Posted on 07/03/2002 2:50:06 PM PDT by I_Publius
In othe words, Wal-Mart could sell a gun to some dude without the background results because the time limit has run out first. It turns out this dude is an ex-con and goes out and kills someone. Wal-mart gets sued for millions. Wal-mart says "Hey, we complied with the law." Absent a statute that grants them immunity, Wal-mart runs the risk of a court saying "You were still negligent, now fork over the bucks."
It does not seem to me Wal-mart is anti-gun in this instance, just looking out for themselves in an overly litigious society.
Greed is a part of capitalism that isn't discussed much. But Wal-Mart will be packed across the USA this 4th of July... even if only 4% of the non-grocery goods were American-made...nobody in America would care... because they are saving money. That is a powerful force in the world of capitalism. And as capitalism's greatest winners (multi-national corporations) grow and grow and grow... the influence of elections, politicians and laws will decrease while the goals of the globalizing forces will increase. In other words, the dollar (not the ballot box) will matter more and more. Hence the ability for Wal-Mart to regulate firearm purchases.
Hmmm. If the law says that I can pick up my gun in three days and Wal-Mart refuses to hand it over... they have that right? I suppose that restaurants can also refuse to serve blacks?
Naw, I think the Constitution kicks in right about then. Now don't get me wrong -- I think a private business ought to be able to make the decision of who they hire and to whom they sell. But those decisions have been taken away, so I'm just dealing with what is.
I mean, for crying out loud, my kids .22 is more sophisticated than the trash they sell.
EBUCK
Do you have bitch tits? (Fight Club ref?)
EBUCK
Boy, are they stupid for selling ammunition. We'll hang them with the discount Chinese rope we buy on sale in the gardening department.
Not just the litigations, but also the negative press, which really impacts the revenue sides.
I would venture the particular language of the law says you "may" turn over the purchased weapon if the mandatory check is not returned within a particular time frame. I doubt is says "shall."
Anyone that has spent anytime dealing with law or the writing of legislation will understand the immediate difference here. In the sue happy world in which we live that difference in language is crucial. "may" means a dcision can be made; "shall" means it is mandatory.
If the language, as I suspect, says "may" - Wal-Mart has made the correct decision. I would suspect other gun dealers will make the same decision to protect themselves as well.
What is needed here is not a boycott of Wal-Mart - what is needed a groundswell to MANDATE any and all background checks on gun purchases ARE completed within the proper time frame. Wal-Mart has openned the door for true protection of the honest gun dealers in the country. We need to work to force the gun-grabbers to abide by their own laws
The "may"/"shall" situation here is part of the plan to disallow the sale of firearms to lawabiding citizens.
Well said. I bought a shotgun, gun safe, hunting clothes, ammo, etc. from K-Mart and when they had Rosie as a spokesperson dis Tom Selleck and the gun owning public, I wrote to them and K-Mart dumped Rosie.
I agree with you this seems different and probably has to do with some attorney being a little too risk adverse. I have bought limited amounts of ammo and a rifle scope from Wal-Mart, but no firearms. the Wal-Mart policy is something to watch, but I am not sure that this is the "hill to die on" to protect our RTKBA.
I agree with you.
Unfortunately, the pawn shops have been under much stricter rules for much longer than any other dealer/retailer.
Long story short - lot's of people who are denied to not have felony criminal records, but when a court fails to remove a charge it will show up on a backgroundcheck. 23 years prior to this he and a bunch of his buddies got caught partying and the state cops threw the book at them to see what would stick. Nothing but a misdemeanor charge of trespass did. But there was a felony charge of breaking & entering that had never been removed.
Nearly 3 months later, and numerous calls to the state police and the attorney general's office before we got it cleared up. Thank goodness we were dealing with an honest pawnshop owner - he waived all the 'storage fees" because he knew what was going on.
WARNING to anyone - check your criinal records - make sure than any teenage indiscretions have been cleared up properly.
You said that much better than my attempt.
The operative word here is can.
It is the "may"/"shall" language of the law.
The work needed here is not a boycott of wal-Mart over this issue, rather it is a matter of getting the language of the law changed.
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.