Suspicious Sale on GB
 

So, I've been tracking this sale on GB, then I noticed the Seller had some other nice stuff. But as I looked at them, I noticed something unusual. They all have different locations in Virginia and California.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/727849972

I've sent him several questions and he doesn't respond. Anybody know anything about this guy?

AND what do you think about that PayPal Acceptable Use agreement

Item
716940584
Item
716935625

I have been seeing those ads , stated if they go to US he will torch the receiver in 3 pieces ( ?
Shouldn't that be 4 pieces
And
Would that be "importation" of bla bla bla ?

Maybe that prince took that money he couldn't give away and bought parts kits

I only noticed because I asked him if I could meet and see the Entreprise receiver since the pictures weren't working. Never heard from him. Then I asked if he would email the pictures. Never heard from him.

Then I happened to look at the DSA receiver he has listed and it showed CA, as the state. Made me go back to see if I misread the Entreprise location. Nope, says Virginia. Then another items shows a different location in Virginia that is a few hours away from the other one.

I'm going to pass. If anyone follows through please post how it went.

Alert
 

I've been watching his auctions too. He had too many red flags for me. His pictures are terrible, a bunch don't work, and you can't even tell what some of the receivers and lowers really are from the pics. Also, his stuff is listed as selling from 3 different locations and two of his ads had the exact same pictures with different descriptions, not that his ads are accurate anyway. He did recently change the pics that were the same though.

Does seem odd, a quick internet search reveals...

A recent auction: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/722863377

Open photobucket album:http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/ej...=recent&page=1

PB album links him to forum screen name"inbox845" on calguns : http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...72065485&pp=50

Seemed to have a fairly heavy presence and then nothing after March 2016

All his feedback is as a buyer 4 of those is from the same seller.

Mark

He responded to my questions, albeit after the items in question had sold.

I noticed that Hajii has been getting smarter. Build up a little feedback with penny ante purchases and then come back and run his scams. The guy that keeps fraudulently listing the G series has done this too.......he listed a Barrett M82 for $4000 and somebody hit the BIN button. Hope the buyer didn't send the money. People who dont answer questions should never be purchased from, regardless.

I routinely ignore dumbass questions, such as "I know your listing states no foreign sales, but would you consider shipping to Canada for extra $$$?"
Etc...Package sales are the same, if I state I won't split the package up, why bother to ask me to do so, just because you don't want the scope?

I bought the 30 round L1A1 mags from him. He sent an invoice for it to be paid via paypal. At least that way, if there is a problem, I can file a claim with paypal and see what happens. I also let him know that most of the fal lowers he is listing are not Israeli. Close ups show that they are G1's.

Do you remember what state he is actually in?

My .02- defer to your gut instinct. Proceed with caution.

Did you commit to buy them or you have actually received them?

Since magazines are a prohibited item, do you think the criminal scum at Paypal will get you a refund?

I still haven't paid for the mags yet. He provided me with a paypal address that does not match his information and I requested clarification. I have not heard form him yet.

As for paypal, when you initiate a claim, it is automated. And since they have no access to Gun Broker, all I have to do is tell them that I bought a vintage set of magazines for recreational reading.

So you have no problem lying to use a service that would otherwise be denied, but are concerned about the sellers integrity? Maybe he's just as honest as you are?

Yeah,
My luck.

I've been watching his auctions all week and also got the heebie-geebies due to lack of description and feedback. However, it's been more than ten years since I've been burned by another gun guy/online deal; I got a hair up my butt while laying in bed this morning, said, "screw it", bid (and won) the Enterprise Type 1 receiver. I noted the strange feedback (all from many years ago) but did not catch the inconsistency with the item locations.

Immediately after I bid, I had this lingering uneasiness/suspicion. I even googled "Gunbroker bid retraction" before I got dressed. About 45 minutes later, I logged onto Fal Files and the first thing I see is this thread... yay. I knew before I even opened it which auctions the OP was referring to.

