Unintended Consequences

Status
Not open for further replies.
This sounds more like a "legal" question. As a Business I can understand Wal Mart not wanting to deal with this. They are not primarily a gun shop. Why would they want people walking in with Handguns, AR 15's, AKs, just so people can do a FFL transfer? Heck they don't have decent coverage (staff) of the checkout in sporting goods anyway, Then to go through a whole background check, what happens if there is a delay? They have to hold the gun for 3 days or whatever. All to make $25?? Sounds like a pita to me.

The real issue is the stupid law itself requiring a BGC for transfers between lawful State individuals.It is not going to do anything to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Just another feel good , do "something" law.
 
Walmart's reasoning is BS.

They've instituted their own requirements, over and above the legal requirements, by increasing the age to purchase long guns from them to 21. Same for all ammunition, now.

So their posturing over this issue in New Mexico is just that...posturing.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Walmart's reasoning is BS.

They've instituted their own requirements, over and above the legal requirements, by increasing the age to purchase long guns from them to 21. Same for all ammunition, now.

So their posturing over this issue in New Mexico is just that...posturing.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with the Bachelor of Science degree theory:scrutiny:

WMarts has been mentioned on THR b4. When they BANNED EVERYTHING tactical, they not only stopped MSR's but anything paintball-ish that was tacticool...even the large CO2 cylinders for my pellet rifle.




No seriously...Pellet Rifle!!
 
Sistema1927 said:
No, not yet.

That is one of the reasons why this is a totally unenforceable law. Once the antigunners figure that out, registration will be next.
Click to expand...

Make no mistake, the antigunners already know this. Registration is just the next step to confiscation.

It's all part of the plan, and it's humming along.
 
Consequences not intended by Walmart. Walmart, as a corporation bases such decisions purely on sales and profits, not politics. Individual Store managers may possibly base whether they sell guns or ammo on their personal beliefs,sadly, but the decision to stop selling in NM was based on this wording:

(2) a prospective firearm seller who does not hold a current and valid federal firearms license issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 923(a) shall arrange for a person who does hold that license to conduct the federal instant background check. A federal firearms licensee shall not unreasonably refuse to perform a background check pursuant to this paragraph;
Click to expand...

Walmart is not in the 'gun shop' business for transfers, (indeed Walmart's very strict policies forbid private transfers, instant termination for that one!), repairs, etc. like what many consider a 'gun shop'. So the State of NM pretty much forced Walmart's hand.
 
Hopefully this does not start a national trend. Enacting laws like this will force one of the country's largest gun retailers out of that business.
 
Wal Mart may sell a lot of guns, but this is not their primary income stream. Why not let stores like Wal Mart off the hook on this one.
Wal Mart is a sell everything store unlike sporting goods stores like Cabela`s , Bass Pro and Scheels.
 
Deanimator said:
Confiscation is virtually impossible WITHOUT registration.
Click to expand...
I'm old enough to vividly remember the 1968 (amnesty) MG registration. There were old guys at the local gun shops vowing not to register their WW2 bringback MG's, convinced that this was a first step to confiscation.

So the ones that were not registered are now worthless contraband, while the ones that were registered are worth fortunes.

This is the story so far. I used to think that this is an argument for going along with registration. Now I'm not so sure, since proposals are emerging to outlaw, confiscate, or "buy back" all registered MG's. (That would certainly be a demonstration of bad faith on the part of the government.) Maybe the old guys were justified after all. Too bad they're not around to see it.
 
AlexanderA said:
I'm old enough to vividly remember the 1968 (amnesty) MG registration. There were old guys at the local gun shops vowing not to register their WW2 bringback MG's, convinced that this was a first step to confiscation.

So the ones that were not registered are now worthless contraband, while the ones that were registered are worth fortunes.

This is the story so far. I used to think that this is an argument for going along with registration. Now I'm not so sure, since proposals are emerging to outlaw, confiscate, or "buy back" all registered MG's. (That would certainly be a demonstration of bad faith on the part of the government.) Maybe the old guys were justified after all. Too bad they're not around to see it.
Click to expand...
Wow, bad faith on the part of the advocates of racially invidious gun controls... and nuclear genocide.
 
AlexanderA said:
I'm old enough to vividly remember the 1968 (amnesty) MG registration. There were old guys at the local gun shops vowing not to register their WW2 bringback MG's, convinced that this was a first step to confiscation.
So the ones that were not registered are now worthless contraband, while the ones that were registered are worth fortunes.
This is the story so far. I used to think that this is an argument for going along with registration. Now I'm not so sure, since proposals are emerging to outlaw, confiscate, or "buy back" all registered MG's. (That would certainly be a demonstration of bad faith on the part of the government.) Maybe the old guys were justified after all. Too bad they're not around to see it.
Click to expand...

