RobertNashville

There is a large segment of firearm aficionados, liberal, conservative and all shades of those two political philosophies, who seem to have the opinion that a "hunting" firearm (meaning one that "looks" like a hunting firearm, in their opinion of course), is fine as is collecting firearms for the sake of collecting them but, as a group, are just as opposed to and dangerous to the public (you and me) being armed for our own protection as is any gun-grabbing/brady-bunch type group. I guess it just goes to show that stupidity and a lack of rational thought can be found in all facets of society.

Running a background check on both a husband and wife would only be effective if it was a spouse doing a straw purchase for the other spouse but even if that is what's happening; is that what the BATF really concerned about? I would think the "straw purchases" everyone, including the Feds should be worried about are the ones when a stranger is buying for a criminal (or buying lots of guns for criminals). What I don't get, and maybe someone who knows can explain to me, is what is the liability of the FFL is the FFL does sell to someone and it later (even much later) is found to have been a straw purchase? I don't think it would be that difficult for someone with a little bit of brain power to go into a gun store and buy a weapon and give absolutely no reason to the store to make it suspicious that it's actually a straw purchase. So, if it later turns out to have been one, is there really any liability on the part of the business??? I would think that, if there is a substantial pattern of an FFL conducting these sales that would be actionable but I somehow doubt that the FFL can be held responsible for anything unless it can be shown that hey knew or should have known what was going on.

I agree that a business has the ability/power to refuse service to a any customer for any reason (and oftentimes it's more than justified)...my point was that doing so is sometimes illegal and/or actionable in court or even cost enough sales that the business surfers.

True but I always prefer the third option that doesn't require either of the two above.

I'm not sure you understand the purpose of a "stand your ground" (also often known as "castle doctrine" laws)...the purpose is so that you CAN stand your ground and that you DON'T have a duty to retreat but can meet deadly force with deadly force. In states that do not have such laws, you can literally be found guilty of murder/manslaughter because you didn't jump out of an upstairs window. So....I sure don't want SCOTUS to ban such laws.I agree, just as we shouldn't need permission to breath, we shouldn't need permission from a government to be allowed to defend ourselves but that is not the reality we live in today.

The only reason why we have one one side of the story is because that WalMart refused to tell their side. That being the case, I don't consider that a "plus" in WalMart's favor.

At my age, I don't have enough years left on this earth to recount all the reasons.

Right in your actions or not, if you are standing in a state that requires you to retreat and/or hasn't passed a version of "stand your ground" then a person thinking his actions are right won't keep him out of prison. At last count, 25 states have passed some sort of castle doctrine/stand your ground law which means 25 haven't. As is always the case, you need to know the laws of the state you are in or going to be in if traveling as each has its own flavor when it comes to the use of deadly force to defend yourself just as each have their own version of what is and isn't permissible in terms of carry. Finding out each state's laws isn't that difficult if one wants to know!

A new AWB or even a complete confiscation of all firearms wouldn't affect me at all...I don't have any guns (that's my story and I'm sticking to it).

You could put a pair of antlers on that woman and.... Oh well I'll be nice.

I think the real moral of this story is; DON'T SHOP AT WALMART. Especially don't shop there if you intend to buy a sophisticated, specialized and fairly expensive example of mechanical engineering (like a firearm) and expect or need to deal with a salesperson who has at least some knowledge of what he is supposed to be selling.

Why am I not surprised??? I was betting either CA, IL or WI

Sorry...double post!

I don't have time to look for the citations at the moment but I do believe that there are some states where the duty to retreat is carried to an extreme....I'm certain (and will try to find the source) that there was even a case where a victim who defended himself was charged and found guilty (not sure of the specific charge) because, while in his own home and I believe at night, he shot an intruder....the finding of guilty was based on the fact that the victim could have jumped out of a SECOND STORY window rather than defend himself. So...while I think most states will back up your interpretation; I don't think all will.

