In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Editorial: Meet the NRA / Wal-Mart's wise move und
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Editorial: Meet the NRA / Wal-Mart's wise move under fire
Published Jul 17, 2002
What would it take to get the National Rifle Association to square off against the nation's largest gun retailer? Not much, as it turns out.
In late May the top management of Wal-Mart quietly directed the company's 2,600 stores to stop selling rifles and shotguns to people who hadn't passed a law-enforcement background check.
To most Americans this might seem like a sensible precaution and a contribution to public safety. But to the NRA, it's a reprehensible step beyond the minimal requirements of federal law. After the Wal-Mart policy found its way into the news recently, the NRA hinted it might organize a boycott. It later withdrew that threat in favor of another: It will "monitor" Wal-Mart and "work with" the retailer on changing its policy, which the NRA thinks may be illegal.
The NRA's position on this is crystal clear: The federal system of background checks is "flawed" because it occasionally takes more than 72 hours to determine whether a gun purchaser has the kind of criminal record or mental disorder that would make him or her ineligible to own firearms; for a retailer to wait a little longer, when necessary, places an unfair burden on the customers.
There are flaws in the system, but not where the NRA sees them. Since 1994, when background checks were required by the Brady law, the system for making them has been speeded up. Most are completed within a few hours, and 95 percent are finished within the 72-hour federal limit.
Not surprisingly, the other 5 percent are likely to involve buyers whose records show signs of trouble. Indeed, government figures collected by Americans for Gun Safety show that in a recent 30-month period, at least 10,000 unchecked customers whose sales went through by default had felony convictions or other disqualifying factors in their records.
These figures were disturbing to Wal-Mart, which decided to adopt a version of the "don't know, don't sell" rule now followed in nine states that have found the 72-hour time limit too short (Minnesota is not among them).
You might think a group that officially opposes gun sales to criminals would applaud such a move. You might think a group that champions the civil right of private citizens to own firearms would also endorse the right of a private business to set its own conditions for selling them. You might think a seasoned lobbying group would sidestep a public confrontation in which it can't help but look, at best, just plain dumb.
If so, you don't know the NRA.
This is the outfit that keeps fighting efforts to require background checks for sales made at gun shows, where any kind of crook or flake can still buy a piece with no questions asked.
This is the outfit that applauds Attorney General John Ashcroft for suggesting that the limit for background checks be cut to 24 hours.
This is the association that blasted Kmart for briefly suspending sales of guns and ammunition after the Sept. 11 attacks.
What's next for the NRA? Perhaps lobbying for a federal law to require that Wal-Mart start selling handguns, too.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3064082.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Published Jul 17, 2002
What would it take to get the National Rifle Association to square off against the nation's largest gun retailer? Not much, as it turns out.
In late May the top management of Wal-Mart quietly directed the company's 2,600 stores to stop selling rifles and shotguns to people who hadn't passed a law-enforcement background check.
To most Americans this might seem like a sensible precaution and a contribution to public safety. But to the NRA, it's a reprehensible step beyond the minimal requirements of federal law. After the Wal-Mart policy found its way into the news recently, the NRA hinted it might organize a boycott. It later withdrew that threat in favor of another: It will "monitor" Wal-Mart and "work with" the retailer on changing its policy, which the NRA thinks may be illegal.
The NRA's position on this is crystal clear: The federal system of background checks is "flawed" because it occasionally takes more than 72 hours to determine whether a gun purchaser has the kind of criminal record or mental disorder that would make him or her ineligible to own firearms; for a retailer to wait a little longer, when necessary, places an unfair burden on the customers.
There are flaws in the system, but not where the NRA sees them. Since 1994, when background checks were required by the Brady law, the system for making them has been speeded up. Most are completed within a few hours, and 95 percent are finished within the 72-hour federal limit.
Not surprisingly, the other 5 percent are likely to involve buyers whose records show signs of trouble. Indeed, government figures collected by Americans for Gun Safety show that in a recent 30-month period, at least 10,000 unchecked customers whose sales went through by default had felony convictions or other disqualifying factors in their records.
These figures were disturbing to Wal-Mart, which decided to adopt a version of the "don't know, don't sell" rule now followed in nine states that have found the 72-hour time limit too short (Minnesota is not among them).
You might think a group that officially opposes gun sales to criminals would applaud such a move. You might think a group that champions the civil right of private citizens to own firearms would also endorse the right of a private business to set its own conditions for selling them. You might think a seasoned lobbying group would sidestep a public confrontation in which it can't help but look, at best, just plain dumb.
If so, you don't know the NRA.
This is the outfit that keeps fighting efforts to require background checks for sales made at gun shows, where any kind of crook or flake can still buy a piece with no questions asked.
This is the outfit that applauds Attorney General John Ashcroft for suggesting that the limit for background checks be cut to 24 hours.
This is the association that blasted Kmart for briefly suspending sales of guns and ammunition after the Sept. 11 attacks.
What's next for the NRA? Perhaps lobbying for a federal law to require that Wal-Mart start selling handguns, too.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3064082.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878