Posted on 04/15/2008 12:18:10 PM PDT by neverdem
Largest seller of firearms will also videotape all transactions
Changes at Wal-Mart will affect about 1,100 stores that sell firearms.
WASHINGTON - Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest seller of firearms, announced Monday it will toughen rules for gun sales, from storing video of purchases to creating an internal log of which guns they sell that are later used in crimes.
J.P. Suarez, the chief compliance officer for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., appeared with outspoken gun control advocate Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York to announce the changes at a gathering of Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Changes to come at about 1,100 Wal-Mart stores selling guns include:
Creating a record and alert system to record when a gun sold at Wal-Mart is later used in a crime. If the purchaser of that gun later tries to buy another gun at Wal-Mart, the system would alert the sales clerk of the prior buy and could refuse to make the sale. Retaining the recorded images of gun sales in case law enforcement wants to view them later as part of an investigation.
Expanding background checks of employees...
--snip--
Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, had previously tried to establish a store in New York City but failed.
The mayors’ gun summit also unveiled a new lobbying effort to close what they call the “gun show loophole,” which allows sales of firearms without background checks between private individuals at gun shows.
Bloomberg founded the group two years ago with Boston mayor Thomas Menino to reduce the flow of guns from store displays into the hands of criminals.
The group, largely funded by Bloomberg’s personal fortune, announced it was spending more than $100,000 on television ads, starting Wednesday, featuring all three of the current main presidential candidates voicing their opposition to the gun show loophole.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Wal-Mart already logs all guns sold, and can already match serial numbers with guns used in crimes.
All FFL holders log all guns sold.
It’s been that way for many years.
It seems very unlikely that a person is going to buy a rifle or shotgun in Wally World and then sell it to a criminal for use in robberies.
“FFL holders” should be dealers...
A few years ago an outfit called “Ceasefire Tampa Bay” had a gun buyback here. They gave away $20.00 Walmart gift certificates for each firearm that was turned in. The event was held at a Hillsborough County Sheriff’s substation right across the street from a Walmart. I turned in five broken guns and received a $100.00 worth of Walmart certificates for them. I then walked across the street to the Walmart and used the certificates to purchase a brand new Marlin Model 60 semi-auto .22 rifle. Of course I documented all of this and the Tampa Tribune published my story a day or two later. At the next buyback they only gave away Nikes.
One issue is identity theft. A lot of states are not that diligent about their state issued IDs. RealId will eventually improve that process, but it's a long way from being fully implemented.
Wal-Mart will also likely not be able to tell if the ID is stolen and used by someone else with a similar appearance or forged.
However, I suspect the biggest problem they are trying to address is problems with their own employees. Their employees aren't paid overly well, and they have high turnover (which is true of pretty much all employers in their market). If they find that a number of sales of guns that are later used in crimes are sold by the same employee, they might want to check and see video of the transactions to see if their employees are following the proper procedures, or if they are selling guns to people they know shouldn't be able to buy them.
Wal-Mart could possibly face huge civil liability if their employees are found to be intentionally helping illegally supply guns to those who can't legally possess them and they are used in crimes.
Will they ask for permission to tape the buyer?
They don't have to.
This is not the same as routine surveillance video on security cameras...
Actually it is.
...this is recording a personal transaction well beyond what is required by law.
Most retailers do that already. Mostly to catch employee theft. Most modern point of sale systems can be integrated with the security cameras so that you can search through the video and see when specific types of transactions have occurred. Price adjustments are usually what they most commonly take a look at.
The likely isn't much of an expansion of their current security system. They may be logging more information to be able to locate gun transactions specifically in the video and changing video archival procedures, but that's about it.
Who will control these tapes? The seller? Who gets them if not the seller? Who vettes the folks that watch them? I don’t think Wal-Mart does security clearances on the “associates” that will run this process or archive.
I'd be very surprised if Wal-Mart doesn't do background checks on it's security people. Probably more so that your average store that sells guns, and who's employees have access to their gun sale records.
Since when does a coalition of city administrators have the legal power to obtain such information?
I don't know what requirements there are on gun dealers to safeguard the privacy of customers. However, it seems to be pretty well settled law that you can be videotaped in a public place without your consent. They probably can't use your image for commercial use without your consent, but I doubt they are banned from voluntarily sharing that video with others.
Violations of several constitutionally protected rights in my mind.
I'm just kind of thinking this through as I go. What constitutional rights in particular are you thinking that this violates.
The thing that I suspect will trouble constitutionality arguments is that this appears to be a voluntary program by a private company, not the government. You'd have a hard time arguing a 4th amendment violation simply because you don't really have a expectation of privacy while shopping at Wal-Mart. However, complicating things further, the constitution protects you from the government violating your rights. This is a private company taking video on it's own property.
As for violating the 2nd amendment, if they can keep any record of the transaction, I don't see how adding video to that record makes it more of a violation. The video would just seem to add to the accuracy of the record of the transaction.
If you want more privacy in your transactions I think your only real solution is to buy from people you trust more.
One whose employer or wife made him go.
According to the clerk I asked in 1998 (or thereabouts), WalMart was keeping their own permanent records then, which is why I've never bought a gun there. The video part and refusal-to-sell sound like the only new things.
LOL! What happened to the guns that they were broken? Did someone go after them with a sledge hammer?
Can't speak to all WalMarts in the area but the one closest to me in Cary, NC has stopped selliing firearms. And I understand many others have also.
Most of the guns that I saw being turned in where perfectly good firearms. All of the guns were entered into a log and the serial numbers checked by law enforcement. Any of them that turned out to be stolen were supposed to be returned to the owners. Allegedly most were destroyed. Ceasefire was allowed to use some of the crushed up guns to make a BS sculpture that is on display at Tampa Police Department headquarters.