Ain't no way I'm blindly sending cash at this point. I hate being a pessimist but Rob saying his PP info doesn't match really makes me think something's rotten in Denmark.

Although I do not believe in "theft of services", I equally do not believe in unjust laws or rules.

As another civil rights advocate once said,
"One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all.”" Martin Luther King, May 1963

I also weigh cost to benefit when choosing. Of course there are always consequences for any action, and therefore you take that chance of having your account frozen by not abiding by their rules. However, I've noticed less enforcement, so maybe they weigh that as well and money talks.

I sincerely hope it works out. If it does, you won what looks like an Inch Cut Entreprise, which are pretty decent.

All current locations are Moneta and Round Hill VA. We can send WEG in to investigate. Gunbroker is pretty good about keeping scammers out. Armslist on the other hand.....:facepalm:.

krf

I agree with civil disobedience, even to include lamp posts and clothes lines. This is not a civil right. It is not government infringement. It is voluntarily entering into an agreement of fee for service, with the intent to deceive. One cannot be a liar, a cheat, and a thief; and cry foul when one receives the same.

Have I wronged you in some way other than calling you out when you are jumping to conclusions about things you no nothing about? You're the one that screwed me on deals in the past yet I still honor prices when you buy from me. Never mind. You go on living your life Mark, I have no interest in engaging you. Respond all you want, I don't care what you say.

As for the seller, he now has a paypal address that matches his info on Gun Broker. I'm going to give it a try and see what happens. Fortunately I'm only into the deal for $200.

O.k...back on topic...

It looks like this guys has a fair amount of sales over the last week, almost all FAL or L1A1 stuff. Anyone know other buyers who are in contact with the seller?

I won one of his actions as well and am thinking about reaching out to other buyers to see what the status of their purchases are as the first items purchased should be paid for by now.

Maybe I’ll just sit tight and wait for some feedback to get posted

Of course this is a Civil Rights issue. Civil Rights (and government infringement) are involved in nearly every aspect of commerce. Just like you cannot legally refuse service to someone based on their race or religion, I extend that to other individual rights as well. Therefore, refusing service based on an individual right to me is illegal and thereby making the clause invalid. If the clause is invalid it is severable.

Lying, cheating and stealing has nothing to do with it, IF you pay the requested amount for the service received.

Can you at least tell us what state he is in?

I simply point out you admit to be a liar ("all I have to do is tell them that I bought a vintage set of magazines for recreational reading"), but are worried that someone else is lying to you. The irony is palpable.

I have never knowingly screwed you, or anyone else, on any deal.

I'm waiting to hear from him via email but I want to talk on the phone before I send money.

I asked a few questions and he responded.....the inch receiver is not ABNI marked....the Coonan was a FAC receiver....his pics sucked and I could only see some of them ....I didn’t bid based on this thread and his pics...

When one voluntarily chooses to enter into an agreement, with the intent to obtain a service through deception, and the service has a value, one has made the trifecta. Lying, cheating, stealing.

Your opinion of the company's policies are irrelevant. Gun enthusiast is not a protected class.

:rofl:


Yeah. That's the same.

:rolleyes:

The agreement to sell or buy is between buyer and seller. PayPal offers the service of transferring money for a fee. If that fee is paid, AGAIN, where is the "Lying, cheating, stealing"?

Now, let's look at the actual prohibition we are debating,

"(j) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories"

Since it states "certain firearm parts", and not ALL parts, one could reasonably assume some are allowed. So which "parts" are prohibited?

Again, where is the deception?

Hey!

No logical talk (or questions) here. No thinking logically, making distinctions that would allow a person to act intelligently, and no back-talk.

No pointing out that paying the fee for the actual service (transfer of money) means that there is no theft.


No pointing out that if I:

a) walk into a grocery store, and

b) don't want to wait in line for the other knuckleheads, and

c) throw a $20 bill at the cashier as I walk out with a $19.99 item

that I haven't stolen anything - whether I "obeyed" their rules or not.


