Aim Surplus suspend's all AR Lower shipments to NJ

[mikka1 2]

Because when NJ decided to sue them, you think NJ will care about how it was legally done?  We all know it is legal for them to ship it to an FFL in NJ, that's not the issue. The issue may be that whenever a NJ legal entity sends them a letter claiming horsecrap that doesn't exist or any such concern, they have to probably call their lawyer, hand him a check, and tell him to figure it out. It probably cost them $1000 or more every time that happens. If they make $10 on every lower, every 100 lowers going to NJ could get sucked up into every lawyer call.

 

They can be pretty sure they don't have to deal with other states, and they are selling every lower the get in stock, so why take a loss?

 

1) Is there any case known and documented when the State of NJ or any other NJ authority sued an online firearms retailer for shipping some LEGAL IN NJ item to NJ FFL?

I heard something like that happened with the State of NY, but I've never heard about NJ authorities doing this.

 

2) Were there at least any legal threats from whatever NJ authority sent to any online firearms retailer for doing LEGAL things? I suspect they might send a warning if, for example, retailer starts to send hi-cap mags to NJ customers i.e. breaking the law.

 

I have never heard of neither. If I am wrong, I'll be happy to know about that :-)

[jrfly3006 42]

In this specific instance as discussed by Steve..Aim was given a specific contact in NJSP who would verify that lower sales are completely legal to NJ FFL's..no one is asking them to bend over backwards or go the extra mile for us NJ "victims"..not even asking them to do special NJ compliance work or interpret complex legal algorithms...a simple minute long phone call to a state LE source to verify something many other companies know already..no biggie though..like many have said there are plenty of other options to get lowers...for now

[mipafox 438]

1) Is there any case known and documented when the State of NJ or any other NJ authority sued an online firearms retailer for shipping some LEGAL IN NJ item to NJ FFL?

I heard something like that happened with the State of NY, but I've never heard about NJ authorities doing this.

 

2) Were there at least any legal threats from whatever NJ authority sent to any online firearms retailer for doing LEGAL things? I suspect they might send a warning if, for example, retailer starts to send hi-cap mags to NJ customers i.e. breaking the law.

 

I have never heard of neither. If I am wrong, I'll be happy to know about that :-)

I don't know, but I do know this.

 

Jersey has sued or threatened to sue many out of state businesses, including bullying online cigarette vendors so hard that they turned over all their sales and customer data to New Jersey, including from Sovereign Indian Nations.

 

It's all so simple and easy to you. You mention NY. Why don't you start selling crap to NY?

 

Why are you entitled to other people servicing you in your shitty and legally perilous state? It's really simple from your side of the transaction. You want stuff and everybody should do whatever it takes to make sure they learn and comply with all the ridiculous laws of NJ to get you whatever you want. Even if there is little to no money to be made in NJ.

 

If it's that easy, and there's that much money top be made, do it your damn self. Think of the windfall profits you could make.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

What about legally precarious and unprofitable?

 

It never ceases to amaze me how some of you guys think it should be the duty of distributors to learn NJ laws inside and out to make sure they can sell you every single thing you might possibly be able to legally own.

Not saying that at all. Of course it's the merchant's right to pursue whatever business they wish. Obviously, they don't wish to pursue our business. That's fine. If they don't want our money, I'm sure there are merchants out there that do, and will sell to us. All I'm saying is that if they change their mind and want our future business, I'll remember when they didn't...

 

And, as far as "legally precarious and unprofitable" goes, like I said... nothing "illegal, immoral or fattening." It would be a risk/benefit calculation I'd make with my legal and financial advisors. I just think, in the case of us NJ folks, they calculated way too conservatively.

 

I'm one to turn away business for a whole lot of reasons, and certainly less than this. I just do it a little differently. The analogy would be I would sell a lower to an NJ resident for $1500. Now that is ridiculous, right? Well, I don't say No. I just say you're going to have to make it worth my while.

