General Categories > Newsworthy

UPS went woke?

<< < (2/5) > >>

Opusnbill7:
I'm guessing that the specific part of the letter and article that is causing the issue is this:  "Ghost Firearms sells uppers, lowers, handguards and OEM parts for a number of manufacturers. They also sell 80% receivers."  Specifically, the 80% receivers. 

Again, if you read the UPS letter in the article, it only refers to "ghost guns", which in "liberal speak" is typically 80% receivers, since there is no serial number for the 80% receiver when it is manufactured since it is just a part and not yet a full "lower".

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but I hardly think UPS is "going woke".  Lets stick to the facts in the article as written.

omaharj:
I thought UPS was recently purchased by a Canadien company?
May have something to do with it

Jito463:

--- Quote from: Opusnbill7 on July 02, 2022, 10:10:35 PM ---I'm guessing that the specific part of the letter and article that is causing the issue is this:  "Ghost Firearms sells uppers, lowers, handguards and OEM parts for a number of manufacturers. They also sell 80% receivers."  Specifically, the 80% receivers. 

Again, if you read the UPS letter in the article, it only refers to "ghost guns", which in "liberal speak" is typically 80% receivers, since there is no serial number for the 80% receiver when it is manufactured since it is just a part and not yet a full "lower".
--- End quote ---
I must have missed the part where those were made illegal.  How is this not a violation of the law, by a private company threatening to seize and destroy products in transit that are perfectly legal?


--- Quote from: Opusnbill7 on July 02, 2022, 10:10:35 PM ---I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but I hardly think UPS is "going woke".  Lets stick to the facts in the article as written.
--- End quote ---
If you read the "facts in the article", they also explicitly state that they only ship them to states where it's not prohibited, so I fail to see how this isn't a case of UPS "going woke".  Please feel free to point out my mistake, if you think I'm overlooking something.

Opusnbill7:

--- Quote from: Jito463 on July 03, 2022, 08:52:02 AM ---I must have missed the part where those were made illegal.  How is this not a violation of the law, by a private company threatening to seize and destroy products in transit that are perfectly legal?
If you read the "facts in the article", they also explicitly state that they only ship them to states where it's not prohibited, so I fail to see how this isn't a case of UPS "going woke".  Please feel free to point out my mistake, if you think I'm overlooking something.

--- End quote ---

Item 1:  It's not illegal for a company to destroy/refuse to ship products.  They're a private company.  It may be a stupid business decision and financially costly (as they'll likely be liable to replace the $ value in civil court), but not illegal.  Just like it's not illegal for a store to refuse service to a customer for not wearing shoes or a shirt if they choose to.  At *most* it's a contact violation/dispute and should be handled as such (in civil court).

Item 2: Obviously their lawyers have told them that in the present environment surrounding 80% lowers, they may have legal exposure since they are transferring them across state lines, placing them under the purview of the ATF (interstate commerce and all....).  May be a ****ty legal take, but again, as a private business, they can make their own choices.  I would think it would be smarter to return the products to the sender rather than destroy them, but I'm not their lawyer or CEO. 

If it was the USPS doing this, that would be a lot different, as they are a quasi-governmental agency.  And again, you can call them out for "going woke", you can refuse to ship with them from now on, whatever.  That's your right, just like their right as a private company is to make this decision.

I love it when conservatives say that businesses should have the right to make their own decisions....right up until that decision disagrees with their personal beliefs. 

I'm more of a libertarian on this.  They should have the right to make their own decisions as a business and not be forced by the government to do things, and I should have the right to make my decision as a private person not to use them or sue them under contract law if they fail to fulfill an existing delivery/contract (instead of trying to have the government enforce "my" rules at a national/state level).  Isn't the free market wonderful?

Opusnbill7:
.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page