i then asked what difference does it make? it is the same ammo afterall. if i can buy it 4 1 then y not 4 the other? this continued on 4 several minutes. finally i just paid for the ammo and left. seems like some ppl never understand.
In this case, you are one of the people who doesn't understand.
Here's why Wal-Mart asks...
In 1987 a 19-year-old guy by the name of Miles shot and killed a certain woman by the name of Phillips with a .357 handgun using ammo he bought at K-Mart. Later, he offed himself. The children of the victim sued K-mart for negligence saying that a 19-year-old shouldn't have been able to buy handgun ammo. However, the clerk had asked what it was for and Miles said it was for his hunting rifle. Because the guy said it was for a rifle, the court said K-Mart wasn't negligent.
In 1989, a 20-year-old named Russell shot a guy named Bell with .44 Mag ammo bought from a certain Smitty's Smitty's Super Valu (sic). Bell sued Smitty claiming that Smitty's negligently sold Russell handgun ammunition in violation of federal law. The court disagreed and said that interchangable ammo was not restricted to those 21 or older.
ATF stated in a publication that a licensee may sell interchangeable ammunition to a person less than 21 years old "provided the buyer is 18 years or older, and the dealer is satisfied that it is for use in a rifle."
Then, in late 1995, an 18-year-old by the name of Cavnor bought a box of .357 from Wal-Mart shot a kid named Stone. Stone's mother sued Wal-Mart for selling the kid ammo. Wal-Mart asked for a summary judgement based on the the previous two cases (and some other things). The court denied it, saying:
The Phillips case and ATF's interpretation do not provide Defendant automatic cover because a material issue of fact exists as to whether Wal-Mart's clerk made a sufficient inquiry to determine Mr. Cavnor's age and the type of weapon he intended to use with his new bullets.
So now what does Wal-Mart do? They program their POS terminal to ask for the use and age each time ammo they have coded as interchangable comes up. That way they have documented proof on each transaction that they made inquiry to determine age and type of weapon.
Can we put this one to bed now? It's not a nefarious plan, it is simply a corporation trying to protect itself from frivolous lawsuits by complying with federal statutes based on the lessons of case law.