Asshole? Yep. Thief? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!


C'mon, man. Get with the program. TMG said how it is in his universe, and you should just get on board. :rolleyes:

If you are a winning bidder, the seller's phone # will be listed with his contact info. Call it.

I will give him a call to clear the air. Objectively, he could be legit and may very well have moved from Riverside to VA recently.

I know when I list stuff on GB their website still defaults to my old PA address even though I haven't lived there in 8 years. He may have let the first couple auctions go live before he caught it.

Here's hoping.

read deeper - the mags in question are in the "certain parts or accessories". I specifically looked it up before commenting. 'Cause being accurate is just how I roll, yo!

So if Joe Public pretends to be a disabled veteran to participate in an event that is restricted to disabled vets. You ok with that? Joe is neither disabled, not a veteran. But so what what? He doesn't believe the event should be limited to disabled vets. That's racist. A violation of his civil rights! Fie. So he fakes it. Pays his entrance fee, and takes advantage of the services provided.

All cool with you? Sure - it is lying, cheating, and stealing (theft of service); by using deception to obtain a product or service that would otherwise be denied.

PP has every right to refuse service on specific transactions. Products and services are not a protected class. One may not compel PP to provide the service on a product they don't like. (Unless it's a gay wedding cake).

One has every right not to use PP. Choosing to use paypal with intent to deceive, makes one a dishonest person - a liar, cheat, and thief. I find it amusing when liars, cheatsand thieves complain others being dishonest.

FIFY

You bring up a great example about the gay wedding cake. Being gay is not a protected class either (yet). Neither were the others before they were. Which is when MLK wrote that letter. But that is another discussion.

Now you are getting absolutely absurd with the vet example. One example has absolutely nothing to do with the other. What a Vet is, is well defined. IN the case of PayPal you are dealing with ambiguous restrictions at best. They do not define those "certain" parts in either the Acceptable Use Agreement or the Users Agreement. They have another ambiguous statement in a FAQ section. Which states:

"Firearm parts, including but not limited to receivers and frames, silencers, and kits designed to modify guns so that they fire automatically. High capacity magazines, multi-burst trigger activators, and camouflaging firearm containers are other items in this category."

What is the accepted definition of "high capacity" magazines? A magazine capacity greater than the original platform designer designed the platform for? Or a magazine greater than a certain round count? What is that count? What is it based on?

What is the definition of "but not limited to"?

PayPal is riding a fine line in the sand. They know such ambiguous clauses would not withstand a court challenge, so they play games with freezing accounts, mostly of those that take part in "theft of services" (another well defined area). They are also desperately trying to avoid being called a "bank". Because they don't want the bank regulations to apply to them.

Haven't you noticed that GunBroker now lists PayPal as source of payment? Do you think they could legally do that if it was prohibited?

You used to be one that said, if it isn't expressly forbidden, it's probably allowed. Please cite where a 30-rd magazine is expressly forbidden.

PS - I do not, by practice, accept PayPal for any of the items mentioned in that FAQ, as to my understanding of the definitions of those parts.

[I]For example, using PayPal, you can’t buy or sell: High capacity magazines,

I understand that you are equivocating on their unstated definition of high capacity magazine. However you know damn well that the understood definition is > 10 rounds, as defined by Congress (sunsetted) and multiple states. If you ordered high-cap Glock 17 mags and received 10 rd mags, would you be ok with that? , Because maybe someone else thought that 10 rounds was "a lot"?

Seriously? You bring up a law that has been defunct for 13 years to support your position. Now that is reaching.

The FACT remains, there is no nationally accepted legal definition of "high capacity".

A contract has to be legal to be valid. Nor should be ambiguous if you hope to prevail claiming a breach. IF they wanted to push that clause, they would either have to define that clause or use the accepted legal definition. Neither seems to exist here.

You are dodging my question. If you ordered hi-cap Glock 17 mags, and received 10 round mags, would you be satisfied? You know damn well you wouldn't, because you know damn well that the common understanding of "highcap" is those NOT limited (by design or modification) to 10 rounds.