You may as well say no. The result is the same. I'd rather be honest/direct with people. Who knows? Someone might actually just accept that offer/price, when it turns out you really didn't want to do it at all. Then what? If I know it's a job I can't handle (or don't want to), I'll be honest an tell the customer that, and recommend someone who can/does. Maybe they'll come to me next time with something I can/do want to do, or recommend someone else to me with something I can/want to do.

 

Bottom line: I think those who choose not to sell NJ customers are missing out on both current and future opportunities. But, again, their choice.

 

[mipafox 438]

You may as well say no. The result is the same. I'd rather be honest/direct with people. Who knows? Someone might actually just accept that offer/price, when it turns out you really didn't want to do it at all. Then what? If I know it's a job I can't handle (or don't want to), I'll be honest an tell the customer that, and recommend someone who can/does. Maybe they'll come to me next time with something I can/do want to do, or recommend someone else to me with something I can/want to do.

 

I'm not sure I was clear. I do that for REAL. All the time. And, yes, once in a while people say, Yes. And then I make a lot of money.

 

And there is nothing dishonest about it.

 

Besides, I thought you said you would not turn away business for any reason?

 

I'd not be one to turn away any business for any reason... as long as it's not illegal, immoral or fattening.

So now I agree with you and you say you would be "honest" and say you don't "want" the work.

 

Is there any business practice that you are OK with or do you just change your philosophy as needed to be sure to disagree with everything?

 

[HBecwithFn7 296]

So now I agree with you and you say you would be "honest" and say you don't "want" the work.

 

Is there any business practice that you are OK with or do you just change your philosophy as needed to be sure to disagree with everything?

 

I haven't changed anything! Certainly, it would be "immoral" of me to take on a project I had no hope of completing on time/under budget and to my customer's satisfaction, or that, in my professional opinion, would not serve the needs of my customer in the long run, just to make a few quick $$$.  Nor would it be moral to inflate the cost of the project artificially beyond what the customer really needs or can afford. As a PMP®, I'd be violating their code of ethics.

 

Not on my watch...

[Vlad G 345]

1) Is there any case known and documented when the State of NJ or any other NJ authority sued an online firearms retailer for shipping some LEGAL IN NJ item to NJ FFL?

I heard something like that happened with the State of NY, but I've never heard about NJ authorities doing this.

 

2) Were there at least any legal threats from whatever NJ authority sent to any online firearms retailer for doing LEGAL things? I suspect they might send a warning if, for example, retailer starts to send hi-cap mags to NJ customers i.e. breaking the law.

 

I have never heard of neither. If I am wrong, I'll be happy to know about that :-)

 

 

If I'm not mistaken they had sent letters about online ammo purchases at one point, and AIM changed their policy about that. NY also sent all sorts of letters. My point is that whenever a legal question comes up, they have to pay lawyers and we are not a big enough market to justify the bother.

[Respect2A 0]

If I'm not mistaken they had sent letters about online ammo purchases at one point, and AIM changed their policy about that. NY also sent all sorts of letters. My point is that whenever a legal question comes up, they have to pay lawyers and we are not a big enough market to justify the bother.

I think you are wasting your time explaining it. You have explained it 3 times and dumbed it down more each time for him. If he can't understand a simple risk vs benefit analysis there's no helping him.

[Vlad G 345]

I think you are wasting your time explaining it. You have explained it 3 times and dumbed it down more each time for him. If he can't understand a simple risk vs benefit analysis there's no helping him.

 

 

I don't think of it that way. Most people do not run business or understand the legal hassles involved in doing so.  Everyone, myself included, forms ideas about how the world works and those ideas are not always correct. However once we acquire an idea we fight tooth and nail to  keep it and view anyone assaulting it as the enemy. It is as natural as pooping, everyone does it.

 

Sometimes things need repeating until an idea shifts. Just wait until I try to explain to people that all "money" is debt

[Respect2A 0]

I never poop. I train like I fight. I'm running at such a high efficiency my body processes everything it takes in.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Its our own fault that this stuff happens. The same people get reelected and the laws get stupider. We are on the verge of being the next commifornia and new york

[mikka1 2]

I think you are wasting your time explaining it. You have explained it 3 times and dumbed it down more each time for him. If he can't understand a simple risk vs benefit analysis there's no helping him.

