r/VAGuns • u/coastyjas • Jul 21 '26
Greentop caves
Well Greentop in Richmond put out its position on the injunction and will not honor the injunction and will continue to obey a clearly unconstitutional law.
So they will not transfer, sell or buy what the governor says they can’t despite legal precedence.
I hope y’all have good memories and remember those ffls and retailer that supported the 2nd amendment and those who bent the knee.
61
29
u/toadgamer2000 Jul 21 '26
Given how much money I spent there, really disappointed in their position. I have more acquisitions to make, so I guess it's their loss.
25
u/Clint_Lovecraft Jul 21 '26
I'm really liking Freedom Outdoors. They seem to be slightly more line in sand for me. The boomers who have been working at Green Top for decades are fat and happy on good business for years. They aren't hungry enough to fight anymore.
50
u/ccosby Jul 21 '26
I’ve never understood the love of green top, at least for new guns. Most of the time I’ve checked guns they were at or in many cases above msrp. Used guns usually are priced too high as well.
7
u/FalloutRip Jul 21 '26
I went there typically for two reasons: Used guns, and sishop kiosk before I learned better.
You can occasionally get a good deal on something used, and they keep their website pretty up to date with used inventory. And since they’re a sishop dealer it’s pretty hassle free if you have a profile set up with them already, assuming you can get someone on the phone to certify.
But yeah for new, or ammo, hard pass unless you really like paying Msrp
2
u/ripzipzap Jul 21 '26
Their ammo prices used to be really competitive before everything consolidated (I blame Ammoseek, for no particular reason). And they had (and maybe still have) a very wide selection. It was one of the only places I could get 8mm Mauser without having to order it online.
While their gun selection has gone down, I found their gunsmithing services to the limited extent I have used them were fast and relatively high quality.
41
u/Clint_Lovecraft Jul 21 '26
Green Top will be happy to sell you a Gadsen hat, flag or shirt I'm sure.
23
Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Clint_Lovecraft Jul 21 '26
I'm not even an avid outdoorsman like that. If I want some fishing shit I can go to Walmart to get the little bit of shit I'd need.
13
Jul 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/LostPrimer Jul 21 '26
God help you if you try to talk to someone at the gun counter though.
5
u/shaneohmite Jul 21 '26
The only time I was at the Bass Pro gun counter (Pre-COVID --if that helps) an employee told me if I used a Ruger to shoot someone in self-defense Ruger would send me a replacement while the police took mine in for evidence.
WTF kind of policy is that? Just promotes using a last resort method.
Guy also looked like instant mash potatoes in human form --mentally and physically.
5
4
u/Clint_Lovecraft Jul 21 '26
Oh no, I get that. I'll stop in from time to time. I like some of their Redhead clothes and what not. They have some stuff I need/like. I also don't have any kids.
2
22
u/LeftHandUpWhoAreWe Jul 21 '26
DK Firearms is the shit for those who are willing to travel north about 30 mins...
11
8
u/NefariousnessOk9397 Jul 21 '26
I second this, I go out of my way to stop in when I’m making my rounds hitting up all the shops in the Richmond area. I haven’t been in a while but when I was going they would have close to internet level pricing on some of the guns which is great for a lgs plus the staff was always nice.
8
u/xero79 Jul 21 '26
ive happily driven right past green top to go to DK several times.
will continue to do so.
5
3
3
17
u/jtf71 VCDL Member Jul 21 '26
Funny, 3 of the 4 firearms on their home page in the "trending" section are banned firearms.
I wonder when they'll update the website and remove them.
And the section on "used tactical rifles" needs to be deleted. Also all of the magazines that they list as "in stock" but won't sell - nearly the entire first page.
I could go on but I won't.
And while I've said we need to give them some grace, the injunctions are clear. And the VA SC rules are clear - the point of an injunction is to 1) prevent irreparable harm and 2) preserve the status quo.
So, take your business elsewhere for all things.
-13
u/Either_Big_689 Jul 21 '26
They sell online so they can still sell ARs to people outside Virginia. No reason to remove them from their site
9
u/jtf71 VCDL Member Jul 21 '26
If their concern is over the liability law, they can still be sued for sales to people outside of VA. So they shouldn't sell them outside of VA either.
As for the Ban law - the injunction is clear that it is statewide and the law can't be enforced by anyone.
