TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote: And you know that Academy's credit card processor isn't also using it for security verification? I've given Academy my zip code both ways for many years now. Haven't experienced any major negative concequences. Just being on the internet exposes people to more privacy issues than giving out a zip code.

I'll leave it here and let you folks that are dead set being rude and obnoxious is ok and productive have at it. It's been fun.

I am not arguing with you. In fact, I am in agree with you. The OP was rude and obnoxious and that behavior is not okay or productive.

As far as whether or not Academy uses zip code confirmation for security, I am not sure, but I doubt it on the basis that it can be canceled and is not required to process the transaction. I am aware of privacy concerns related to the internet, but I was not talking about privacy. I was stating that requesting the zip code at the gas pump is just a measure to make sure that the card being used is not stolen.

cyphertext wrote:
You are correct, it doesn't keep someone from lying... but by asking, perhaps they feel they have done due diligence on their part and if questioned by the BATFE about selling ammo to prohibited persons they can cover their butt. Perhaps it is to put their non-gun customer base at ease by showing that they are "responsible" retailers... who knows.

I've never been asked this question when buying ammo, but it doesn't bother me.

I suspect it's more about appeasing Obamian Federal Bank regulators in their project Choke Point campaign. The cost of credit card processing has much to do about what is called risk oriented business. Legal business have been designated high risk. Among those are: Short term Loan companies. Gun and ammo dealers, Coin Dealers and Sharp pointy object fabricators Processing credit cards is an expensive process, and most retailers will do whatever they can to negotiate as good of a deal as they can.

Abraham wrote:Teamless ,

The Academy I go to has dropped the zip code question, but back when they did I'd always cheerfully respond with "Make One Up" and the cashier would usually smile and do just that.

When asked for my phone number by a retailer, I've started responding with "Hey, I'm married"!

I always decline the Academy request but some merchants have the clerk ask. I believe it was at a Harbor Freight that a cashier asked "Can I have your Zipcode, please?". I replied "Why, don't you have one?" I thought I was clever and hilarious, but she was only mildly amused.

"I'll leave it here and let you folks that are dead set being rude and obnoxious is ok and productive have at it. It's been fun."

Ah, a bit of ye olde "passive aggressive psychobabble" employed by you now, you devil, the use of which was recently criticized by you, but now launched by you (how humorous and rather hypocritical)...

As it turns out, I had but one relatively small tree wind blown that crashed to drape across my fence with no damage to speak of (approximately an 8" diameter Chinese Tallow tree) so no big problem. The limb litter though is going to take awhile to pick up...

When asked for a phone number for use for a frequent buyers club (Petsmart, etc.) I always just go up one digit on the end. Been doing that for years.


For those of you worried about some corpoartion capturing your zip code, check out this website:

http://www.familytreenow.com

They do allow you to opt out, but the level of information they have will/should frighten you.

Alright, one last parting insight I just realize when seeing this: "I'll leave it here and let you folks that are dead set being rude and obnoxious is ok..."

The individual is rude and obnoxious for objecting to intrusive questions?

Interesting perspective and to me a weak one.

The retailer is completely innocuous, gets a pass for asking intrusive questions they've no right to ask, because they are supported (without objection) by the meek...? Hey, as long as you don't object, you'll be ok, right...?

Do these type questions even vaguely remind any of you of a time gone bye...? Are you really that naive?

I don't ignore the ramifications of being questioned by those who've no right to ask certain questions they've no right to ask.

I'm not one to be meek and say: "It's no big deal, they want to help me that's why they're asking, honest.

Don't be rude, just answer the question.

Yeah, sure!

Abraham wrote:Alright, one last parting insight I just realize when seeing this: "I'll leave it here and let you folks that are dead set being rude and obnoxious is ok..."

The individual is rude and obnoxious for objecting to intrusive questions?

Interesting perspective and to me a weak one.

The retailer is completely innocuous, gets a pass for asking intrusive questions they've no right to ask, because they are supported (without objection) by the meek...? Hey, as long as you don't object, you'll be ok, right...?

Do these type questions even vaguely remind any of you of a time gone bye...? Are you really that naive?

I don't ignore the ramifications of being questioned by those who've no right to ask certain questions they've no right to ask.

I'm not one to be meek and say: "It's no big deal, they want to help me that's why they're asking, honest.

Don't be rude, just answer the question.

Yeah, sure!

I don't believe anyone thinks the OP was rude or obnoxious for objecting to the question. Rather, people find the way he objected to it as being rude and obnoxious. While the OP may not be meek for arguing, choosing to berate what was likely a teenage kid making less than $10/hr certainly doesn't make him any sort of role model either. He could have easily expressed his displeasure by leaving quietly and contacting the general or regional manager over email.

The company has every right to ask. You have every right to object and shop elsewhere if you choose.

I do not agree with the questioning, but I certainly would not have thrown a tantrum like the OP did. He did nothing to prove he was right or morally superior. He made as all look bad. A grown man with a gun picking a fight with a retail cashier over something way beyond his control. That it certainly not the image we should strive to portray as responsible armed citizens.

I would even wager that the people who have issues with Dick's (or the CC company) asking such a question have no problems with the government asking the same question and look down upon sanctuary cities that choose not to inquire about an individual's legal status.

