UPS cancelling gun dealers’ accounts, destroying packages in transit

Japhy

https://thegunwriter.substack.com/p/breaking-ups-cancelling-gun-dealers

What next?

zorba

Well, that sucks. I hate FedEx, but sounds like they're going to get more of my business.

As an aside, can anything be done about that stupid gatekeeper on outgoing links? That thing is a PITA, looks like something Face***k would do. Mods?

Wambli Ska

And can see a lawsuit headed for SCOTUS on this me too…. 

zorba

Wambli Ska said:

And can see a lawsuit headed for SCOTUS on this me too…. 

Probably, but it'll take YEARS. Which is EXACTLY the plan...

GrapeApe

I see "Breach of contract" lawsuits a plenty  for any destroyed packages

Justsomedude

Can't a private business deny certain services to certain customers?

zorba

Justsomedude said:

Can't a private business deny certain services to certain customers?

Yes. But you don't retroactively change things after you've entered a contract.

Wambli Ska

Justsomedude said:

Can't a private business deny certain services to certain customers?

Yes they can, but interstate transportation of goods is a HIGHLY regulated business and an argument could be made that restricting the transportation of perfectly legal goods is in effect a limitation of our 2A right.  As a matter of fact I see probable challenges to the USPS rules too since transportation of firearms from a licensed dealer to another does not induce any more liability or physical danger to their business and workers.

Japhy

Justsomedude said:

Can't a private business deny certain services to certain customers?

The key point is:

if UPS detects what they believe are firearms parts in a shipment they accepted and were paid to ship UPS is going destroy the contents of that shipment. 

zorba

Japhy said:

Justsomedude said:

Can't a private business deny certain services to certain customers?

The key point is:

if UPS detects what they believe are firearms parts in a shipment they accepted and were paid to ship UPS is going destroy the contents of that shipment. 

Which is exactly wrong. I hope they get sued out of business.

GrapeApe

Justsomedude said:

Can't a private business deny certain services to certain customers?

Yes, but by accepting those packages, that they're now threatening to destroy, did they not enter into a contract to deliver said packages, not purposely destroy them??? 

edited to add:
I know that if I had a legal firearm in transit, say from a gunsmith, and UPS decided to destroy it instead of delivering it, I KNOW I'd be contacting a lawyer about them destroying my property, and I'd be pushing for my GS to sue for them breaching the contract UPS entered into with them when they accepted the shipment.

Japhy

UPS is not the BATF or Postal Inspectors.

Though not mentioned in the article, a parcel from Brownells must have been destroyed or this story would not have been reported.

zorba

Japhy said:

UPS is not the BATF or Postal Inspectors.

Though not mentioned in the article, a parcel from Brownells must have been destroyed or this story would not have been reported.

They just think they are.

Justsomedude

I probably should have clarified my stance. It's definitely not right for then to destroy what they already have in their possession on a whim but it should be their right as a private company to deny future services. It's the same as Facebook censoring the right. I don't agree with it but it's their house. I see people that don't understand the 1st amendment saying that it violates their free speech when they're on a private companies platform. I also didn't like paying $750 for a vial of insulin when i was without insurance but I believe in free market capitalism. 

GrapeApe

In that case, JSD, we are in complete agreement.
As long as it's not discriminatory towards one of the "protected groups" it is perfectly within their right.

I thought you were responding to my prediction of breach of contract lawsuits because of any destroyed packages already in the system.

Wambli Ska

So doing a little more research, UPS is very specific that they are not a “common carrier” (new to me info).  They just made a statement reaffirming this probably because of the backlash on this decision.  That gives them the right to refuse to accept any type of shipment for a variety of reasons, politics not being one of them, but this still leaves many avenues of legal recourse for customers that are grieved by this decision and I expect MANY suits to follow.

FedEx on the other had is a “common carrier” so they’ll be getting all my business from now on.

zorba

FedEx sucks. I've avoided them as much as I could over the years because of multiple problems. Sigh...

Justsomedude

Someone at fedex stole my bluing tank because the box could be mistaken for a rifle box from Brownells. They also forged random initials on the delivery. I went through hell to get reimbursed. I despise that company. 

Wambli Ska

Justsomedude said:

Someone at fedex stole my bluing tank because the box could be mistaken for a rifle box from Brownells. They also forged random initials on the delivery. I went through hell to get reimbursed. I despise that company. 

They just “lost” my new company supplied iPhone 13.  They just put it down as “delivered”.  Too stupid to know that Apple and AT&T remotely fry the stolen iPhones so they are unusable… I got a replacement next day 🤣

Diver43

Wambli Ska said:

Justsomedude said:

Someone at fedex stole my bluing tank because the box could be mistaken for a rifle box from Brownells. They also forged random initials on the delivery. I went through hell to get reimbursed. I despise that company. 

They just “lost” my new company supplied iPhone 13.  They just put it down as “delivered”.  Too stupid to know that Apple and AT&T remotely fry the stolen iPhones so they are unusable… I got a replacement next day 🤣

I didnt know they did this.  Good policy

Japhy

my latest thought

order an 80% lower

insure it for $50,000 (max UPS insurance), cost = $500 + merchandise

the payout would be almost 100:1

centermass556

I'm late to this thread, but in the article ( I cringe to call it that), it specifies the cause for termination of the contract - UPS believed Ghost Firearms was violating the law. Thats completely understandable. 
I mean, ****, they called themselves Ghost Firearms. Thats like yelling for attention from ATF and everyone else. It's like getting a tattoo on your forehead for attention, then complaining that everyone is talking about the tattoo you got on your forehead. 
I can't find a single direct release from Brownells on why UPS canceled the contract with them.

However, I can tell you that I have had three firearms delivered via UPS in the last 90 days. I have also had numerous firearm related parts and other things delivered via UPS.  

Is gun ownership under attack - yes. Do we need to let our dollars vote - yes. But, we also need to use some common sense and diligence.