Time to Zumbo Wal-Mart

I do think this is one of those times when the shooting community seriously needs to come together, as we did in the aftermath of Jim Zumbo.  Joe Huffman has exactly why here:

Here is what really got to me:

Creating a record and alert system to record when a gun sold at Wal-Mart is later used in a crime. If the purchaser of that gun later tries to buy another gun at Wal-Mart, the system would alert the sales clerk of the prior buy and could refuse to make the sale.

Retaining the recorded images of gun sales in case law enforcement wants to view them later as part of an investigation.

Have they ever heard of “due process”? The RKBA is about to be declared, by the highest court in the land, as an individual right guaranteed to not be infringed. And yet if I bought a gun at Wal-Mart and someone stole that gun from me and used it in a crime Wal-Mart would hold that against me if I tried to buy another gun. Why stop there? Why not do the same for knives and baseball bats?

If Wal-Mart doesn’t want to sell me guns because I had one stolen, and it ended up getting traced, fine.  In that instance, they will sell me nothing.  More importantly, it appears this database will be maintained by MAIG, which means they will be keeping a list of traced guns.  Get a gun stolen that you bought at one of these retailers, and have the police return it to you, as they should, you’ll be in Mayor Bloomberg’s database.  Screw that!

More Details on the Wal-Mart Agreement

From Armed Canadian.  It’s actually far worse than I thought.  Go have a look.  Mayor Bloomberg is forcing Wal-Mart to go well beyond federal and state requirements, which Wal-Mart is free to do, and I’m free not to shop there anymore.  As of now I am generally boycotting Wal-Mart. Go Target!  Wal-Mart does not support our second amendment rights.  Don’t shop there.  Tell all your shooting buddies not to shop there.

Let Them Know How You Feel

Contact Wal-Mart corporate headquarters here.  Select “Feedback” then “Corporate Office”.  Let them know you’re unhappy that they signed a deal with Bloomberg.  Keep in mind you’re likely communicating with someone who has no idea what Bloomberg’s mayor coalition is all about, so make sure to explain in brief.  Here’s what I sent:

Dear Sir or Madam,

It was with great regret that I read Wal-Mart has signed an agreement with New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s coalition of “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”.  Despite the name of the Mayor’s organization, it is has advocated policies that would infringe on the second amendment rights of Americans, not merely go after the criminal trafficking of firearms.  The existing federal and state regulations, enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which Wal-Mart is legally bound to obey as a condition of retaining its Federal Firearms License, are more than adequate for the purposes of being a responsible corporate citizen when it comes to selling firearms and ammunition.  It was entirely unnecessary for Wal-Mart to concede anything to Mayor Bloomberg’s group.

Because this deal is an affront to myself and gun owners everywhere, I regret that I will take all my purchases for firearms and ammunition elsewhere.  Wal-Mart may have great prices for shooting supplies, but there is no price that I’m willing to assign my second amendment rights.

Sincerely,

[Sebastian]
Langhorne, PA

It was hard to write that, because I really wanted to tell them where they can shove their smiley faced low prices after handing a propaganda coup like that to that jackass Bloomberg.  But anger is seldom persuasive.  Needless to say, I now have a very strong preference for Target, and you can bet your butt I won’t be sticking up for Wal-Mart again when the hippies come bitching about them about not paying a living wage, or providing adequate health care to employees.

Why Preemption is a Sacred Cow

Lower Chichester Township, in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, not far from where I grew up, has just provided us with a fantastic example of why preemption is one of the fundamental principles that gun rights advocates won’t compromise on.  As soon as one town passes its own local gun rules, a dozen other towns with anti-gun politicians pile on.  Pretty soon you can’t travel the state to shoot, hunt, or keep or bear a firearm for self-protection without running the risk of unknowlingly becoming a criminal.

While the anti-gun folks keep telling us these local restrictions are reasonable, and that it will only limit itself to big cities with crime problems, experience suggests otherwise.  A patchwork of legal regulations makes gun ownership legally risky, and traveling to shoot or hunt nearly impossible without running afoul of one law or another, and that’s exactly the idea.

Philly Gun Shops Threatning to Move?

In addition to the money utterly wasted persuing this illegal gun ban, where the conclusion is virtually foredrawn that the city will lose in court, gun shops are talking about moving, causing the city to lose tax revenue from shops that sell a high dollar value item:

Delia predicted panic buying of guns, but also warned that if the laws were upheld in court, “I would consider moving out of the city.”

But he wouldn’t stop selling guns to people living in Philadelphia. He said he would move his store to a more gun-friendly town across the city line and resume his business.

Not smart for a city struggling with money.

Lou Middleton, 65, a former Philadelphia police officer who was passing time in Delia’s store, called the city’s new gun laws “a bunch of b.s., to put it bluntly.”

Middleton, who lives in Northeast Philadelphia, said he collects guns, including old military firearms. “I have an M1A [rifle], which has a 20 clip, which cost me $2,000,” he said. “Are they going to come and take it?”

They might, when the enforcement period begins.  We might win in court eventually, but you’ll probably never see your rifle again.