Abraham wrote:Alright, one last parting insight I just realize when seeing this: "I'll leave it here and let you folks that are dead set being rude and obnoxious is ok..."

The individual is rude and obnoxious for objecting to intrusive questions?

Interesting perspective and to me a weak one.

The retailer is completely innocuous, gets a pass for asking intrusive questions they've no right to ask, because they are supported (without objection) by the meek...? Hey, as long as you don't object, you'll be ok, right...?

Do these type questions even vaguely remind any of you of a time gone bye...? Are you really that naive?

I don't ignore the ramifications of being questioned by those who've no right to ask certain questions they've no right to ask.

I'm not one to be meek and say: "It's no big deal, they want to help me that's why they're asking, honest.

Don't be rude, just answer the question.

Yeah, sure!

They do have the right to ask the question. As I pointed out, under the GCA, illegal aliens are prohibited persons from possession of firearms and ammunition. I don't know why they ask but Academy doesn't... perhaps it is a result from "Operation Choke Point"... don't know, but they do have the right to ask the question. They also have the right to refuse to complete the transaction. When I worked at Academy many moons ago, they told us that if we felt anything was hinky about a firearms transaction, to stop and refuse the sale. Firearms and ammunition are a small part of their revenue and they would rather err on the side of caution than sell a firearm to someone who is not in the right frame of mind to have one. This gentleman, after raising his voice regarding a firearms related purchase, would have been asked to leave by management at the store I worked at.

One can object to answering the question without being rude and telling a clerk that he is "either stupid, misinformed, or insane".

Glad to hear that you didn't suffer too much damage from the fallen tree.

jkurtz wrote:
I don't believe anyone thinks the OP was rude or obnoxious for objecting to the question. Rather, people find the way he objected to it as being rude and obnoxious. While the OP may not be meek for arguing, choosing to berate what was likely a teenage kid making less than $10/hr certainly doesn't make him any sort of role model either. He could have easily expressed his displeasure by leaving quietly and contacting the general or regional manager over email.

The company has every right to ask. You have every right to object and shop elsewhere if you choose.

I do not agree with the questioning, but I certainly would not have thrown a tantrum like the OP did. He did nothing to prove he was right or morally superior. He made as all look bad. A grown man with a gun picking a fight with a retail cashier over something way beyond his control. That it certainly not the image we should strive to portray as responsible armed citizens.

Bingo! We have a winner!

TEX wrote: I guess it was then that I started speaking in a rather loud drill instructor type voice because I notice everyone at all of the other checkout counters stopped what they were doing to see what the ruckus was about. I told the young sales clerk that he was insane, misinformed or stupid and that there was no such law, I went on to ask him where the heck he thought he was – California?

We can have a problem or not when asked for personal information. We can answer the question or not. We can shop at Dick's Sporting Goods or not. But what we shouldn't do is raise our voices and take it out on a clerk being paid subsistence wages and who has zero control over policy. That is bullying behavior. That harms the cause of restoring RKBA rights. The biggest impediment to a positive view of gun rights with the public isn't Bloomberg and company. It's us when we get the negative in your face attitude with the public.

gljjt wrote:

jkurtz wrote: I guess it was then that I started speaking in a rather loud drill instructor type voice because I notice everyone at all of the other checkout counters stopped what they were doing to see what the ruckus was about. I told the young sales clerk that he was insane, misinformed or stupid and that there was no such law, I went on to ask him where the heck he thought he was – California?

We can have a problem or not when asked for personal information. We can answer the question or not. We can shop at Dick's Sporting Goods or not. But what we shouldn't do is raise our voices and take it out on a clerk being paid subsistence wages and who has zero control over policy. That is bullying behavior. That harms the cause of restoring RKBA rights. The biggest impediment to a positive view of gun rights with the public isn't Bloomberg and company. It's us when we get the negative in your face attitude with the public.

I believe you are wrongly attributing the quote to me. What you quoted was written by the OP. I am of the opinion that the OP was in the the wrong.

This has been a good one!

Oldgringo wrote: This has been a good one!

Yep. Keep popping the corn.

jkurtz wrote:

gljjt wrote:

jkurtz wrote: I guess it was then that I started speaking in a rather loud drill instructor type voice because I notice everyone at all of the other checkout counters stopped what they were doing to see what the ruckus was about. I told the young sales clerk that he was insane, misinformed or stupid and that there was no such law, I went on to ask him where the heck he thought he was – California?

We can have a problem or not when asked for personal information. We can answer the question or not. We can shop at Dick's Sporting Goods or not. But what we shouldn't do is raise our voices and take it out on a clerk being paid subsistence wages and who has zero control over policy. That is bullying behavior. That harms the cause of restoring RKBA rights. The biggest impediment to a positive view of gun rights with the public isn't Bloomberg and company. It's us when we get the negative in your face attitude with the public.

I believe you are wrongly attributing the quote to me. What you quoted was written by the OP. I am of the opinion that the OP was in the the wrong.

jkurtz, I am sorry. I obviously deleted the wrong tags when i quoted the OP. I corrected my original post. Again, i apologize for incorrectly attributing the quote tho you.