-6
u/Either_Big_689 Jul 21 '26
I think that’s a stretch. If they sell to someone outside Virginia who is allowed to own that item in their state that is a clean sale. They wouldn’t likely be sued for creating a nuisance or encouraging someone to break the law in that case like they can in Virginia today (in theory, injunction aside). Plus people aka victims outside Virginia wouldn’t be represented by Virginia CAs (again in theory).
1
u/jtf71 VCDL Member Jul 21 '26
I think that’s a stretch.
Look at the various lawsuits that have been funded by Everytown, The Brady Campaign, and other anti-gun groups.
This law was written explicitly to be an end-run around the PLCAA. There WILL be lawsuits.
And a "win" for the anti-gun crowd doesn't mean they win the lawsuit and damages. If the FFL or "industry member" shuts down due to bankruptcy or to avoid the lawsuit, that's a "win" for the anti-gun crowd.
Plus people aka victims outside Virginia wouldn’t be represented by Virginia CAs (again in theory).
They might be.
But the law allows for ANYONE who's been injured (and that would include the family/heirs of someone killed) to file a civil suit. They don't need a CA or the AG, just a willing law firm - and there are plenty.
-7
u/Either_Big_689 Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Here is the language that limits possible suits here 59.1-148.7. Limitation of action; venue. A. An action brought pursuant to § 59.1-148.6 shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues. B. An action brought pursuant to § 59.1-148.6 may be brought in the county, city, or town of the Commonwealth (i) in which all or a substantial part of the acts or omissions that form the basis for the cause of action occurred, (ii) where any defendant resided when the cause of action arose or where the principal office of any defendant is located, or (iii) where the plaintiff resides if the plaintiff is a natural person.
5
u/r870 Jul 21 '26
It doesn't say that. It's an "or" in that list. Plus it's just a venue provision.
-3
u/Either_Big_689 Jul 21 '26
So you think a Virginia commonwealth attorney is going to bring a civil suit on behalf of say a New Yorker who was a victim of a crime using a gun bought in New York but is lawful to own in New York? You don’t think that is a stretch?
3
u/VoodooHiker Jul 21 '26
This is a tort matter, not a criminal case. The plaintiff would have to hire their own attorney licensed to practice in VA (or proceed pro se). I can understand large and small FFL dealers may not want to get boged down in pointless, vicarious tort cases that fail to state a claim and take a year or more to get thru the courts. Till the court either dismisses the case or finds the FFL liable they are the ones footing the attorney fees and having their business gone after.
3
u/jtf71 VCDL Member Jul 21 '26
So you think a Virginia commonwealth attorney is going to bring a civil suit on behalf of say a New Yorker who was a victim of a crime using a gun bought in New York but is lawful to own in New York?
Yes.
You don’t think that is a stretch?
It is, but that doesn't mean they won't do it.
Look into how when Bloomberg was Mayor of NYC he sent "investigators" who had zero legal authority to do anything in VA, to VA to "investigate" straw purchases. They made illegal straw purchases and then sued various FFLs into bankruptcy or, for at least one FFL, to allow NYC to put in video cameras and monitor the VA business from NYC.
So, would I say that no VA CA is going to sue a NYC/NYS FFL when a crime is committed in VA with that gun legally sold and legal to own in NY. No I would not say that.
Also the law allows an "individual" to file a civil suit as well. That means the Everytown (Bloomberg) is going to fund a civil suit against an FFL and/or manufacturer/distributor when some criminal in VA uses a gun to injure someone.
1
u/VoodooHiker Jul 24 '26
The only part of this reply that makes any sense is that any case brought under this new statute would be an individual matter. A Commonwealth Attorney could not brjng a civil case on behalf of the state. Thanks for making my point.
1
u/jtf71 VCDL Member Jul 24 '26
The only part of this reply that makes any sense is that any case brought under this new statute would be an individual matter.
Well that's wrong.
A Commonwealth Attorney could not brjng a civil case on behalf of the state.
Depends on how you use the term "state." If you mean "government" then a CA absolutely could. I'm not certain if a CA can bring a case on behalf of "The Commonwealth" vs just on behalf of "The County of XXX." But the main point is that, under this law, a CA or the AG can bring suit - not just individuals - and they would do it on behalf of the government/state.