Actually, all the criminal scum at paypal have to say is "f-ck off" and you have no recourse through them, to deal with their fraud or that of their sellers. And your first 10 e-mails will be answered by a robot, by using an algorithm to pick key words and then send you a canned auto-reply. And if there is a $1 dispute, they will freeze all $1000 in your account until they decide otherwise. Because they say so. THAT is why I no longer use paypal, even for transactions that do not violate their user agreement.

I understand that Brunop's scenario about lying to PP about the nature of a transaction ("gift" or "friends and family" when it's actually a purchase) to cheat PP out of their service fee; is a little bit different than choosing to violate PP's user agreement to buy/sell prohibited items. Both, however, demonstrate that one doing so is not honest. And that is my point. When dealing with known-dishonest people, how can one complain about the transaction not going as agreed?

Not dogging, I avoid the political non-sense term "high capacity" because it is not defined. I consider the magazine size determined by the platform original designers to be "standard capacity" until defined otherwise by law.

Your point about PayPal doing what they want, is true for the time being. The more that they do what they want, the more the case that they should be called a bank and regulated like a bank. Less room for this non-sense. Why do you think they are now accepted on GunBroker? Money is one reason.

Again, I abide by the agreement as defined by law, the agreement, or my understanding as a reasonable man.

Yes, the other example is theft of services and is clearly defined. I usually state that any PayPal given for goods must use that option or it will be returned.

So is that a yes or no?

You order G17 high-cap mags and receive 10 rd. Since high cap is "not defined" you'd be satisfied?

I don't have a Glock, nor I do I see myself purchasing one in the near future. IF that is the way Glock defines their mags, the more reason to avoid that purchase.

When I see ill defined terms in commerce, I research before committing to buy. If the retailer is unable or unwilling to define their term "high cap" I probably wouldn't go through with the order. So, I'd be neither satisfied or unsatisfied, I'd move on.

I just adjusted the OP, SSSooooo we are now on topic!!!!!! :biggrin:

Also this is just a "friendly discussion".

I think you are being disingenuous. I think you are equivocating to avoid the obvious answer - you'd be pissed if you ordered "factory high cap" and got 10 rounders. Because you know damn well that "high cap" means, in the vernacular, "not restricted to 10 rd".

I like to think so, as 4markk is one of the members for whom I have a great deal of respect. I always enjoy reading his (your) posts. Like idsubgun, gman, etc., we can "argue" without too much butthurt.

No, you are in your question. It doesn't makes sense as stated, therefore cannot be answered in purely a "yes or no".

If, I ordered a "high cap" magazine, my expectation would be a magazine above the "standard capacity" for that gun (as I defined above). If a LOW-capacity magazine showed up ( a magazine with less capacity than a standard capacity magazine), than I would not be satisfied. That satisfaction is based on an understanding of what is above or below the standard. NOT on a defunct (as in no longer valid) legal definition.

So yes, I came to same conclusion as you stated, but for a different reason than you stated.

Same here, but two days ago. I can't send payment because the system doesn't figure shipping costs so I have sent a message today. We'll see.

Oh, and since the holidays are upon us and I don't see going to the PO for a PMO I suggested thieving some services and slipping in a F&F PP,......Ho Ho Ho!

.

Update,.....seller responded within two hours with a total and PP address. He sounds perfectly legit and claims my stuff will mail out tomorrow with tracking info. Again, we'll see.

Call the seller.

I purchased three topcovers from him and paid using PPAL. He has been communicating with me and sent me a valid USPS tracking # a few minutes ago.

You and me both brother ...... I wanted that Entreprise, but too many red flags. His loss, since he could've made more. I'm just glad it looks like it is going to work out for people.

I’ve got a few emails out to the seller regarding my winnning bid. No reply yet.

12/23 update. I heard from the seller. Looks like we’re moving forward with a deal.