[RAT Patrol]

I think it would be unwise to make too much of this. It is harmless for a business to make this decision on their own. It is their right to do so. What we need to be concerned with is the government mandating something like this. There is a huge difference in my opinion. If you don't like Wal-Mart's policy then don't buy your gun there.

[EBUCK]

The problem with their decision is that it gives our nanny-cow-tow politicians more reasonable arguments like "Well, Wal-Mart, the leading retailer of firearms hasn't seen a decrease in sales therefore the population in general isn't opposed to such procedures". We've got to make a dent in their figures in order to overcome this eventuality. Fortunately, gun owners seem to stick together and a national boycott of Mal-Marts firearms seems feesable.

EBUCK

[robertpaulsen]

"It is harmless for a business to make this decision on their own. It is their right to do so."

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.

[patton]

This is silly. What sort of amatuer schmuck would buy a guy at walmart?

I mean, for crying out loud, my kids .22 is more sophisticated than the trash they sell.

[Robert357]

I think it would be unwise to make too much of this .

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.

[Hot Tabasco]

I think it would be unwise to make too much of this.

Agreed! They could just as easily said no more firearm sales like Sports Authority did, instead, they chose the "better safe than sorry" route. Considering all the bogus lawsuits being filed against the firearms industry by municipalities, they are obviously trying to cover their butts and for that I can not blame them. At least they are still selling firearms........

[doug from upland]

I am in agreement. The conservative position on this is that a private business should be able to set the policy it wishes without governmental interference. That is what Wal-Mart did. If they suffer because of it, they made a bad business decision.