Bass Pro’s background check policy raises questions

The corporate giant is more stringent than the ATF.

Lee Williams
Jul 21

by Lee Williams

Cecil Trimble, a 35-year-old restaurant manager, took a fishing reel to Bass Pro Shop’s Tampa store last week to be respooled with new line. As he was waiting, he wandered over to the gun department and immediately spotted the object of his recent desire.

Trimble had been searching for a Sig P365 X Macro for weeks. The problem was, so had everybody else. Bass Pro wanted around $800 for the 9mm. Trimble didn’t hesitate. He told the salesperson he wanted it, completed a Form 4473 and handed over his Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm License, which exempts him from a waiting period. Trimble had purchased numerous firearms from Bass Pro Shop in the past, so he expected to walk out of the store with his new pistol in minutes.

“The clerk came over and told me, ‘The ATF has approved you, but we’re denying the purchase,’” Trimble told the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project earlier this week.

Astonished, Trimble demanded to know what was going on. The salesperson said Trimble’s brother-in-law had tried to buy a firearm at the store a month ago but self-denied on the 4473 most likely because he misread a question. Unfortunately, Trimble’s brother-in-law, who had lived with him several years ago, moved out but never changed the address on his driver’s license.

“I asked the clerk how this had anything to do with me, and he said it was Bass Pro’s policy not to sell any firearms to anyone living at the same address as someone who has been denied,” Trimble said. “He hasn’t lived there for three or four years. I get the straw purchase thing, but he tried to buy a $200 revolver and I was trying to buy an $800 9mm.”

“The firearms manager agreed with me but could not get the GM of compliance on the phone to talk this out,” Trimble said. “As it stands now, I or anyone living at my address are barred from buying firearms from Bass Pro ever again.”

Trimble pointed out his brother-in-law is retired military, a Florida CWFL holder and not a prohibited person. He must have misread a question on the Form 4473, Trimble said. The staff wouldn’t relent.

“My main gripe is this: what if I moved into an apartment and the previous tenant was denied. According to Bass Pro, I couldn’t disprove it’s not a straw purchase, and I can never buy a gun from them again,” Trimble said.
Bass Pro’s response

Neither Bass Pro Shop’s corporate communications staff nor Jarron Ritchie, general manager of the Tampa facility, responded to multiple calls or emails seeking their comments for this story.

Calls to Bass Pro’s firearm compliance directors were referred to their corporate communications staff, who did not respond.

Multiple calls to the Tampa store’s gun department finally produced a brief interview with “Joe,” who said he was one of the store’s managers. Joe did not provide his last name.

At first, he tried to blame the ATF, but he later admitted, “We do keep a data log on this.” However, he would not discuss or disclose their corporate background check policy.

“Again, sir, we are talking about things that I at the store level am not allowed to go into,” Joe said.
Takeaways

It’s important to keep in mind that a gun dealer can refuse to transfer a firearm to anyone for any reason. In fact, they don’t need a reason to refuse a sale.

Also, the Biden-Harris administration has declared war on gun dealers. Federal Firearm License revocations have increased more than 500% since Biden took office. If the ATF was able to revoke the FFL of a big-box gun store like Bass Pro, the results would be cataclysmic for the store and its customers. Therefore, it is easy to understand why the sporting goods chain would want to be very careful when transferring firearms.

Still, Bass Pro’s straw purchase fears do not make much sense in this case. Straw purchases usually happen within 72 hours of a denial — not a month later — and nearly all of them involve the same gun — not a $200 revolver and then an $800 9mm.

Trimble was able to find and purchase a P365 from a local gun store the next day. The whole ordeal reminded him of another corporate mishap.

“Remember when Dick’s became anti-gun? This could be a slippery slope like Dick’s went through,” Trimble said. “They’re not preventing straw purchases. I answered that question on a federal form, which should be good enough. Bass Pro told me I’d get a call back from them the next day. I’m still waiting for that call.”

Legally, Bass Pro can concoct whatever policies they want, but they also should be willing to explain them when asked by the public. Even at the height of their lunacy, Dick’s still managed to do that.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

Yes, definitely fault an FFL holder for erroring on the side of caution.

I thought conservatives supported the right for business owners to conduct business in a way they see fit, IE the recent SCOTUS case.

Apparently not......


As an FFL holder, if I have any reason to believe you could be making a straw purchase, you will be politely asked to take your business elsewhere.

Doesn't look like the man wanted Bass Pro to do anything like bake a special dick cake for a wedding. Just sell a product sitting there on the shelf.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Yes, definitely fault an FFL holder for erroring on the side of caution.

I thought conservatives supported the right for business owners to conduct business in a way they see fit, IE the recent SCOTUS case.