Personally; I'm not going to shoot a dog or a person unless I really feel it's necessary but I will shoot either if I believe it is necessary. As you can probably tell from my avatar, my hound is pretty important to me and as foolish as it sounds I'd probably sacrifice myself to save her (and I believe she would do the same for me) so if a dog comes charging at "us" and it's a big enough dog to do real damage to me or my hound then I'm probably going to dispatch the attacker and deal with the consequences later. However, discharging a firearm in that situation may not only be unwise bit not the best course of action. First of all, if it were me I'd be in my neighborhood where a stray shot could cause a lot of problems. Second, unless I can react quickly enough and given how quickly fighting dogs move around; with shooting I run the very real risk of hitting my dog either instead of or along with the one attacking. All that to say, when I used to bicycle 200-300 miles per week I carried dog repellent..and I can tell you from experience that it was effective on many different breeds; even once, thank God, a doberman...I even used it once on a human and it was pretty effective for that as well...to this day, I carry spray with me and especially when out with my dog and that's probably what I'm going to go to first because it's likely to work and doesn't kill either the attacking dog or, more importantly, my own. I guess in general, I like having a non-lethal option.

Well I did say "most, although not all sane people" didn't I??? If you live in a state like CA or IL where insane people are electing equally insane people to their state legislatures you are going to get insane laws as a result - that's how you wind up with idiotic laws like not having a right to defend yourself even in your own home in the middle of the night if you have a third story bedroom window you can jump out of rather than defend yourself...it's apparently how you get a legislature to make carrying in parks legal in TN except, of course, in one of the most dangerous cities in the country (Memphis). ROTFLMAO

Well, as recent events have taught us, it's not nearly that simple - if the person shot was a 17 year old black kid in a hoodie all bets are off as even our "President" will weigh in on the matter.

I'm not sure why the media or even, in this case, the sheriff's office uses the phrase "stand your ground" other than ignorance or for hype. Either a person has a right to defend his life or he doesn't...either the shooter had just reason to believe his life was in danger or he didn't; I don't see how "stand your ground" even enters into that. I think most, although not all, sane people (pro or anti gun alike) acknowledge that a person has a basic right to defend himself and from this brief story, it seems as if this man had good reason to be in fear for his life...I expect no charges to be filed unless there is a lot more to the story that we currently have.

Can a business owner deny service to anybody they chose for any reason they chose? I'd say the only correct answer is, maybe. As I understand it, the FCRA guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin" and, the right of public accommodation is guaranteed to the disabled per the ADA, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability. In addition, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. To just say, without any equivocation, that a business can deny service to anyone for any reason...as with most blanket statements when words like "all" or "any" are used, it's not true; at least not always true. Perhaps more to the point, while you may deny service to anyone for any reason; it's likely you won't do that for very long or very often without some unpleasant repercussions. With regards to this WalMart; I think, if this woman pushed the issue, she could have WalMart by the short hairs; not because it was a "firearms transaction" but because this clerk didn't seem to think that this "little woman" could handle such a big gun.

I'm not sure that's true; at least not as broadly as you state it. The woman may or may not be telling the truth but I don't "smell" a straw purchase here based on what has been said in the story. Anyway, if the FFL, in this case, WalMart, has a duty to report (which 6.8 AR indicated they do and which I think is correct) then the obvious question that should follow is, did WalMart report the attempted illegal purchase to the BATF and if not, why not??? If they truly thought this was an attempted straw purchase then, required to do so or not, it would seem to me that they at least should report it and if they didn't report it then it's reasonable to wonder why (and, not reporting tends to lend credence to the assumption that this was a stupid and/or overzealous employee; at least in my opinion).

It is a one-sided story but as noted by the author; the store has apparently circled its wagons and isn't talking so if we only have one side it's because of WalMart's decision to make it that way. I don't know what the specific laws say regarding an FFL's liability for selling to someone and it turns out to be a straw purchase; or what their liability would actually be but I would at least hope that there has to be something more substantial than a vague suspicion before the FFL can be held liable.

^ True. We weren't there so maybe my opinion is an overaction (I have an religious objection to WalMart anyway so that may have played a part in my reaction as well ) Maybe this WalMart was entirely right; it's just that my gut tells me that this was some employee either being overly macho in telling a mere woman that she couldn't handle the gun or an employee being very overzealous in protecting the store from facilitating a straw purchase.

So if a stupid WalMart employee thinks I'm too fat to properly shoulder a shotgun it would be reasonable for him to think I was doing a straw purchase? How about if I was "too old"? How about if I were handicapped? Somehow I just don't think that the fact this was a woman purchasing a shotgun equates to a reasonable suspicion that this was a straw purchase situation.

Fired or not fired; this employee will still be stupid so his problem will still remain. More problematic is that whoever is in authority at that WalMart seems to be just as stupid as the employee - if they weren't they would have already apologized and offered to take a good chunk of money off the cost of the shotgun.