If you want a demonstration of the government's "good faith", check with almost any Native American and check history for all the dishonored treaties.
 
FlSwampRat said:
That's one sticking point, yes. One of the reasons we don't facilitate face to face sales between individuals. Seemed to us like playing catch with porcupine instead of a ball.
I and the powers that be in our corporation considered this when we were setting up selling guns. When an ffl transfer comes in we have to add it to our inventory which I do locally in the bound book and the corporate guys who oversee the inventory of all the company's stores enter it into the electronic gun log as part of entering the item into our inventory. Whether that's done locally in a single store or in a company like ours with multiple stores, someone has to enter it into our inventory. We have to check out all used guns coming in to be sure they seem to be working properly for the above mentioned liability aspect.
The other aspect we took into consideration was what if it's a delayed approval? Now the gun goes into our safe until such time as we get an approval, there is no more Brady release after X number of days. Time spent checking in with FDLE looking for that approval. I've had sales get tied up over 30 days, which times out the first check and 4473. Then when the sale finally goes through we take it out of our inventory. Much time involved for the small amount we can charge and out of that charge comes the $5 for FDLE for the background check in the first place.
Just not worth it. Luckily we don't have universal checks here and we're not forced by law to do person to person sales oversight.
Click to expand...

This, IMHO, sums up Wal-Mart's stance on this.....especially having someone qualified to "check out" an used firearm to make sure it is working properly. Just more than they want to deal with. Purely a business decision, not an "anti-gun" decision. I live in a rural part of a very gun-friendly state. My local Wal-Mart "Superstore" has a large selection of firearms, ammo and shooting/hunting accessories. Still, they probably have more in just Grape Jelly sales ever day than they do with all things firearm related. I'd assume this is true in the majority of stores across the country. It's about making profit. Why mess with something that is not going to make you money?
 
Well, this thread title certainly took me down an unexpected path... I'm currently reading Unintended Consequences, a novel by John Ross.

Anyway, I'm not a big fan of the Walmarts for some time now. Ever since the founder passed away, the company has put in place some policies with which I do not agree.
 
Rule3 said:
This sounds more like a "legal" question. As a Business I can understand Wal Mart not wanting to deal with this. They are not primarily a gun shop. Why would they want people walking in with Handguns, AR 15's, AKs, just so people can do a FFL transfer? Heck they don't have decent coverage (staff) of the checkout in sporting goods anyway, Then to go through a whole background check, what happens if there is a delay? They have to hold the gun for 3 days or whatever. All to make $25?? Sounds like a pita to me.

The real issue is the stupid law itself requiring a BGC for transfers between lawful State individuals.It is not going to do anything to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Just another feel good , do "something" law.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thought. It's not a dedicated gunshop where you walk in to the gun counter. I wouldn't want people with guns walking in the front of the store, not knowing if they were going to sporting goods to sell it or shoot the place up.
 
Scooter22 said:
Exactly my thought. It's not a dedicated gunshop where you walk in to the gun counter. I wouldn't want people with guns walking in the front of the store, not knowing if they were going to sporting goods to sell it or shoot the place up.
Click to expand...
Um, they do it every day at many Walmarts; CCW/open carry is not prohibited there, as State law permits, as long as you are not an Associate.
 
Last edited:
Scooter22 said:
Exactly my thought. It's not a dedicated gunshop where you walk in to the gun counter. I wouldn't want people with guns walking in the front of the store, not knowing if they were going to sporting goods to sell it or shoot the place up.
Click to expand...

entropy said:
Um, they do it every day at many Walmarts; CCW is not prohibitied there, as State law permits, as long as you are not an Associate.
Click to expand...

In my area of VA, it is not uncommon to see people open carry in Walmart. It's not uncommon to see me walk into Walmart open carrying.

Granted, it would be odd to see someone with a rifle slung across their back walk into the store.

Between the chances that the gun ends up transferring to someone who ultimately turns out to be prohibited despite NICS coming up clean, and keeping an employee at the sporting goods counter to provide the service, I can totally understand Walmart deciding that the juice isn't worth the squeeze to keep selling firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

pbearperry
  • Locked
New Mexico Governor more than a gun grabber!
Replies
3
Views
410
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
Mexico has 1 gun store?
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
I6turbo
I
WheelGunMan
  • Locked
New Background Check Policy at Walmart
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
M
  • Locked
New Mexico Ranks Highest in Crime Gun Exports
Replies
1
Views
620
Sisco
S
H
  • Locked
WALMART, Firearms & ammunition............
Replies
3
Views
772
Justin
Justin
Back
Top