Technically, My gun was stolen.
- Thread starter motorcarman
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
.png)
motorcarman
Compulsive Collector
Pietta only offers .357 or 45 Colt. The 44-40 WAS offered years ago and this was probably NOS (new old stock).
I emailed CAI and requested MY old 44 back OR a replacement in .357 OR 45 Colt (I have ammo for both).
I got a reply to day stating that they refunded the retailer and to take the matter up with them. Basically....... f*(k @ff.
bob
motorcarman
Compulsive Collector
That's a good question I can ask the retailer. If they have a similar revolver in .357 or .45 Colt I would take that and even pay the $25 shipping again just to get close to even.
I did find a pair of Stainless Steel Ruger New Vaqueros with 5.5" barrels in .45 Colt that I could not pass up. They belonged to a fast draw SASS type guy that passed away and they were liquidating the Estate. I got the 'forward cant' holsters and the belt with 24 ammo loops in .45Colt but his waist was 46".
I have a 34" belt that fits my skinny A$$ so the 46" is like a hula hoop with 2 holsters.
If anyone needs a 46" western belt with 24 ammo loops let me know.
I also bought a bunch of .410 Stevens and 20 Gauge single shot break open Shotguns for a good price.
I felt like a Pirate digging through a deadmans chest (YO HO HO and a bottle of RUM)!!!!!!!!!!!
Lots of good stuff and I guess someday someone will be doing the same thing to all MY stuff!!!!!!
I'll keep chipping away at a solution to my problem. Maybe I'll talk to the local Justice of the Peace or the Sheriff to see what my options are. I hate to spend $2000 on an attorney to get $500 in compensation.
bob
Your logic is faulty
FFL began with W dollars.
He spent X dollars to purchase the gun to sell with his business.
OP sent him X + Y dollars for the gun.
FFL now has W + Y dollars.
OP made a complaint to the manufacturer, who then sent the FFL money.
FFL now has W + X + Y dollars.
He is offering to return X dollars only.
FFL has W + Y dollars in this case.
FFL does not take a loss in any scenario here.
FFL now has Y with which to put towards the X cost of another revolver, which will net him Z = Y profit.
Unethical.
Your logic is typical liberal BS, going after the person who has money instead of the person who wronged you.
FFL did nothing wrong, and should not even be part of discussion. CAI made the broken gun, CAI refused to make things right. FFL is just the mailman delivering the refund from CAI to the customer.
You're confusing libertarian "the individual who sold the lemon should be a responsible individual" with liberalism.
No one is saying the government should force the FFL to pay OP back. Right?
Don't fall into No True Scotsman stuff. I would hope an FFL would be smarter than that.
My logic has to do with basic contracts.
OP agreed to exchange American dollars for a functional firearm.
The FFL agreed to supply a functional firearm in exchange for money.
One of the two parties involved didn't hold up their end of the deal.
The FFL now has a problem with his original contract with the manufacturer, which has nothing to do with OP.
The FFL sold a lemon, and is telling OP he is going to keep the profits from selling a lemon.
That is unethical.
Really?
That is bare bones logic right there.
I can't make it any more simple than that. I wish I could
The FFL sold faulty goods to HIS customer.
The customer is now out money with nothing to show for it.
If a grocery store sells a banana to a customer that ends up being rotten, should the customer call the farmer?
Last edited:
No he should not, but that is what he did and so it goes, - he called the farmer (CAI). His beef is now with the person (CAI) who will not give him his gun back or give him a refund (CAI).
It is outrageous folks are letting CAI off the hook for literally STEALING his gun.
What was basic contract OP had with FFL? Hmmm. You forgot to mention that. I bet it mentioned things like, As Is, No returns, All sales final, and all warrantee work performed by MFG/ Imported. Common things 99.99% of all guns stores do.
Even if OP/FFL contract agree to repair/replace, OP would have had to give gun to FFL for that to happen, not ship it off to third party.
Here is what OP had to say about FFL
In the grand scheme of things they have done everything right
"I'm going to claim that the OP agrees with me in a thread where he states, in the stolen property subforum, that an FFL, in a way, has stolen from him. This is how far I am willing to go to support my argument where I'm defending an FFL because I identify with them.
Furthermore, I'm going to jump to the conclusion that the FFL specified a No Returns/ All Sales Final policy prior to the sale, despite solid, undeniable prima facie evidence to the contrary existing in the unethical refund offer."