Apparently not......


As an FFL holder, if I have any reason to believe you could be making a straw purchase, you will be politely asked to take your business elsewhere.

Exactly. Seems to me, Bass Pro should be commended for exercising discern in favor of ensuring that a firearm was not being illegally purchased instead of turning a blind eye to facts and circumstances that raised concern just because the simple computer background check came back approved. Just because you have the right to do something, does not make it the right thing to do.

Do you believe the business should be allowed to be more stringent than what the ARF requires?

The whole point in straw buys is the draw buyer does not have a record. They pass the background check, but my eyes tell me as the floor manager or sake’s associate something is not right. The store allows me decline service for any non federally protected reason. What should I do?

Now, if you want to pass a Fed Law that says FFL can never deny completing a sale to someone who satisfies the background check process on pain of X, Y, and Z, that is fine. Good luck. I do not support such a law. I doubt Congress nor a majority of the people do either.

However, it is within Congress purview to pass such a law.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Yes, definitely fault an FFL holder for erroring on the side of caution.

I thought conservatives supported the right for business owners to conduct business in a way they see fit, IE the recent SCOTUS case.

Apparently not......


As an FFL holder, if I have any reason to believe you could be making a straw purchase, you will be politely asked to take your business elsewhere.

Only when their racist or criminal policies align with theirs.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Doesn't look like the man wanted Bass Pro to do anything like bake a special dick cake for a wedding. Just sell a product sitting there on the shelf.

Now, there's an ironic analogy. You're fine with somebody denying a request for a dick cake but the proprietor damn sure better hand over that firearm no matter what.

quote:

Exactly. Seems to me, Bass Pro should be commended for exercising discern in favor of ensuring that a firearm was not being illegally purchased instead of turning a blind eye to facts and circumstances that raised concern just because the simple computer background check came back approved. Just because you have the right to do something, does not make it the right thing to do.

Sounds like fascism to me-
quasi governmental effects on business

it figures -
a fascist like you loves seeing an entity deny a constitutional right

It's Basscism. Those dirty Basscists are a private company denying you your constitutional rights!

Read up on some things big boy and you won't look so stupid.

Again, pass a law that says an FFL holder shall not deny transfer to transferee upon successful application to the background system.


I do not think any such bill will be presented to a sub-committee or have majority support from the populace nor Congress. The reasons are valid.

However, pass the bill or at least try instead of complaining.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Exactly. Seems to me, Bass Pro should be commended for exercising discern in favor of ensuring that a firearm was not being illegally purchased instead of turning a blind eye to facts and circumstances that raised concern just because the simple computer background check came back approved. Just because you have the right to do something, does not make it the right thing to do.

Sounds like fascism to me-
quasi governmental effects on business

it figures -
a fascist like you loves seeing an entity deny a constitutional right

Have a slice of Ann’s dick cake, maybe you will feel better.

There are two many guns in the wrong hands in America.

A large corporation gun dealer is interested in using some caution in selling to the public. It should go without saying that large corporations policies are sometimes not as personal or considerate to the individual as the individual would like. I see no problem here.

I can log onto GunBroker anytime I want and buy any gun I want. He has plenty of liberties and opportunities.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
There are two many guns in the wrong hands in America.

A large corporation gun dealer is interested in using some caution in selling to the public. It should go without saying that large corporations policies are sometimes not as personal or considerate to the individual as the individual would like. I see no problem here.

I can log onto GunBroker anytime I want and buy any gun I want. He has plenty of liberties and opportunities.

Not nefarious, just corporate CYA-ism, coupled with an uninterested attitude. He should be able to appeal the judgement.
I have seen people who would pass NICS, who should not be sold firearms or ammunition in Bass Pro Shops.

And people behind that counter who should only be allowed to sell socks and t-shirts.

I said it many times before, businesses should NOT be allowed to pick and choose who to serve if they are open to the public.

In very exceptional cases, where may be violence involved, they might be allowed to.

So if a FFL refuses to transfer firearms to black men in an inner city because he views them as suspicious or likely straw buyers, you are OK with that?

I don’t have an issue with the business doing what they feel like, but I do feel the lefties are being a bit hypocritical in their support for this, while filing cases in other business decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So if a FFL refuses to transfer firearms to black men in an inner city because he views them as suspicious or likely straw buyers, you are OK with that?

That is 100% correct.

It has nothing to with left or right politics, it is simply be very careful that you follow the law, CYA if you like.

I have way too much to lose, no way in hell would I transfer a gun to someone who I feel may be attempting to evade the background check or make a straw purchase.

