search
top

Bob Moates Sport Shop Settling

According to the Wall Street Journal:

In an out-of-court settlement, the former holdout, Bob Moates Sport Shop, Midlothian, Va., agreed to tougher rules for selling guns, according to a copy of the agreement reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The new rules are based directly on stricter standards Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the nation’s largest gun seller, adopted earlier this year in a voluntarily agreement with a gun-control group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

You made a deal with the devil Bob Moates, and I’m afraid it will likely cost you your business.  Just ask Smith & Wesson.  You can’t give into bullies.  You have to fight them.  By giving in, you’ve encouraged Bloomberg to find more shops to beat up.  Fortunatly, Bloombergs little sting is now a crime in Virginia, but that’s not going to get other states off the hook.

Spread the word.  Don’t shop at Bob Moates Sport Shop.

18 Responses to “Bob Moates Sport Shop Settling”

  1. Telling people not to shop there is rather harsh. It was either that deal or lose his livelihood. Rather than spreading that particular word, spread the word that Bloomberg is trying to bully gun stores out of existence.

  2. Boyd says:

    Also, as I understand it, Moates didn’t capitulate completely. The most egregious demands, such as videotaping every sale, wasn’t part of the ultimate agreement. I don’t know all the details, and I don’t live close enough to Moates to patronize them anyway, but I’m not sure it’s as bad as you may think, Seb.

  3. Boyd says:

    wasn’t weren’t

    Argh.

  4. Sebastian says:

    I can see what you’re saying, but I think in these instances you have an obligation to fight even if it’ll take down your business. Like I said, if Bloomberg learns he can bully FFLs, he’s going to keep doing it. Unless we want Bloomberg dictating gun policy for the entire northeast and Mid-Atlantic, he has to be fought.

  5. Bitter says:

    Boyd, click through to the article:

    But in a settlement Wednesday with New York City, the retailer agreed, among other things, to make and store video of gun purchases and keep an internal log of any gun it sells that is later used in a crime.

    I definitely wouldn’t shop there. I wouldn’t even walk into that store with that policy.

  6. Chuck B. says:

    I bought a 50-round box of .357 Magnum cartridges at the Wal-Mart in Neshaminy earlier this month. (I usually don’t buy ammunition at this location, but since I was in the area on business, I just wanted to get some at the last minute before going home.)

    The Wal-Mart employee who waited on me at this time mentioned that sporting goods is not his regular department, and during the transaction, he asked me if I was going to use this ammunition with a handgun. (I don’t recall ever hearing a Wal-Mart employee ask any customer such a question before.)

    So, I then told this Wal-Mart employee that I would rather not answer the question. He did not seem to have a problem with my reply at all, so after he finished the sales procedure, I just paid the total and went on my merry way.

    Is there some sort of Wal-Mart policy that requires the employees to ask questions of their customer’s shooting habits when they want to purchase ammunition now? It’s none of their gosh-darn business as far as I’m concerned.

  7. Chuck – I believe it is their policy that you have to be over 21 to buy “handgun” ammo and over 18 for anything else. So for cartridges normally used in handguns, they usually ask for ID.

  8. Sanchez aka "Jack of All Trades" says:

    “I believe it is their policy that you have to be over 21 to buy “handgun” ammo and over 18 for anything else. So for cartridges normally used in handguns, they usually ask for ID.”

    Isn’t that federalie law? I think it is, and I hate it.

  9. Sanchez aka "Jack of All Trades" says:

    Possible mistake on the federal part. Could be state law…

  10. okiexd40 says:

    Bob Moates Sport Shop is miniscule compared to the company that set the precedent.

    Why not put out the word not shop at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club?

  11. Laughingdog says:

    ““I believe it is their policy that you have to be over 21 to buy “handgun” ammo and over 18 for anything else. So for cartridges normally used in handguns, they usually ask for ID.”

    Isn’t that federalie law? I think it is, and I hate it.”

    No. That is what businesses all think the law says because they’re too lazy to actually read it. The actual federal law states that FFLs cannot sell ammunition to anyone under 21 IF IT IS USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR HANDGUNS. If you aren’t an FFL, it doesn’t apply. If the ammunition can be used in any rifle or carbine, it also does not apply. This limits the law to a handful of obscure, and very old, calibers.

