Replies

You should not really blame Wal-Mart. Unless you have a law that says the gun seller will have no liability from the sale of the gun as long as it complies with the minimum requirements of the applicable law, then it is understandable and reasonable for Wal-mart not to sell the gun until the background check is actually complete, eventhough the law would let them sell the gun at the end of a certain timeline, even if the results if the background check have not come back.

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.

"It does not seem to me Wal-mart is anti-gun in this instance, just looking out for themselves in an overly litigious society."

Not just the litigations, but also the negative press, which really impacts the revenue sides.

It does not seem to me Wal-mart is anti-gun in this instance, just looking out for themselves in an overly litigious society.

You said that much better than my attempt.

Spot on.

I'd also like to point out that Wal-Mart is the biggest retailer of firearms, it's silly to call them "anti-gun". They've done plenty to advance the 2nd amendment; every person who purchases a firearm is one more person that wants to keep the 2A alive and well.

Good post, SJ.

Here's another scenario...

A nice couple in a small town. On a tight budget with modest income. They've got several small children. Threatening calls late at night. Same guy every time. Then one of their kids comes home crying after being scared to death by some stranger near the school yard. His dad reports all this to the police, but they can't offer this family protection 24/7. The dad hasn't owned a gun in years, but decides he has to protect his family from this stalker. He settles on the local Walmart for his purchase, because it's the only affordable option for a reliable weapon locally. He walks into Walmart 3 days after his purchase and they tell him he can't have the weapon because the background check is incomplete. Late that night, the stalker, who turns out to be some lunatic from his past who still carries a grudge, invades their home, brutalizes everybody in the house and kills him. His wife, now in a wheelchair for life, sues Walmart for wrongful death, etc. for instituting a policy which was not legally mandated and which deprived them of the only practical means of self-defense available to them.

You should not really blame Wal-Mart. Unless you have a law that says the gun seller will have no liability from the sale of the gun as long as it complies with the minimum requirements of the applicable law, then it is understandable and reasonable for Wal-mart not to sell the gun until the background check is actually complete,

Exactly. Wal-Mart understands in this litigation happy time that they will be sued for any actions taken by the person using any gun purchased there. If the family of a gun crime victim can trace the gun back to Wal-Mart, KA-CHING $$. Most lawyers wet themselves when they get a chance to sue Wal-Mart--the most sued company in the world.

Wal-Mart is simply doing what it must to avoid frivolous litigation.