Can anyone tell me about this loophole at gun shows politicians keep referring to? I’d like to take advantage of this loophole, but don’t want to do anything illegal. Is it legal to buy a gun from another person without records of the purchase being kept on file somewhere?
I didn’t make myself clear. I’m sorry. What happened in the first place that you had five broken pieces of hardware to turn in? I wasn’t interested in their disposal.
It’s not easy to break hardware or bend a barrel. Some parts may get broken, but they can usually be replaced.
FYI. In Florida, the Federal Form 4473 that the buyer fills out and the dealer completes is also the form used to initiate the required backgound check thru the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The result of that background check is entered on the 4473.
It is a felony for a dealer or his agent to reveal the results of that background check to anyone other than the purchaser or a law enforcement officer investigating that specific transaction. Needless to say dealers (including Walmart) do not share that 4473 with anyone but the purchaser, LEOs in some cases and the BATFE.
It goes beyond just adding video. This will amount to a separate Wal-Mart NICS check system. If you buy a gun, the Wal-Mart system apparently will access your past purchases, pull the s/n and check them against some crime database somewhere. Outside of NICS. Then even if you pass the NICS check (no warrants against you or felonies), Wal-Mart can refuse to sell to you if the Bloomberg file thinks you may have bought a “crime gun”. Not that I would normally buy a gun at Wal-Mart anyway, but I sure won’t now. It’s the principle of the thing. They are caving to Bloomberg just to get a store into NYC that probably won’t even sell guns.
One was an old worn out German made bolt action .22. When you chambered a round (which cocked the firing pin) and then pulled the trigger with the safety on it would fire when you realesed the safety. Another was an old .22 revolver that the timing catch on the cyclinder was broken. Another was a Bersa .22 with some missing parts and no mag. Another was a Lee enfield .303 with major problems. I ran a pawn & gun shop at the time and this was a good way to get rid of defective and dangerous junk that wasn’t worth fixing and that I would never sell to an individual. BTW I quickly sold that Marlin.
The only access Wal-Mart has to gun trace data is from when the ATF runs a trace on a gun they sold.
They would be foolish not to keep track of requests for gun traces that the ATF makes of them. What they are doing in addition is flagging the customers that bought those weapons so they can determine if they want to continue to sell to them or not.
Then even if you pass the NICS check (no warrants against you or felonies), Wal-Mart can refuse to sell to you if the Bloomberg file thinks you may have bought a “crime gun”.
If you purchased a gun from them, and then the ATF runs a trace on it, they will flag your name. However, the ATF does sometimes run traces on guns that were not used in a crime, but are merely evidence.
I have no idea if Wal-Mart will refuse to sell guns to anyone who's previous gun purchase was traced. The article says they could refuse to sell to that person, not that they would refuse.
However, even if they do refuse to sell you a gun, you could just go and buy one from a different retailer.
I think it is a really bad idea for Wal-Mart to try and do the ATF's job and detect illegal gun trafficking. However, I also think that Wal-Mart should have the ability to refuse to sell to people that they have reason to mistrust. I however, don't think that having had a gun they previously purchased traced by the ATF by itself is reason to mistrust someone.
I think that every gun dealer, Wal-Mart included, should have the right to refuse a sale to anyone they mistrust for good reason. Say they appear to be a straw purchaser, or they don’t have valid ID, etc. I just don’t think a private retailer should make decisions of this nature based on Bloomberg’s criteria, since he doesn’t even know firearms law or that dealers are inspected by ATF or that buyers have to pass a NICS check. Bloomberg is an uninformed boob with a political agenda. Wal-Mart should not be subject to his schemes.
You're lucky. I almost missed your question. The "gun show loophole" is buying from private sellers, i.e. not dealers with federal firearm licences, in states that allow them. Private sellers are just that. They don't want to keep the firearm anymore. They just want to sell it. Unless they are someone you trust, then you don't have a clue about how they acquired it or its history.
The opposition to it comes from the fact that requiring backround checks is potential de facto registration when firearm ownership is transferred with a federal NICS check, which some states require even between close relatives, although the feds are supposed to destroy the records of NICS checks. Is there any reason to trust the gubmint?
I agree. However, all we really know from this article is that Wal-Mart is collecting this data. They were probably already collecting it before, but now they may be organizing the data better, or just trying to score political points for something they already did.
Wal-Mart didn't say that they would refuse to sell a gun to someone who had a previously purchased gun traced. Actually, Wal-Mart doesn't even have a press release on the topic that I could find.
Since part of what Wal-Mart is doing is tightening background checks on employees selling the guns, I'm wondering if the biggest reason they are doing this is out of concern that some of their employees might be selling guns to people they shouldn't, and this allows them to investigate suspicious transactions better.
There are a lot of trial lawyers out there trying to make a case for liability for companies that sell guns that are later used in crimes. Wal-Mart has deep pockets, and a lot of those that might end up on a jury have a love/hate relationship with Wal-Mart.
If Wal-Mart does actually refuse to sell a gun to someone who had a gun traced, and that person is not complicit in any way, I suspect that we will then see a lot of backlash from gun owners, and Wal_Mart knows they make up a very significant number of their customers.
The appropriate action for Wal-Mart to take if the find out that a someone's previous gun purchase was traced would be to be especially vigilant in checking that person's ID to make sure they are who they say they are, so that the NICS check can properly determine if that person should be able to buy a gun.
We will have to wait and see how it is actually used.
Yeah, I don’t know that I believe they really destroy those records.
To get my handgun, I had to apply for a permit with the county sheriff. Since that time, state law has been changed to where no permit is needed. It kind of bothers me my permit is still on record. I’m not planning a crime spree or anything, but it’s just not their business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.