 

I understand the benefits part, thanks. Given that my local PD (in an almost ~50k population town) does not even ask me for my ID and recognize my face when I enter the building to inquire about permits, I bet market sizing exercise on firearms in NJ will show pretty disappointing results.

 

Considering the "risk" part - what I was looking for was a specific justification for what certain businesses consider to be a "risk" in this equation / analysis. So far I am not aware of any action taken by NJ authorities (but I have to admit I am not closely following all new initiatives on that) that would assume that the next step would be a lawsuit or anything else similar for the seller, that's it. Apparently nobody is aware as well, or even if someone is aware of something, he/she will not tell about it here.

 

(lots of text below, sorry)

 

Vlad actually mentioned a very good thing about "forming ideas" and then looking at the world through certain understanding of how things work. Let me just give you one example (absolutely not related to firearms world and even to US law) of what I encountered professionally at some point recently and you will tell me what you think about it.

 

When a person is traveling internationally by air, especially to countries and for nationals with complicated entry requirements (visa, possible overstay issues etc.) there is actually a two-step process for determining if a person can even board a flight to a foreign country:

1) A person comes to a check-in desk at the departing airport with his/her travel documents. Airline officer checks all documents presented by a passenger and makes a decision if a person can actually board an aircraft today.

This decision is based on the fact if a passenger has a right to enter his destination country. Most of the time it can be simple (an EU national coming to one of EU countries from the US - clearly he will be admitted home etc.), but there might be some complicated cases (e.g. Ukrainian national flying from New York to London, UK without British visa for transit purposes). There is a database called Timatic that is accessible by airline officers and that basically gives information for all possible combinations of citizenship /residence, destination, port of departure etc. In most cases if Timatic says "YES", a person will be allowed to board a plane.

 

2) Nonetheless most (if not all) countries reserve the right to deny entry to any foreigner (many even without explanation). They have a clear right to do so even if a person has all necessary documents. Things like that are relatively rare and hard to predict. The issue here is that the airline is responsible for sending this unlucky guy/gal to his departure point on the next flight back. It can theoretically cost a lot to an airline (practically - one seat in the aircraft and potential overbooking compensation to someone if that particular flight is overbooked)

 

So, just to make it perfectly clear:

1) Airline - formal control if travel documents are OK and in line with requirements listed in Timatic. If OK - board the plane. If not okay - bye-bye, see you next time, you are not flying today.

2) Immigration officials at the point of entry - final check, admitting a person to the country or denying entry.

 

And here comes an interesting part - some airlines in Europe recently attempted to start passenger PROFILING based on common attributes, like: if you are a Russian national female, flying alone to, let's say, Germany, with a that and that type of a visa (that actually ALLOWS (!!) you to enter Germany), you will most likely be denied boarding and service by the airline. Why? Because last year there were, let's say, 15 cases of passengers denied entry in Berlin and Frankfurt and most of those passenger fit this profile.

 

I'll probably stop here. What is your opinion on this example? Do you think airlines violate anything (I am not asking "violate legally" as there were even several airlines in different jurisdictions doing similar things) or do you think everything was OK and following common sense?

[Vlad G 345]

 

Considering the "risk" part - what I was looking for was a specific justification for what certain businesses consider to be a "risk" in this equation / analysis. So far I am not aware of any action taken by NJ authorities (but I have to admit I am not closely following all new initiatives on that) that would assume that the next step would be a lawsuit or anything else similar for the seller, that's it. Apparently nobody is aware as well, or even if someone is aware of something, he/she will not tell about it here.

 

 

As I said a while ago (1-2 years?) there was a whole bunch of fracas about Aim not shipping ammo to NJ without first obtaining a copy of the FID. If I'm not mistaken (I can't find the thread now) this was over a letter from NJ telling them that NJ ammo sale rules apply to them. NY also sent letters to various places under Bloomie's leadership.

