Alphecca

From the article:

"Wal-Mart's decision to stop gun sales also earned it praise from several customers, who said police would protect them from any trouble."

I suppose it shouldn't, but this sort of thinking just leaves me speechless.

Yeah, the cops did a great job protecting people and property in N.O.

It certainly sounds disturbing, but given Wal Marts long history of
selling guns and resisting the boycots of the gun grabbers - I think
maybe we should wait a bit to allow Wal Mart the opportunity to
explain what happened.

This report IS coming fromt he Boston Globe - not really the most
accurate unbiased source.

I'm not saying it happened this way or not - but I could envision that
the 40 stores they are talking about where sales were stopped probably
includes the 40 stores around New Orleans that have been shut down
(and hence sales of everything stopped) in light of the flooding,
looting,and lack of power. It seems to me if there is a significant
risk of the store losing power and being overrun by looters (and its
being closed down anyway) then Wal Mart is probably justified in
locking the guns up in a safe overnight.

Just my $0.02

What countertop said. Also, with so much disarray down there, it may be that it's impossible, or difficult, to uphold normal gun sale regulations or whatnot that they are supposed to follow, so rather than being in trouble, they are suspending sales.

We just don't know enough to say "never shop at Wal-Mart again even though they are 99% good, because we have detected 1% of evil we particularly detest."

Just remember - the gun grabbers are desperate for any little victory (and the Anti Wal Mart folks are even more desperate) - and if they can drive a wedge in between gun buyers and Wal Mart they will jump at the opportunity.

The regulation side may be the most potent force behind stopping sales. I don't know if Wal Mart has a single FFL for all their stores, or one for each state, area, parish, etc. or one for each store. But failure to comply with every jot and tittle of the regulations CAN cost you your FFL. If they risked losing the ability to sell guns ever (or until the restoration process was over) at one or many stores, it would make buisness sense to shut down sales until they were sure all rules could be followed.

Imagine the headlines if Wal Mart sold a gun to a legitimate buyer but with a technical failure to comply with some detail of the regulations, then that gun is stolen and used in a crime - "Wal Mart Sold Illegal Gun Used To Kill . . . " That's what you'd get on the news wires and from the talking heads on most TV news. It's a pretty big business risk.

The people in those areas feel they need protection NOW, not a month from now or whenever Wal-Mart deems it. It's the same principle as the NICS instant check -- a person in fear, restraining order or not -- shouldn't have to wait for a "waiting period" as so many liberals want to impose.

Further, all Wal-Marts with gun sections have FLL's. They didn't suddenly disappear from the stores in Baton Rouge. As for liability, every store faces that over almost any item they sell.

Sorry, but I think a little blog noise over this would send a message to Wal-Mart that their move isn't sitting well. I'm sure many a liberal politician has done lots of good things but if they restrict or want to restrict my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm not voting for them. If Wal-Mart wants to deny gun sales to law-abiding folks who need it Right Now, then they must be slapped on the wrist at the very least until they get it right.

I didn't see anyone cutting K-Mart slack when they pulled guns and ammo from their shelves after Michael Moore's movie.

It may be true that you shouldn't have to wait for a NICS check under the current circumstances in LA, but unless there's a disaster exception in the regulations it's virtually guaranteed that if you sell a gun without the required check you won't sell guns for a long time therafter, if ever. once ATF gets around to looking at you.

Admittedly it's a tough business call, but I think (at least hope) it's just that - a business call. What if Wal Mart sold out their inventory now, but then as a result of technical errors committed under the circumstances they couldn't sell guns in the disaster area for 5 years (after the ATF got through with them.) Is that a service to the area overall?

I'm not suggesting that they aren't or shouldn't run the background check. There's no indication that their phone lines are down in Baton Rouge or elsewhere. There's also no report in the news story that each store's FFL has quit. They've simply decided not to sell guns in those stores for now because things are "fluid".

If this was a policy call ("maybe we shouldn't be selling guns just now") then I'm as upset by it as you are. I was only suggesting that there may be regulatory issues that impinge upon business activity, given the disruption of services across so much of the area.

As to the FFL, a very quick look at the regulations suggests that each location is separately licensed, and corporations can be licensees (not just individuals) so the concerns I expressed earlier would apply on a store by store, rather than company wide, basis. There does not appear to be any authority for ATF to waive the applicability of NICS checks under disaster conditions (the only published exception is for remote sales locations with no phone facilities in VERY thinly populated states - presumably Alaska.)

Jeff,

I agree its very disturbing and worth looking into - I am simply questioning the extent to which this is actually occurring. The Boston Globe story wasn't clear - and it certainly didn't indicate they stopped selling them in Baton Rouge. Instead, they stopped selling them only "at 40 stores scattered throughout the Gulf Coast." The story mentions Baton Rouge - but only to the extent that a local seller was interviewed about his greatly increased sales volume.

Basically, the story tells us nothing. We know that a lot of Wal Mart stores are still shut down because of storm damage/lack of electricity/flooding/lack of employees. Do these also include the stores that this story refers to? I don't know, the story isn't clear.

I meant to add to that last comment that the story - that I was able to see - never actually mentions that sales have been stopped or impeded in Baton Rouge.

If you go to the Wal Store Finder - there are actually 11 Wal Marts in the New Orleans area. I assume all these are still closed. There are another 10 located along the Mississippi Coast near Gulfport, MS and 10 along the Gulf Coast of Alabama near Mobile, AL (all of which I also assume to be closed, if they in fact are still actually standing). If you go inland in either Mississippi or Alabama - where the destruction is far worse than what occurred in Louisiana - there are scores more.

I suspect this is really just a reporter making up a story where none exists. He didn't say the stores were shut in Louisiana, but only along the Gulf Coast - ie: Mississippi and Alabama.

Until I see otherwise, I just don't see where the alarm should be (other than the Globe's bad reporting)

WTF ? The Government is confiscating firearms, disarming law abiding citizens and you are going to take it out on Walmart. Do you have any idea as to the liability walmart would be vulnerable to if they continued selling firearms within several hundred miles? Come on, give the story a chance to mature a bit. The Boston Globe? yeah, that is some model of credibility.

On an entirely different note, the very first Wal-Mart I went in was in Slidell, years before they started moving into New England. For Wal-Mart that's their backyard.

My impression was mixed. The store was filthy and messy, but the camping and fishing section we walked through was like nothing I'd ever seen in a department store to that time. I wasn't paying attention enough, or cognizant enough, to notice they were especially low priced or whatever. To me they were just a grungier twist on a K-Mart.

They've changed the world with their IT practices, and at that time, that aspect of their business model would have been infant compared to now.

The message we should all take home from this is that our "ease of access" to firearms will be INVERSELY RELATED to how badly we need them. We have already had an indication of this. This just seals it. Get your guns when you can, and hold onto them REALLY TIGHT when you really need them. When the crap hits the fan, everyone will be looking out for his/her own interests: from Guvvamint to Wal-mart.

Molon Labe.

Individ

I dunno. I think it's kinda funny, actually...