From the ATF regulations:

“If you suspect that a transaction is a straw purchase, or there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the potential sale, you should not sell the firearm and you should notify your local ATF office.“

Sounds to me like Bass Pro was just being a responsible FFL holder, something a number of the “law enforcement thin blue liners” on AR would not have been.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I said it many times before, businesses should NOT be allowed to pick and choose who to serve if they are open to the public.

In very exceptional cases, where may be violence involved, they might be allowed to.

You believe that because you live in a society that has a sense of decorum, manners, civility.

I/ we do not. I sometimes think dress codes should be privately enforced while in public. Freedom of Speech should be privately censored while in public.

" No shoes, no shirt, no service."

I'll be darned if I want the customers in my place shouting Nigga, Nigga, Nigga! Or fuckin, fuckin, fuckin!

In my business you can cover your nipples and behind, watch your mouth, volume and tone and generally at least fake being a considerate guest.

And id think neither my employees nor I have to sell someone a gun of all things if we don't want to.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
From the ATF regulations:

“If you suspect that a transaction is a straw purchase, or there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the potential sale, you should not sell the firearm and you should notify your local ATF office.

Sounds to me like Bass Pro was just being a responsible FFL holder, something a number of the “law enforcement thin blue liners” on AR would not have been.

owning companies with three separate FFL's
i disagree,

the client had an LTC issued from the state where the transaction was to take place-

it is not their job to deny "JOE "
a weapon because " HUNTER "
had lived at that address

quote:

Have a slice of Ann’s dick cake, maybe you will feel better.

funny
i can't find it
with you sitting on it

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
From the ATF regulations:

“If you suspect that a transaction is a straw purchase, or there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the potential sale, you should not sell the firearm and you should notify your local ATF office.

Sounds to me like Bass Pro was just being a responsible FFL holder, something a number of the “law enforcement thin blue liners” on AR would not have been.

owning companies with three separate FFL's
i disagree,

the client had an LTC issued from the state where the transaction was to take place-

it is not their job to deny "JOE "
a weapon because " HUNTER "
had lived at that address

Well, I guess when you own Bass Pro you can chose to exercise your discretion differently. Clearly the regulations properly give the FFL holder the discretion to refuse to make a sale if they are uncomfortable with the facts and circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Doesn't look like the man wanted Bass Pro to do anything like bake a special dick cake for a wedding. Just sell a product sitting there on the shelf.

[/QUOTE}

Now, there's an ironic analogy. You're fine with somebody denying a request for a dick cake but the proprietor damn sure better hand over that firearm no matter what.

LOL, well the Christian bake shop has plenty of nice cakes on offer and the penis guys didn't want them. So, to review for you, the bake shop doesn't have penis cakes sitting on the shelf for people like you. Just regular wedding cakes. Penis cakes, thus, are not a shelf ready item at that shope whereas Bass Pro has counters full of guns for sale, on display with no special baking needed and thus ready to go.

Not sure why I need to point out the difference to you but, dang, here we are. Is it because your slice of dick cake does not have enough frosting on it for you?

I am sure law enforcement is glad to have friends like Ann, sort of like law enforcement’s good friends at ANTIFA.

Would this sort of refusal stop crime??

Absolutely not!

Yesterday there was a report of a nut pulling a gun on people in the streets he thought were taking a picture of him???

I think you missed my point.

Is the denial a reasonable one?

If a metro area gunshop refuses to sell to (all or most) black men on the basis of "I think he's suspicious" they would (rightly) get lambasted by most of the left leaning folks, even if they hate gun ownership.

I have no issue with denial of purchase for a good reasonable concern... I know of folks who have had CCW licenses who have the card, but they are currently prohibited... A guy who looked like he was actively pissed off or drunk? sure, but they I would document why I said no on the refused paperwork...

Note that they seem to imply that if you refuse, you are to notify the ATF... do you (or did this) FFL usually do that?

But for the most part, isn't the government giving the go ahead on NICS proof that they are OK?

I could see someone coming in and wanting to buy 10 Glock 17's being a bit suspicious, but one handgun? Dunno there.

Kind of like we are supposed to check with a database on suspicious drug use before prescribing controlled substances now...

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So if a FFL refuses to transfer firearms to black men in an inner city because he views them as suspicious or likely straw buyers, you are OK with that?

That is 100% correct.

It has nothing to with left or right politics, it is simply be very careful that you follow the law, CYA if you like.

I have way too much to lose, no way in hell would I transfer a gun to someone who I feel may be attempting to evade the background check or make a straw purchase.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I think you missed my point.

Is the denial a reasonable one?

If a metro area gunshop refuses to sell to (all or most) black men on the basis of "I think he's suspicious" they would (rightly) get lambasted by most of the left leaning folks, even if they hate gun ownership.

