Hm, you’re probably right.
If I were calling the shots at Wal-mart, I’d try to turn this into a PR win by working out some kind of settlement with the parents whereby a million bucks was donated to suicide prevention, crisis, and survivors groups. Without admitting liability of course, since they have none.
The article I read yesterday didn’t clarify that point.
Still, I’m okay with WalMart not selling guns of any type. I frankly don’t think that WalMart is the appropriate place to sell these things. But, again, I think that the lawsuit’s reasoning is deeply flawed and I don’t support it.
From what I remember on the 4473, it’s if you’ve been ajudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
Not necessarily. She may never have been adjudicated to be mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, which would’ve allowed her to answer ‘No’ to question 12) f.
All those paper targets that I’ve ‘maimed or killed’ over the years… those poor, defenseless sheets of paper. I wasn’t aware that target shooting wasn’t a purpose for handguns. Thank you for pointing out that I’ve been using mine wrong for the last five years.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never seen a pistol for sale at Wal-Mart. And I’ve been in more than a few. Rifles and shotguns, sure, but no pistols. For the record, I’m against gun control… mainly because it’d work about as well as the drug control does.
In this case, it appears to be so (but I haven’t independently checked CNN’s article):
It’s hard to see what the litigants expect to achieve with this suit. Wal*Mart is clearly blameless, unless there’s something astonishing that isn’t being reported.
The only way I can imagine them arguing that WalMart is at fault is if they try to claim that because the girl had her prescription for antipsychotics filled at the WalMart pharmacy, they should have known that she was was lying on the form. Of course that argument is at best stupid (ie; WalMart is not an individual, and the guy in the sports department isn’t the guy who filled her prescription) and at worst deeply troubling (ie; it would seem to suggest that WalMart has an obligation to collect sensitive personal information for their customer profiles. Eek.)
It would be crazy for Wal*Mart to act in any way that even suggests culpability on their part.
It seems (absent any useful knowledge about existing caselaw) that the parents might have a better case against the State of Texas for witholding their daughter’s medical records. (Not that I’m saying that’s a great case, either.)
It’s hard not to think “What the hell are they thinking?” but of course that’s tempered with the knowledge that they’re grief-stricken and (understandably) likely not entirely rational about the whole thing.
Almost forgot:
Denton, Denton, RAH RAH RAH!
Then it appears she did lie on the affidavit, which I suppose proves how effective they are.
It does cover WalMart’s ass, as they did exactly what they were supposed to: the seller of the firearm required her to complete the appropriate forms. There’s no way the clerk at the desk would know enough about purchases of prescription drugs made at another WalMart 75 miles away, and likely had no idea that this woman was lying on her 4473.
So the store followed the book, and a suicidal person managed to lie her way into a firearm purchase. No real shock, actually.
As much as I despise Walmart, I don’t think they did anything wrong here. However, that said I don’t think they should be selling any kind of firearm, handguns or shotguns or rifles. Guns are a dangerous piece of equipment and as such should be sold in a specialty store, not in the same place where you buy diapers and bread and CDs, by people who normally work in the produce department and might have only a passing knowledge of guns. Perhaps a gun dealer would have run a more exhaustive background check on the woman before letting her buy the gun. I don’t believe that an average Walmart worker would care as much about the specifics of the law as a gun dealer operating out of his own store, who has more to lose if he sells a gun to someone who is not allowed to buy one.
So yeah, Walmart isn’t at fault, but I’d love to see this be the case that makes Walmart stop selling guns once and for all. (For the record, I’m pro-gun owners’ rights, though I personally hate the things.)
I did read there was an argument about wether the suicidal woman or the Wally World Clerk checked the block about being adjudicated or committed, but lawyers would go for any question in cases such as this.
Aren’t background checks done by a centralized, non-Walmart agency? If so, Walmart’s background check would be as good as anyone else’s. If not, another method for the lawyers to attack.
I hope that the people working the firearms counter have some additional training. If not, there’s an angle for the lawyer.
UncleBill, that was the episode of L&O:SVU last night. Only it was an egg donor form.
catsix, you’re right. It is no real shock. I’m torn between my desire to keep people like this from having firearms (I’m more afraid of anyone else getting in the way during a psychotic episode), and my overwhelming distaste for one central depository for everyone’s information.
Actually, you’re right about that. They are done by a centralized agency. The dealer calls a 1-800 number, supplies the driver’s license number and name, confirms SSN from the system, and then either gets an approval number (which must then be written on the form) or is denied.
So, Wal-Mart doesn’t personally handle the background check. It’s done in the NICS (National Instant Check System).
And that’s where you’d be wrong. It’s a felony for an FFL holding dealer (which Wal-Mart is) to sell to someone without the NICS approval number. Not only would the store’s FFL holder be liable, but the individual clerk would also. As for the check itself, see above. Wal-Mart doesn’t do the check themselves. They are required to have the person fill out exactly the same state and federal forms as any other dealer, and to conduct the background check the exact same way as any other dealer.
I don’t understand why Wal*Mart shouldn’t be allowed to sell guns when other are?
Aren’t Walmart the same store that refuses to sell cd’s with explicit lyrics and magazines like Maxim and FHM? Or am I thinking of another store?
That’s right, biddee.
Gotta love America! The same store that won’t sell FHM or Maxim (both great magazines!) sell guns! The same store that won’t sell a cd with a song with the word fuck in it, sells guns! That just blows my mind…
How so? Where is the contradiction here? Wal*Mart supports hunting but not smut? Biddee, please elaborate.
The contradiction mentioned would be the standard american one. Violence is fine and dandy as cotton candy, but smut will corrupt the minds of our precious youth.
Blood=Acceptable
Boobies=bad
Thank you Harborwolf…exactly what I meant.
I’m still not seeing a conflict. What do hunting rifles ahve to do with FHM?
Before you jump to conclusions, I have subscriptions to Maxim and FHM (both British and American editions). If we were talking about sex and violence in movies and/or TV, that would be one thing, but the fact that WallyWorld sells guns and doesn’t sell FHM has nothing to do with that.