The only thing you've said that makes sense is that OP should be contacting the authorities regarding CAI's behavior with his property.
cai and ffl are at fault, but to me the ffl is more at fault -- the ffl bought the gun from cai for 350 -- the op buys it from ffl for 500 -- gun breaks he sends it to cai (no different than the ffl would of done) cai no longer makes that type of gun anymore and the gun cannot be fixed why should they refund 500 when they sold it for 350? -- why should everyone here lose but the ffl who makes out with 150 for nothing? -- the correct thing was done with cai refunding ffl (which would of been done even with ffl sending it in) -- the ffl is in wrong for expecting to still profit for nothing -- maybe op should of let the ffl send it in but still would be nothing different -- cai would of exchanged it out for another if was another to exchange for but since no longer made only thing for them to do is refund -- ffl is totally wrong to me and most anyone with common sense and a bit of ethics knows they are wrong -- like many said they get refunded their 350 and they refund the op's 500 everyone is back to where it all started but no they want to profit for nothing -- in the end they are both wrong really, bad part of it is maybe op could of exchange for another type of gun like he mentioned -- still think and feel a proper ffl dealer or a ffl company with any standards would of done or made things right
Last edited:
How many here have ever submitted a warranty repair directly to the manufacturer? Did you use your FFL to do so? Is the FFL at fault in that situation? Are you OK with the FFL profiting from that situation?
I understand MCMan didn't get his gun back at all and I would agree it was "stolen" in a way, but that had NOTHING to do with FFL. They were done the moment possession was transfered. The ONLY reason the FFL got reinvovled was because CAI was shady and knew they could pay LESS than what MCMan paid for it, instead of doing the honorable thing and owning up to it being their issue. Why should CAI lose the money? Because it's THEIR gun!
You buy a Samsung TV from store. It's a lemon. You contact Samsung. They say they'll refund only what the store paid for it and they'll only refund it to the store. You're telling me you're not going to be pissed at Samsung, you're going to be pissed at store? I just can't agree with that.
FFL isn't making a profit over nothing. His time was spent ordering, acquiring, storing, securing, transferring, ATF, insurance, the list goes on, etc. FFL was duped as much as MCMan because they reasonably believed they were purchasing a functioning firearm they could resell to their customer. I think we're letting emotions get us angry at theater wrong party. FFL are resellers, nothing more. It would be nice for FFL to "take care of his customer" by offering something and maybe should (I probably would), but he's still no way at fault. He was just the middle man.
I understand MCMan didn't get his gun back at all and I would agree it was "stolen" in a way, but that had NOTHING to do with FFL. They were done the moment possession was transfered. The ONLY reason the FFL got reinvovled was because CAI was shady and knew they could pay LESS than what MCMan paid for it, instead of doing the honorable thing and owning up to it being their issue. Why should CAI lose the money? Because it's THEIR gun!
You buy a Samsung TV from store. It's a lemon. You contact Samsung. They say they'll refund only what the store paid for it and they'll only refund it to the store. You're telling me you're not going to be pissed at Samsung, you're going to be pissed at store? I just can't agree with that.
FFL isn't making a profit over nothing. His time was spent ordering, acquiring, storing, securing, transferring, ATF, insurance, the list goes on, etc. FFL was duped as much as MCMan because they reasonably believed they were purchasing a functioning firearm they could resell to their customer. I think we're letting emotions get us angry at theater wrong party. FFL are resellers, nothing more. It would be nice for FFL to "take care of his customer" by offering something and maybe should (I probably would), but he's still no way at fault. He was just the middle man.
Last edited:
Importer should have imported a proper functioning firearm.
Should FFL have test fired it? That would have been better due diligence IMO
Buyer should have gone to FFL first, especially since it was an importer, not a manufacturer that they are dealing with.
Should FFL have test fired it? That would have been better due diligence IMO
Buyer should have gone to FFL first, especially since it was an importer, not a manufacturer that they are dealing with.
Importer would have guessed the same as the FFL, only difference is the importer is the responsible party for the firearm once it arrives here.
Unless gun is a used gun when the FFL received it, the FFL couldn't test fire it. It wouldn't be new anymore and he would have to sell it as used and profit go bye bye. Sadly, FFLs aren't like car dealers where they can drive the car around a bit and then still sell as "new" with some miles on it.
While CAI would be responsible for the gun as soon as FFL transferred ownership, the FFL might have been willing to help. In this case, though, it doesn't seem like the FFL was really willing to do anything so it might be a moot point at this time.