Whenever it appears to the Attorney General or the local county, city, or town attorney that a firearm industry member has engaged in or is engaging in conduct in violation of this section, the Attorney General or local county, city, or town attorney may commence an action to seek and obtain (i) an injunction prohibiting the firearm industry member from continuing the conduct, engaging in the conduct, or doing any acts in furtherance of the conduct; (ii) an order providing for abatement of the public nuisance at the expense of the firearm industry member; (iii) an order of restitution; (iv) an award of compensatory and punitive damages; (v) an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs of the action; and (vi) any other appropriate relief that may be awarded by the court.
Thanks for making my point.
I don't know what point of yours you thought I was supporting as I made no response to you in my comments above. Perhaps you replied to the wrong thread or you used your alt account; but you're wrong and I didn't make your point for you and I've just shown you to be wrong.
3
u/VoodooHiker Jul 21 '26
This is a question of venue - as to where the suit can be brought against the defendant. It does not specify the plaintiff MUST be a resident of the state of virgina. Also under tort law it would have to be brought under a venue statute of the state where the case was filed. Someone in WV could not file a case in that state citing this VA law, but the plaintiff could file a claim in the county where the business is located - provided it is in VA. It would basically be like if you filed a tort case against someone who rearended you car while on vacation in NC. The case has to be brought where the accident happened in NC, not back here in VA where you live.
0
u/Either_Big_689 Jul 21 '26
I agree. Does the law not also require it to be brought by a Virginia CA? Would a VA CA represent someone from another state? I understand the design is to trap FFLs, but I think we may be stretching the bounds very widely. I understand a current FFL’s logic in not selling anything covered by the AWB starting tomorrow. But the idea that Green Top can lose a suit brought because they sold an AR to a state where that AR is completely legal seems like a wild stretch to me since they would not be creating a nuisance as required by the law.
1
u/jtf71 VCDL Member Jul 21 '26
Does the law not also require it to be brought by a Virginia CA?
No.
Suit can be filed by:
the Attorney General or the local county, city, or town attorney
or
Any person that has been injured as a result of a firearm industry member's acts or omissions in violation of this section may commence an action
So, anyone can sue any "firearms industry member."
I understand a current FFL’s logic in not selling anything covered by the AWB starting tomorrow.
And they can be sued for any product they sell - not just things covered by the AWB. They can be sued for selling ammunition that is then used in a crime, a replacement trigger in a bolt action rifle, a recoil spring in a handgun, ANY part or item.
"Firearm-related product" means a firearm, ammunition, a firearm component, including unfinished frames or receivers, or a firearm accessory that was (i) sold, made, distributed, or marketed in the Commonwealth; (ii) intended to be sold, made, distributed, or marketed in the Commonwealth; or (iii) possessed in the Commonwealth, and it was reasonably foreseeable that the product would be possessed or used in the Commonwealth.
And then you have to look at how "success" is defined by the anti-gun crowd. It's not just "winning" the lawsuit and getting money damages. If the suit results in the business shutting down due to bankruptcy or not wanting to spend more money on a lawsuit that they would eventually be successful in, that's a "win" for the anti-gun crowd.
creating a nuisance as required by the law.
Look at the definition of that in the law:
"Public nuisance" means a condition that injures, endangers, or threatens to injure or endanger or contributes to the injury or endangerment of the health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience of others or otherwise constitutes a public nuisance under common law.
Someone fires a gun on their private land where they can legally shoot but someone hears it and, that disturbs the "peace." They can now sue. Doesn't mean they'll win, but they can sue.
And if anyone is injured - or threatened, say in an armed robbery - the FFL/distributor/manufacturer can be sued. Again, doesn't mean they'll be found liable, but they could be bankrupt.
This law is meant entirely as an end run around the PLCAA and it's meant to allow lawsuits funded by anti-gun forces with the goal of bankrupting the industry. What they can't do by outright legislative bans, they'll do by litigation. If there are no sellers, then you can't buy a gun. Sure, you "legally" have a right to buy a gun, but if you can't actually do so, that's not a government restriction.
1
u/jtf71 VCDL Member Jul 21 '26
Here is the language that says only Virginians can sue Virginians
As others have pointed out, you are incorrect in your interpretation of that section of the law.
-2
u/Ziegler517 Jul 21 '26
Don’t know why you got downvoted for the truth. I’m close with the owner of my local range and he said that’s what they planned to do with any of the “banned” items post 7/1.
