But also remember that just 50 years ago, it was 'common sense' to say that black people in the military were less intelligent than white people, and were therefore unsuitable to lead men.

Although I do also agree that Handloader overreacted by threatening legal action. Handloader, I address you directly when I say this: There are FAR easier, more effective, and less costly ways to hurt this gun shop's business. You do not need a lawyer to publicize this incident, just as you have on this forum.

You can also help spread awareness about your condition, and other people with similar conditions that handle firearms safely, handload their own ammunition, and perform other similar tasks. Heck, you might even come up with a way to get PAID for this, but I'll leave that up to you.

Best of luck with whatever course of action you choose to take.

 

[rfurtkamp]

I am even seriously considering getting my CCW license, but wondering if I would be frowned upon for that?

I wouldn't think it'd be a problem to get one with a wheelchair; to the contrary, your inability to flee or defend yourself through alternative means makes it a very good idea IMO.

And as far as the rest, as long as the individual is able to use the weapon safely I have zero issues. I know several shooters with a twitch, one they can control for the duration of shooting, or that does not mean that their weapon will suddenly point in random, unsafe directions.

When making rules for the disabled and shooting, remember that you're making rules for yourself if something bad should happen. Disability does not mean inability any more than it means ability in something; chances are the gimp probably shoots as well or better than you because he can't back down from an ugly situation in the same way.

I now walk with a pronounced limp and difficulty due to a genetic problem affecting my legs. I am regularly ill, a side effect of the same. It is not pretty, it is not fun, and it could happen to anyone with the wrong luck in parents. Someday soon (probably should now but I'm stubborn too) I'll be using a cane, and after that, walker and possibly wheelchair. When walking, I'm in a great deal of pain, I'm not particularly nice to people, and want to get from A to B as rapidly as possible to make the pain stop.

I can still draw and fire accurately even under the additional stressors of my disability. I can still outshoot the abled I encounter 99/100. A shop owner who refuses to sell to me because I shamble in and take a minute or two to recover is a fool; he will lose a lot of business both from myself and friends. You know, those nice people who help me around and do things and also spend money ;0

When I am confined to assisted movement devices, I am never going out without a MP5K, because I can. If I can't run, I'm not getting outgunned ;0

 

[K3]

Do you believe someone should be able to deny a sell for any reason?

Race,ethnic backgorund etc.

Yes.

I also believe that anybody denied service by said bigot should be able to gather public opinion against him, and expose him for what he is. Said bigot then should not be suprised if he sees his sales suffer a bit.

Choices have consqequences, but let's not take choices away from people at teh point of a government gun.

I want real freedom, warts and all. I'd rather have that than too much government interference. I should have the right to dispose of my property as I see fit. If I don't want to rent my house to black folks, that should be my business and mine alone. In a free country, I would suffer no sanctions BY THE GOVERNMENT.

That setup may cause some feelings to be hurt and some feathers to get ruffled, but IMO that is a small price to pay for less nanny-state do-gooder bullshyte in peoples lives, and I think I'm not alone in saying we definintely need less of that.

 

[K3]

Lastly, some folks on this site sure are quick to run to the lawyers and cry "I'll sue!" Whatever happened to the rugged individualist mentality of the gun owner?

It has been/is being stomped on by the inertia of the massive nanny state and the propaganda for said nanny state bombarding us in schools, in the media, and everywhere else.

The new mentality is a bit weaker.

 

[RobNDenver]

I'm simply supporting a person's right to conduct their own business as they chose to without being coerced by the government.

You may support that right, so long as it doesn't affect people like blacks, hispanics, irish, chinese, gays, the disabled, women. . . you get the point. I am old enough to remember concrete discrimination in parts of these United States that affected all kinds of people.

All of the segregationists who refused to allow black people to sit at the lunch counter or latinos to use the front door, or universities which refused to admit black students, bus lines that wouldn't stop for the disabled were conducting their own business as they chose to, and had to be coerced by the government.

Are you really saying that discrimination is acceptable? I doubt it, but I could be wrong. Handloader may have to enforce his rights with help from lawyers or the government. That's what the rule of law is all about; protecting the weak and overlooked in this country.

You can't defend America with Un-American tactics. . .

 

[tigre]

Are you really saying that discrimination is acceptable?

Morally, very definitely no. Legally, it should be the property owner's decision who they choose to conduct business with. No one has a right to use, occupy, or purchase another person's property without their consent. The history of government-enforced discrimination in this country (which is completely different and in no way acceptable) created problems in this regard by hindering the property rights of minorities, but I don't think hindering the property rights of all citizens was the appropriate solution to that problem. It's pretty sad to me to think that property rights have become "un-American."

 

[The Bushmaster]

Springmom...That's called feeling sorry for one's self...Guess that wasn't very nice either. My only handicap is being almost 66 and in perfect health...[for a 65 year old].

 

[Zwetschgen]

I'm pretty sure, well in Missouri, any shop keep, not just gun store owners, can "refuse service to anyone for any reason." Which is pretty bogus seeing as you are completely innocent of any thing, but I don't know that your case will hold water. I'm not a lawyer.
I work with leather and I've been working on trying to adapt a magazine holster that can be used to reload with one hand, my initial idea came from those who would love to shoot a firearm, or would carry in self-defense but only had one arm, strange but there are many people out there. It also has purposes when you're holding a flashlight, wounded.. etc.

 

[Blackbeard]

To all the people who say the OP has a strong case and should sue -- on what do you base that assessment? Sure the shop owner is an idiot and yes it was discriminatory, but what are his damages? How much money is he out because of this store owner's refusal to sell him a gun? Nothing, that's what.

Secondly, he has the right to refuse to sell to anyone. If he refused to sell to an obvious gang banger, could he be sued for racial discrimination? As for the ADA idea -- the ADA concerns employment and building access, not service. He wasn't applying for a job and he didn't have any trouble getting into the building because of his impairment. Sounds like a dead-bang loser to me.

That being said, I empathize with the OP and encourage him to spread the bad word about this shop to anyone who will listen.