UPS went woke?

[Jito463]

Seems like UPS has either chosen, or been pressured (*cough*ATF*cough*), to cancel contracts with lawful firearms dealers, and are threatening to also destroy existing product that's current shipped and en route to customers.  One vendor in Florida said that he had just shipped $30k worth of equipment prior to this notification.

[Opusnbill7]

Needs a little clarification.  Only referring to parts that can be assembled.  Still not good, but not as bad as your original post sounds.

Link to actual article instead of youtube:  https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-ups-cuts-off-gun-retailers-for-selling-ghost-guns-threatens-to-seize-and-destroys-in-transit-packages/

[Jito463]

Needs a little clarification.  Only referring to parts that can be assembled.  Still not good, but not as bad as your original post sounds.

Link to actual article instead of youtube:  https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-ups-cuts-off-gun-retailers-for-selling-ghost-guns-threatens-to-seize-and-destroys-in-transit-packages/

I'm not aware of any federal law that bans parts or parts kits, so it's pretty bad in my opinion.  I know that the left (via the ATF) wants to ban them, but so far it's still perfectly legal.  So UPS is threatening companies for sending perfectly legal parts through the mail.  Imagine if they decided that all car parts of a certain type (say, catalytic converters) could no longer be shipped by them, and they would seize and destroy any currently in transit, despite the product being perfectly legal to sell and ship.  That's exactly what's happening here.

[eelstrebor1]

Does this mean that you can't ship your firearm to have it repaired? I thought it was legal to ship via UPS to a repair facility.

[Jito463]

Does this mean that you can't ship your firearm to have it repaired? I thought it was legal to ship via UPS to a repair facility.

It's about firearms parts and parts kits to build your own.  Something the ATF and the current Former Vice President wants to ban, but haven't achieved yet.

[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]

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 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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

.

[Opusnbill7]

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

Hadn't heard that, but if that's true, then they definitely may be fearing legal pressure at the corporate level from Trudeau's govt.

[Jito463]

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)

They could refuse to ship the products, yes.  However, they accepted the contract, and are obligated to either fulfill the shipment or return it to the original sender.  They don't have the right to steal property that doesn't belong to them.  That is illegal.

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.

Not just smarter, there is no legal precedent I'm aware of that lets a private company act as law enforcement.  And even law enforcement would need a warrant.  They can't just take something lawful at whim.

If it was the USPS doing this, that would be a lot different, as they are a quasi-governmental agency.

Even then, they can't just sieze property at whim.

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.

There is no legal right to sieze property at whim.

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.

They don't have the right to violate the law.  What law allows them to steal products being shipped through their service?

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?

Theft of product is not "free market".  I challenge you to prove that this isn't theft.

Pardon any typos, I'm posting this from my phone.

[Opusnbill7]

It's obvious you've made up your mind.  If it's theft, the shipper should get the cops involved.  It won't happen, and if they do they'll be told to sue UPS for the value of their shipped products that aren't delivered.

But believe what you want....I'm done arguing.

[Opusnbill7]

.

[Jito463]

It's obvious you've made up your mind.  If it's theft, the shipper should get the cops involved.  It won't happen, and if they do they'll be told to sue UPS for the value of their shipped products that aren't delivered.

But believe what you want....I'm done arguing.

It would be more accurate to say that I'm convinced of what I'm saying.  If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't post it.  That said, I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong, you just haven't provided a compelling argument that changes my mind.

[Opusnbill7]

It would be more accurate to say that I'm convinced of what I'm saying.  If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't post it.  That said, I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong, you just haven't provided a compelling argument that changes my mind.

At least we agree on that statement.  I don't think you have provided a compelling argument that *I* am wrong either.  Good day.

[Mntnman]

A business does have the right to refuse service, including baking cakes. What needs to happen is companies need to realize if they are going to take a political stance, those opposing their view are going to take their business elsewhere.

One way we have gotten to where we are is people love to complain, mostly online, then still support entities actively engaged against their interests.  If we don't start pushing back soon, we will be left without the option to do so!

[shooter]

talked to my driver, he has not heard anything about this from any one else, was new to him,   and he didnt beieve it

[Jito463]

talked to my driver, he has not heard anything about this from any one else, was new to him,   and he didnt beieve it

Well, apparently UPS has confirmed it.

[Opusnbill7]

Got any evidence other than the exact same youtube channel that produced the first video?  Otherwise, I'm not sure that exactly counts as a "confirmation".  It may be true, but confirmation from a separate source would give it more weight.  You never know what particular axe to grind that producer has, or who is funding them...(in spite of who they *say* is funding them).