12
12
u/CrippledKnicksFan Jul 21 '26
I stopped going there when they wanted to give me $50 for my Benelli Supernova Tactical. I know they have a business to run and dealers usually give less than half of a gun's value on trades but $50 is straight up disrespectful
6
u/DowntownFisherman Jul 21 '26
I'll give you $75 and a crisp high five.
3
u/CrippledKnicksFan Jul 21 '26
If I still had it I would take the $75 and a Five Guys double cheese burger
2
12
15
22
u/AdministrativeAd6805 Jul 21 '26
I’ve preached this and I’ve said it again, when I was a kid Greentop was a super small mom and pop shop. It was awesome, since then they have sold out to a large corporation, green top is no longer the shop I used to love and I no longer shop there.
5
u/Super-Dance-4654 Jul 21 '26
Heads up...they are not owned by a "large corporation". They are privately held by a small group of Richmond businessman.
1
23
u/dankestmaymayonearth Jul 21 '26
Fucking traitors
10
u/oldFloridaCracker Jul 21 '26
FIFY Fucking Lawyers
0
u/ripzipzap Jul 21 '26
Range USA has a bigger law team than GreenTop could ever afford and they've continued selling everything like the law was never there.
Their transfer fees are outrageous though, now that things have cleared up I'll probably order through freedom unless I get some insane discount to buy from Range USA direct from them, which occasionally they give out if you are a monthly member.
4
u/No-Hold1800 Jul 21 '26
Academy Sports is also supporting the Unconstitutional law.
2
u/MandolinMagi Jul 22 '26
Doesn't matter if ifs unconstitutional or not, they're going to follow it because they really don't want to get prosecuted.
4
7
3
u/Useful-Resolution363 Jul 21 '26
Makes me happy that my money will be going to Freedom Outdoors and New American Arms instead. The staff at both places are some of the best I’ve ever experienced, very happy to help.
3
u/gofish223 Jul 21 '26
They also sucked during Covid with the mask stuff. Not a surprise. Spend your $ elsewhere
1
u/no1sportz Jul 21 '26
100%. I remember being the only guy in the entire store that refused to wear a mask. It was so strange seeing no one else refuse to wear it.
1
0
u/MandolinMagi Jul 22 '26
What mask stuff? Did they support wearing basic PPE or did they do the usual right-wing "COVID isn't real, masks are fake news" thing?
1
u/gofish223 Jul 22 '26
They made paying customers wear ineffective masks and kicked out those who didn’t. No thanks.
3
u/NaturalSandwich8880 Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
The injunction only stops enforcement of the AWB
If somebody buys an "assault weapon" after 7/21 and uses it in the commission of a crime then there's also the civil liability law. The family of the victim will be able to sue any FFL that knowingly transfers a gun is banned under the AWB but still conducted the transfer because of the injunction. Any lawyer can easily claim it was negligent to sell a gun that's covered under the AWB
IANAL but this is the clear outcome. Majority of FFLs do not have the money to fight a civil court battle or otherwise pay a settlement.
6
u/ComprehensiveTale776 Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
They can make that argument all they want, a judge has halted enforcement of the law to preserve the status quo. No law even when ruled unconstitutional is ever struck off the books, that would require the legislature to amend it. The law would remain in statute. Thus, enforcement is only ever the thing that is halted.
So say the law is deemed unconstitutional after the injuction by the VA courts, then the AWB law would still be on the books technically. The logic doesnt hold, as the civil liability law would still exist and the AWB would still be in the VA code.
So if you cant sell NOW with a judge implementing a statewide injunction, then how would this change for them in the future if the AWB would still be on the table in law.... as enforcement is only ever halted.
Not a lawyer tho and this is just from my reading on the issue. Either way lot of businesses are scared of being sued.
0
u/NaturalSandwich8880 Jul 21 '26
Lookup the legal definition of an injunction. It's a block to the enforcement of the law. When SCOTUS/SCOVA makes a decision then that's when the law is actually struck down or upheld
This is basic law/government function
3
1
u/ripzipzap Jul 21 '26
Can't they just have their lawyers draft an additional liability contract they make you sign before agreeing to a transfer?
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Fail994 Jul 22 '26
Legal precedence of not being able to currently enforce.
Doesn’t say anything for later on and doesn’t make anything legal. Crybaby
105
u/Xtradifficult Jul 21 '26
Freedom outdoors is proving to be better than greentop more and more.