Southwest Shooting Authority Coke Reynolds, Owner Exercise Your Right to Vote and Lose Your Right to Bear Arms Pinetop, Arizona

Any business owner in this country has the right to refuse service to any person who walks in their door.  You may not agree with the reasoning behind Mr. Reynolds actions, but he is not in any way breaking anyone's right to bear arms.  He's not telling people that they cannot own guns, he's simply saying the you cannot purchase them from him.

There are other gun shops in and around the Pinetop and Show Low area that any person seeking a gun may go to purchase one.  Even if there weren't other locations, that is not Mr. Reynolds problem.

The fact that you incorrectly sited that he was violating the Second Amendment and then compared Mr. Reynolds to Hitler (and others) shows that you're upset because he doesn't like Obama supporters.  Therefore, saying that Mr. Reynolds is doing anything wrong, is wrong

In my opinion, your argument lost all credibility when the name calling started.

The negative comment about SWSA was entirely political in nature.

To be brief, I took training from Cope Reynolds over a year ago.  Under his safe and careful supervision, the other student and myself completed a graduated series of firearm exercises that improved our skills tremendously.  Price was 800 dollars for the course, which is about average for any decent class with live firearm handling.

Cope didn't have an "Obama vote detector" installed at the entrance to his shop, nor was he polling people about their political views before doing business with them.

His sign was a statement of his political philosophy and of course did NOTHING to deny anyone's right to keep and bear arms.

The author of the rebuttal to the initial report must be a lawyer because either he can't read or chooses to mis-characterize what he's read.  Nothing was said about the company's actions being unconstitutional.  The original author finds the action of the gun shop owner objectionable.  But according to the rebuutal, it's just foot stomping if you don't present a legal brief complete with citations to express it.  Wow, I didn't know that was what is reuired when you want to write about a narrow minded gun shop owner. This rebutter apparently has an even more narrow mind.  He thinks you have to be a lawyer to make a point.  Hint:  You don't.  And I too find it objectionable that this gun shop owner should dictate our right to bear arms based upon one's political views.

Surely you jest and are fishing for an inflammatory response.  So, you equate a business with refusing service as a sudden.. " Apparently, if you exorcized your Constitutional right to vote, and you
used that freedom to choose Obama, you MUST now lose your Constitutional
right to bear arms."  I read nothing anti-Constitutional in his refusal to provide his service and goods for stating his opinion to refuse to serve those of a different political view.  Nothing about "You don't even need a felony conviction at this store, just show you're NOT a mindless idiot and you're disqualified from owning a gun."  Where is this unconstitutional?  Justify your views in the constitution (with the Constitution, and Bill Of Rights cited).  Noticed no responses, could it be censoring that don't agree with your political views....hmmm.  Justify, coherently, your foot stomping.