 

If I had my guess I'd say Aim was reviewing their policies in view of recent gun law across the nation and decided to draw a line of what is worth bothering with and what isn't. it isn't hard to see how NJ would fall on a particular side of that line.

[mikka1 2]

As I said a while ago (1-2 years?) there was a whole bunch of fracas about Aim not shipping ammo to NJ without first obtaining a copy of the FID. If I'm not mistaken (I can't find the thread now) this was over a letter from NJ telling them that NJ ammo sale rules apply to them. NY also sent letters to various places under Bloomie's leadership.

 

If I had my guess I'd say Aim was reviewing their policies in view of recent gun law across the nation and decided to draw a line of what is worth bothering with and what isn't. it isn't hard to see how NJ would fall on a particular side of that line.

 

Fair point. So, just to try to stop some shitload already aimed at me, I do understand the "mechanics" of this issue, I can certainly understand the way of their thinking, but with my personal ideas of how things should really work in life (largely inspired by certain consumer protection laws in Europe), I wholeheartedly disagree with such a practice and consider it wrong, counter-intuitive and violating founding principles of retail trade. In my view (actually supported by many laws and status quo in different jurisdictions) the moment retailer puts a price tag on some merchandise, he/she declares his/her intent to transfer this merchandise: a) to whoever is ready to pay the agreed amount with agreed payment method, and b) to whoever is not explicitly prohibited from obtaining such an item by any federal, state, local, municipal (town/city/other subdivision etc), international laws & regulations at the time of purchase.

 

Clearly it's my problem :-) I might be wrong. You may disagree with me. The fact someone disagrees with this may or may not mean it is wrong :-) After almost 5 years in the US I, for example, still consider retailers' practice indicating prices without applicable sales tax as equally counter-intuitive and even misleading. To my surprise, most of the authorities in different countries fully agree with my point (even not knowing about it, LOL) and mandate price on a tag in any given retail store to be actually "a full and final price to be paid by a customer", period. To my even bigger surprise, here in the States US DOT came to a similar conclusion not a long ago (in January 2012, actually) and ended practice of many airlines indicating prices without taxes and fees. I see it as a very positive change that simply makes lives of people easier, just that.

Sorry for providing so many examples from transportation / travel industry, that's just what I understand relatively well.

 

I hope that clarifies my way of thinking (even if you think it is wrong) and hope I have not insulted or annoyed anyone :-). I think we are all already quite far off topic :-)

[Respect2A 0]

Mikka, there's how you think things should be, and then there's the way they are. I'm not saying it's always a good thing but that's how a lot of life is. If it really pisses you off than do something like contact AIM and help to get it turned around or as someone said start your own business and sell lowers to people in the screwed up states. You can type up how you feel things should be until the cows come home but it's not going to matter because these companies dont give a shit what any of us think. I can't say I blame them in some cases because its easier to stop sales to a state like NJ than it is to figure it out.

[mikka1 2]

Mikka, there's how you think things should be, and then there's the way they are. I'm not saying it's always a good thing but that's how a lot of life is. If it really pisses you off than do something like contact AIM and help to get it turned around or as someone said start your own business and sell lowers to people in the screwed up states. You can type up how you feel things should be until the cows come home but it's not going to matter because these companies dont give a shit what any of us think. I can't say I blame them in some cases because its easier to stop sales to a state like NJ than it is to figure it out.

 

Well, if it matters, I have recently contacted Walmart corporate about their PA stores not selling firearms to NJ residents. I got no answer from them yet (and I doubt I will, frankly), but what surprised me most was that Walmarts in NC actually have a MAP showing states they can and can not legally sell firearms. And guess what - NJ is marked as "OK to sell". I asked people at the counter in 2 different stores over there and both told me there were no issues selling to NJ residents. Go figure.