  12. Chuck B. says:

    Gregory Morris:

    The Wal-Mart employee whom I referred to above never asked me to show him ID. He just asked me whether the ammunition was for a handgun. When I told him I did not feel like answering his question, he just shrugged and completed the transaction with me.

    As for the .357 Magnum cartridge, aren’t there some rifles chambered for that now anyway?

  13. Chuck: You’ll find handguns chambered in everything up to and including .50BMG (stupid, but true), which means nearly all rifle cartridges are also handgun cartridges.

    You can’t expect Walmart employees to understand the law though. However, if he sold you the ammo without checking your ID, then he violated Walmart policy.

  14. John Henry Taylor says:

    Gentlemen,

    Any anger over any settlement reached by Bob Moates Sports Shop Inc. and the multitude of Bloomberg attorneys should not be directed at Bob Moates. The proper questions to be asked would be: Why was Michael Bloomberg not indicted for conspiracy to violate the Federal Firearms Laws or the Virginia Firearms Laws? Why were his employees not indicted for violating these laws? Bob Moates had been in business for over fifty years serving the sporting goods needs of tens of thousands of law abiding citizens. His little “Mom & Pop” store had not violated any laws and Bloomberg knew it. Poor Mr. Moates fought the battle as long as he could (two years) and the attorney fees alone would have put him under if he had not reached a settlement with Bloomberg. Mr. Moates acted in the only way left him to protect the jobs of his employees and his family’s livelihood. The end result is that he is still serving the firearm needs of our citizens just like he always did.

  15. Daniel Davis says:

    I live in Richmond and have and still do shop at Bob Moats sport shop. It is small, crowded and filled beyond all expectation with gunnie goodness. It is a little hole in the wall shop next door to Bob’s house. It is a great store, run by good people; not a shady guns-R-us dive. He fought for a long time, he held on and made his point. Anyone near by who shops there knows what went on, and in fact he gained a lot of customers. Ultimately though, he can’t compete against the likes of Bloomberg and Wal-mart. He could pour even more money down the rat-hole of the legal system, knowing that his opponents are financed by unbelievable amounts of tax money, but there is a point where it is not worth it. It is easy to be determined when you are sitting behind a computer screen, but when you are facing your livelihood being taken away it calls for sober thinking and careful analysis. Is this the best way to fight for your rights, is this particular instance a battle or a war? He would rather get the darn thing over with, get the best deal he can for himself and his customers, and get on with business. The best revenge is sticking it to them by selling even more of the guns they hate.

    BTW, a couple weeks ago they caught a fugitive from Maryland who was actually trying to buy a gun under his own name. Take that Bloomerg!

    Da

  16. Dave Hancock says:

    Bob spent a lot of money in his defense. The final settlement include free cameras and a computer program, paid for by NYC, that allows us to keep video for 6 months instead of 3. The remainder of the agreement included nothing that we did not already do. There was no reason to go further. We won.

  17. Bitter says:

    By that kind of defense Dave, you offer up one of two scenarios:

    1) You *LOVE* taxpayer funded bailouts since it’s considered a good thing that he’s using city property to run his business.

    or

    2) You consider it okay to dance with the devil and give the purchase records to anti-gunners in other states. By using the programs, they are using city programs. By accepting materials essentially owned by the NYC government, the store could be audited as part of any kind of review. You make a mistake if you believe it’s all “free.” There’s a price for everything.

    If the terms of the deal were actions which the store took anyway, then I’m happy that I will not be a customer. People have boycotted Wal-Mart over less.

    You did not win.

  18. Sebastian says:

    The problem is, by settling on terms that are agreeable to the City of New York, and terms which said City managed to spin in its favor in the media, you make it that much more likely Bloomberg will target other gun shops. That’s what I find unforgivable.

    I know Bob Moates didn’t ask for Bloomberg to come calling, and I can appreciate he spent a lot of money fighting him. But I look at examples like Ryan Horsley, who essentially bet his family business on standing up to the ATF. He eventually won, at great cost. The cost of caving might be lower for Bob Moates, but it’s very high for the industry as a whole, and high for the shooting community as a whole. There are some things more important than the pocketbook.

top