One of our readers sent the following email to Walmart, which is the nation’s largest gun retailer.
Dear Walmart; I understand that representatives from Walmart have met with Vice President Biden on the issue of gun violence. While it is appropriate to show due respect for the office, I would encourage and recommend that any proposals for Walmart to participate in actions that limit in any fashion the rights of citizens under the 2nd amendment be politely but forcefully rejected. This would include placing any limitation on sales of firearms, ammunition and related accessories beyond those presently in effect as of December 31, 2012. The proposals presently in vogue such as limiting magazine capacity or making illegal firearms with cosmetically “displeasing” attributes will do nothing to curtail or lessen firearm violence. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting and any statement that says the rights of legitimate hunters or sportsmen will not be affected is extraneous and illegitimate. I have been a long time customer of Walmart – I am approaching my 60th birthday – for many products and services. However, I will make this promise: if Walmart chooses to ignore the rights of law-abiding citizens by participating or lending support to any additional restrictions on firearm ownership, transfer, sale or use, I will choose not to be a customer. Thank you.
Walmart replied.
Dear [Name withheld],
Thank you for your recent inquiry. Walmart, like the rest of the country, has been engaged in a national dialogue about the responsible sale and regulation of firearms. We have had ongoing conversations with the Administration, Congress, Mayor Bloomberg’s office, sportsmen groups, suppliers and others to listen and share our thoughts and experiences.
Over the years we have been very purposeful about striking the right balance between serving hunters and sportsmen and ensuring that we sell firearms responsibly. In fact, we became a charter member of Mayor Bloomberg’s coalition against illegal guns and adopted the 10-point code established by the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership that goes beyond what the law requires. We have also spoken to the Vice President’s office to share our perspective.
We take this issue very seriously and are committed staying engaged in this discussion as the Administration and Congress work toward a consensus on the right path forward.
Sincerely,
Walmart Customer Care
So Walmart has already sided with Mayor Bloomberg’s group. That group’s current campaign is “Demand a Plan,” which is:
- Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America
- Ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines
- Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with real penalties for “straw purchasers”
If Walmart is already on board with these measures, that may be a problem for many of its customers.
The first is already required of all retail and pawn shop purchases, so it would force everyone who privately sells a gun to run a criminal background check first. The second would end up resurrecting the expired “assault weapons” ban that didn’t actually reduce gun violence. The third makes sense, but it defends on what they mean by “gun trafficking.” Depending on that definition, the first target of that measure should be the current Attorney General of the United States, whose Justice Department oversaw Fast and Furious.
Maybe it’d be nice to organize a national boycott Walmart week.
Agreed, depending on what Wal-mart does.
Realize that pretty much everyone threatens to boycott Wally’s for more things than you can imagine; pay too little, charge too little, sell guns, threaten to not sell guns, etc. Their continued profitability shows that all of this is a fool’s errand.
yeah, and the Bible selection is getting pretty skimpy, too
“We take this issue very seriously and are committed staying engaged in this discussion as the Administration and Congress work toward a consensus on the right path forward.”
Frankly, I translate this statement as “we will soft-pedal along with this issue unti such time as it falls off the national radar, Congress and the President get bogged down in a byzantine debate and abandon the effort and we can quietly go about our business of providing whatever products our customers demand.” In their situation this is probably the best outcome.
Unfortunately, the Soros Junta has a gun to WalMart’s head. Organized labor and the left’s hatred of WalMart is well documented. The Junta’s willingness to flaunt the law and the Constitution is well documented. The Junta has set up a National Labor Relations Board that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the AFL-CIO. I hope nobody believes Boeing’s settlement with the Machinists over the SC plant was voluntary. The NLRB has long had the power to simply order an employer to bargain with a union without there having been an election or if the union lost the representation election. It has been a rarely used power and the factual predicate in NLRB precedent is a pattern of unlawful acts by the employer that the NLRB finds to be so pervasive that a free and fair election is impossible. All somebody in DOJ has to do is whisper in WalMart’s ear that it would be a shame if the NLRB found WalMart to have been so bad that they’re going to have to order them to recognize a union without there having been an election. I’ll guarantee you that WalMart will do anything the Junta wants to try to avoid that.
Just as Boeing undoubtedly could have appealed the NLRB’s findings on the SC plant and won, WalMart could undoubtedly defeat a bargaining order. But in both cases it would have taken years to get to the USSC and during the pendancy of the appeal, Boeing, WalMart, or any other business that gets in the Junta’s crosshairs is exposed to the full regulatory and law enforcement might of the US Government. Just as Boeing did, WalMart will settle. Welcome to Obamastan!
It’s such an uncommon thing I couldn’t remember how to spell the seminal case but I found it. It’s called a Gissel Order after the name of a packing company that got a bargaining order and appealed it unsuccessfully. It was the last labor law decision of the infamous Warren Court. Here’s a Fordham Law Review article about Gissel Orders. It is a scary power when held by people such as those running this Country today.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2097&context=flr
Would this be the same Mike Bloomberg who just told the poor to suffer pain in noble silence, because he has higher priorities? “Let them eat cake” indeed.
WalMart would do well to review the popular demographic of their average customer.
There is a reason Wally World got into selling AR pattern rifles!
My initial reaction, before I’d even finished the article: Does this mean everyone FINALLY agrees the Obama administration should be charged with criminal actions?
Then you said it: “[T]the first target of that measure should be the current Attorney General of the United States, whose Justice Department oversaw Fast and Furious.”
Bingo.
Key bit — note the waffle wrt gun owners only legitimate as ‘hunters and sportsmen’.
Rather than the 2nd Amendment as protecting the individual’s sovereign right of self defense, it will be about mere ‘heritage’.
They’ll have us like the Eskimo tribes who get grudgingly allowed to hunt one whale a year to preserve their culture.