I have no issue with denial of purchase for a good reasonable concern... I know of folks who have had CCW licenses who have the card, but they are currently prohibited... A guy who looked like he was actively pissed off or drunk? sure, but they I would document why I said no on the refused paperwork...

Note that they seem to imply that if you refuse, you are to notify the ATF... do you (or did this) FFL usually do that?

But for the most part, isn't the government giving the go ahead on NICS proof that they are OK?

I could see someone coming in and wanting to buy 10 Glock 17's being a bit suspicious, but one handgun? Dunno there.

Kind of like we are supposed to check with a database on suspicious drug use before prescribing controlled substances now...

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So if a FFL refuses to transfer firearms to black men in an inner city because he views them as suspicious or likely straw buyers, you are OK with that?

That is 100% correct.

It has nothing to with left or right politics, it is simply be very careful that you follow the law, CYA if you like.

I have way too much to lose, no way in hell would I transfer a gun to someone who I feel may be attempting to evade the background check or make a straw purchase.

If the FFL holder had ANY reason to SUSPECT a straw purchase, then yes the denial is reasonable.

You do not have a right to purchase my wares, just as I do not have a right to have an FFL. These are privileges.

I do not need proof to deny a sale, there is no paperwork involved. It is my choice and my choice alone if I want to do business with you as long as I do not discriminate against you.

My type of business does not attract straw buyers often. I do know that many FFL holders will indeed contact the ATF when suspicious customers attempt to purchase, as they should.

For the most part NICS approval is indeed fine, unless the FFL holder has a reason to suspect something illegal is taking place, then it is up to the FFL to stop the transaction.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Would this sort of refusal stop crime??

Absolutely not!

Yesterday there was a report of a nut pulling a gun on people in the streets he thought were taking a picture of him???

Yes, denial of a straw purchase stops individuals who cannot legally own a firearm from obtaining one through legal channels potentially stop a crime from occurring. It is certainly true that that the individual could illegally obtain a gun, but that is a completely different discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Doesn't look like the man wanted Bass Pro to do anything like bake a special dick cake for a wedding. Just sell a product sitting there on the shelf.

[/QUOTE}

Now, there's an ironic analogy. You're fine with somebody denying a request for a dick cake but the proprietor damn sure better hand over that firearm no matter what.

LOL, well the Christian bake shop has plenty of nice cakes on offer and the penis guys didn't want them. So, to review for you, the bake shop doesn't have penis cakes sitting on the shelf for people like you. Just regular wedding cakes. Penis cakes, thus, are not a shelf ready item at that shope whereas Bass Pro has counters full of guns for sale, on display with no special baking needed and thus ready to go.

Not sure why I need to point out the difference to you but, dang, here we are. Is it because your slice of dick cake does not have enough frosting on it for you?

Wow, Ann, you really got me there. I have to tell you that the only time I spend thinking about penis/dick cakes is the time I read about you fretting and worrying about them on here. It must be a terrible to have so little to do or care about that dick cakes occupy space in your head.

It's their shop. than can sell, or not, to whoever they want

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Yes, definitely fault an FFL holder for erroring on the side of caution.

I thought conservatives supported the right for business owners to conduct business in a way they see fit, IE the recent SCOTUS case.

Apparently not......


As an FFL holder, if I have any reason to believe you could be making a straw purchase, you will be politely asked to take your business elsewhere.

Exactly. Seems to me, Bass Pro should be commended for exercising discern in favor of ensuring that a firearm was not being illegally purchased instead of turning a blind eye to facts and circumstances that raised concern just because the simple computer background check came back approved. Just because you have the right to do something, does not make it the right thing to do.

I do not often agree with you, but I do this time.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Doesn't look like the man wanted Bass Pro to do anything like bake a special dick cake for a wedding. Just sell a product sitting there on the shelf.

[/QUOTE}

Now, there's an ironic analogy. You're fine with somebody denying a request for a dick cake but the proprietor damn sure better hand over that firearm no matter what.

LOL, well the Christian bake shop has plenty of nice cakes on offer and the penis guys didn't want them. So, to review for you, the bake shop doesn't have penis cakes sitting on the shelf for people like you. Just regular wedding cakes. Penis cakes, thus, are not a shelf ready item at that shope whereas Bass Pro has counters full of guns for sale, on display with no special baking needed and thus ready to go.

Not sure why I need to point out the difference to you but, dang, here we are. Is it because your slice of dick cake does not have enough frosting on it for you?

Wow, Ann, you really got me there. I have to tell you that the only time I spend thinking about penis/dick cakes is the time I read about you fretting and worrying about them on here. It must be a terrible to have so little to do or care about that dick cakes occupy space in your head.

YOU brought the dick cakes up.