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.
The 2nd Amendment under the gun
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
The 2nd Amendment under the gun
By DOUG PATTON
Guest Columnist
I'm going to place myself squarely in the middle of a very tiny minority by taking sides with the National Rifle Association against the world's largest retail chain, Wal-Mart, in a dispute over - what else? - gun sales.
Now, I believe in free enterprise and I like Wal-Mart. Sam Walton's climb up the ladder is a quintessentially American success story, built on hard work, cheerful employees, cheap prices and smart marketing. While his competitors were concentrating their focus on building stores in the cities, Sam Walton quietly built his empire in the small towns of America. He believed in giving people their money's worth and he believed in the Constitution.
Which brings me to the crux of the matter. In these politically correct times, when guns are considered even more evil than tobacco, and people who exercise their constitutional right to own them are considered criminals - or at least suspects - the nation's largest gun retailer has been catching a lot of legal and media heat for its "lax gun sales policy." Wal-Mart's corporate management needed some positive PR and some solid legal cover, and they found both in this policy.
The dispute with the NRA is over Wal-Mart's decision not to sell a gun to anyone whose background cannot be determined within three days. That is the amount of time federal law allows for the so-called "instant" background check on any individual attempting to purchase a firearm. After three days, the retailer is allowed - but admittedly not compelled - to sell the gun. (It is important to note that Wal-Mart sells rifles and shotguns, but no handguns.)
At first glance, the policy sounds perfectly reasonable, especially in the aftermath of September 11th. What could possibly be wrong with refusing to sell a gun to someone whose background is uncertain? Editorial pages like those of my own local paper, the Omaha World-Herald, opine that Wal-Mart should be free to set its own policies.
I agree. Wal-Mart is a business and I would not dream of bringing the force of government to bear on them to change those policies. Neither would the National Rifle Association, although the organization has not said publicly whether it will call for a boycott. I hope they don't. I think the 2nd Amendment still has a friend in the giant retailer, and I do not want to see it hurt by such an action.
But there is a point that is being missed in the rush to praise Wal-Mart and to criticize the NRA. In fact, there are two principles at issue here. The first is the assumption of innocence.
In the United States of America, every citizen is considered innocent of any and all crimes until proven guilty of them in a court of law. To assume guilt is a violation of the very essence of what this country is all about, and that is what this policy does. Wal-Mart is saying, "Mr. Customer, your federal background check is inconclusive, so we have to assume that you are guilty of something and therefore untrustworthy."
The second principle at stake is the constitutional right of every American to keep and bear firearms. The argument is always made that it is better to deny a law-abiding citizen his or her rights than to allow a felon to get a gun. But statistically, many more crimes are foiled by an armed citizen than are ever committed by an armed criminal. So what about the citizen who has every right to possess a firearm but is denied that right by an overzealous retailer?
Last week in Omaha, a man with a shotgun knocked on his ex-wife's door. When she opened it, he killed her in cold blood. Obviously, he had no trouble getting a gun. But suppose the murdered woman had been denied a gun for self-defense because Wal-Mart said authorities were unable to determine conclusively whether she was guilty of a crime.
Would Wal-Mart be legally responsible for her death? In this absurdly litigious society, who knows?
So before you cheer the Wal-Mart policy and scoff at the concerns of the NRA, consider the whole story. Your constitutional rights are on the line, too.
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist. He can be contacted at dpatton@neonramp.com.
http://www.rrleader.com/rrleader/myarticles.asp?H=1&S=583&P=521532&PubID=8424
"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
By DOUG PATTON
Guest Columnist
I'm going to place myself squarely in the middle of a very tiny minority by taking sides with the National Rifle Association against the world's largest retail chain, Wal-Mart, in a dispute over - what else? - gun sales.
Now, I believe in free enterprise and I like Wal-Mart. Sam Walton's climb up the ladder is a quintessentially American success story, built on hard work, cheerful employees, cheap prices and smart marketing. While his competitors were concentrating their focus on building stores in the cities, Sam Walton quietly built his empire in the small towns of America. He believed in giving people their money's worth and he believed in the Constitution.
Which brings me to the crux of the matter. In these politically correct times, when guns are considered even more evil than tobacco, and people who exercise their constitutional right to own them are considered criminals - or at least suspects - the nation's largest gun retailer has been catching a lot of legal and media heat for its "lax gun sales policy." Wal-Mart's corporate management needed some positive PR and some solid legal cover, and they found both in this policy.
The dispute with the NRA is over Wal-Mart's decision not to sell a gun to anyone whose background cannot be determined within three days. That is the amount of time federal law allows for the so-called "instant" background check on any individual attempting to purchase a firearm. After three days, the retailer is allowed - but admittedly not compelled - to sell the gun. (It is important to note that Wal-Mart sells rifles and shotguns, but no handguns.)
At first glance, the policy sounds perfectly reasonable, especially in the aftermath of September 11th. What could possibly be wrong with refusing to sell a gun to someone whose background is uncertain? Editorial pages like those of my own local paper, the Omaha World-Herald, opine that Wal-Mart should be free to set its own policies.
I agree. Wal-Mart is a business and I would not dream of bringing the force of government to bear on them to change those policies. Neither would the National Rifle Association, although the organization has not said publicly whether it will call for a boycott. I hope they don't. I think the 2nd Amendment still has a friend in the giant retailer, and I do not want to see it hurt by such an action.
But there is a point that is being missed in the rush to praise Wal-Mart and to criticize the NRA. In fact, there are two principles at issue here. The first is the assumption of innocence.
In the United States of America, every citizen is considered innocent of any and all crimes until proven guilty of them in a court of law. To assume guilt is a violation of the very essence of what this country is all about, and that is what this policy does. Wal-Mart is saying, "Mr. Customer, your federal background check is inconclusive, so we have to assume that you are guilty of something and therefore untrustworthy."
The second principle at stake is the constitutional right of every American to keep and bear firearms. The argument is always made that it is better to deny a law-abiding citizen his or her rights than to allow a felon to get a gun. But statistically, many more crimes are foiled by an armed citizen than are ever committed by an armed criminal. So what about the citizen who has every right to possess a firearm but is denied that right by an overzealous retailer?
Last week in Omaha, a man with a shotgun knocked on his ex-wife's door. When she opened it, he killed her in cold blood. Obviously, he had no trouble getting a gun. But suppose the murdered woman had been denied a gun for self-defense because Wal-Mart said authorities were unable to determine conclusively whether she was guilty of a crime.
Would Wal-Mart be legally responsible for her death? In this absurdly litigious society, who knows?
So before you cheer the Wal-Mart policy and scoff at the concerns of the NRA, consider the whole story. Your constitutional rights are on the line, too.
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist. He can be contacted at dpatton@neonramp.com.
http://www.rrleader.com/rrleader/myarticles.asp?H=1&S=583&P=521532&PubID=8424
"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
Comments
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
What the hell did September 11th have to do with firearms?
Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
rodney colson