 

But the whole thing here is most likely useless as IN FACT individual person almost never has enough power to fight or even slightly move/turn a huge corporate machine. I can really only vote with my feet and my money taken elsewhere, but regardless of how sad it might be, that's pretty much that I and most of other people can do.

[mipafox 438]

 

Well, if it matters, I have recently contacted Walmart corporate about their PA stores not selling firearms to NJ residents. I got no answer from them yet (and I doubt I will, frankly), but what surprised me most was that Walmarts in NC actually have a MAP showing states they can and can not legally sell firearms. And guess what - NJ is marked as "OK to sell". I asked people at the counter in 2 different stores over there and both told me there were no issues selling to NJ residents. Go figure.

 

But the whole thing here is most likely useless as IN FACT individual person almost never has enough power to fight or even slightly move/turn a huge corporate machine. I can really only vote with my feet and my money taken elsewhere, but regardless of how sad it might be, that's pretty much that I and most of other people can do.

 

 

Don't overestimate the equivalency of your relevance.

 

If I call Walmart corporate today and tell them I got kicked out of my local store for Open Carry they will have the Regional Manager and the Store Manager on the phone apologizing to me by EOB today.

 

It's not that nobody can, it's just that they (apparently) don't care about your issue.

[mikka1 2]

Don't overestimate the equivalency of your relevance.

 

If I call Walmart corporate today and tell them I got kicked out of my local store for Open Carry they will have the Regional Manager and the Store Manager on the phone apologizing to me by EOB today.

 

It's not that nobody can, it's just that they (apparently) don't care about your issue.

 

I would similarly say - don't overestimate the importance of a phone apology from a random person with a company of millions of employees.

I hope I'm wrong, but this apology will most likely not prevent you from being kicked out for OC from the very same store a week later let alone from the neighboring store that would never even hear about your frustration and "corrective actions" "taken" by Wally corporate.

[mipafox 438]

I would similarly say - don't overestimate the importance of a phone apology from a random person with a company of millions of employees.

I hope I'm wrong, but this apology will most likely not prevent you from being kicked out for OC from the very same store a week later let alone from the neighboring store that would never even hear about your frustration and "corrective actions" "taken" by Wally corporate.

I'll get specific now. I speak about personal matters in vague terms on the internet as a matter of routine. That probably doesn't sound good, but you can count on it from me when it involves others. But I will clarify in this case since I think it will assist your inquiry.

 

I was not kicked out. I've never been kicked out of any store. I was asked to cover my gun or get out. So I left.

 

And I emailed corporate and told them I was pissed and asked them if this was their policy. All Hell broke lose. The Executive V.P. of the company responded to everybody I emailed and told them to fix it.

 

I was called by a random person at first. That changed when I said I needed assurance it wouldn't happen again. Within 15 minutes I had the regional manager on the phone, and I said I wanted assurances from the manager of the store as well.

 

Not only did they call me, they retrained their entire staff in 3 shifts to make sure it wouldn't happen again and guaranteed me it wouldn't. This conversation between me and them was over the course of about 3 days. They also said they taught their staff that it was legally perilous to tell somebody to cover their gun in PA because they might not have LTCF and might be asking them to commit a crime (which is kind of silly, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility and I did not argue). That seemed to be a big point of concern with them. And they asked me what else they had to do to make it right. I told them I only wanted them to continue to take my money. The store manager asked me to ask for him next time I was there so he could meet me and shake my hand. I never did, but I sent him a Christmas card.

 

No, they were not blowing smoke up my ass.

[mikka1 2]

Good. I can only shake your hand as well for going that far.

Absolutely not related to firearms, I can only remember once dealing with T-Mo around 2 years ago, when I thought I was treated unfairly. I spent 8 (eight!) hours in total speaking to dozens of people over the phone (mostly with some front-line "know nothing" guys, but also with some senior people who apparently solved the issue), but in retrospect I don't think I'd ever go this route again.

Will I be happy if they finally somehow allow me to buy a firearm in PA store after speaking with 10 people and wasting almost a whole day on this? I frankly doubt so :-) But your course of action was nonetheless good.