Walmart refuses to sell shotgun to woman, says it's 'Too much gun'

[Solus]

If the clerk had a reason to believe she was making a straw purchase, which doesn't seem like the case from the side of the story we say, he has no grounds for violating her rights.

Thinking she is inept with a shotgun is also no good reason to not sell her shells.   There is no proficiency requirement (unless it might be some sad local law). 

If he had reason to believe she was impaired or unstable, he might have grounds to withhold the shells.

[MikeBjerum]

Tom,

I would like to know where his legal status is for denying the right.  I read his comment and reread, and I reread again when you quoted it, and I still disagree with his stance unless he can explain that.

We have a store, only one store I have found that is a mile from our corporate offices and the easiest place for me to grab some ammunition quick if I need it.  However, they require ID, and they scan it for any ammunition sale.  I refuse to purchase there, and I am very vocal about their actions which are not law.

[tombogan03884]

I was simply pointing out that you seemed to have overlooked half of JrLobo's statement.
But to continue his train of thought I'd bet there are things you do that fall into the same category.
It's the CYA policy.
If he had a legitimate cause for concern, no one who matters to his pay check will fault him.
Sounds like this guy is just an officious little pr!ck though.

[MikeBjerum]

Sorry Tom, but I saw nothing in Jr's post or the original story that rose to the level of legitimate denial of either a firearm or ammunition.  If this was supposed to be on the line of a straw purchase the clerk, which is all the blue vested zombies are, should have dialed 911 as the law requires.  However, to just refuse to do business based on an opinion of a person's ability is not covered in the law.

[mkm]

I've bought a couple of guns from Walmart with mixed results.  My first purchase went fine.  The second taught me a valuable lesson. 

I was young and less experienced.  I didn't purchase it from my local store because it didn't have exactly what I was looking for.  It was a stainless and polymer Marlin 22 mag bolt action.  Store policy says that customers can't handle firearms without a trigger lock on them.  Since they had to get the gun out of the back, it didn't have a lock on it, and I, therefore, couldn't hold it.  The salesman didn't ever take it out of the translucent bag it was in and just did all the paperwork by looking through the bag.  I naively trusted that everything was fine.  Store policy also says that a happy customer isn't allowed to carry his/her just purchased firearm through the store, and it was carried through the door by a manager.  I placed the rifle in the car and went back in to get some ammo (I don't remember if they wouldn't let me by it the first round, or if we were just getting it separate because my mon was getting the ammo).  No problems with that.  The rifle was a present so I didn't get to get it out and look at it for a couple of days.  When I finally did, the bolt was very rusty.  I knew it wouldn't do any good, but I took it back to the store.  I went in first without the rifle and ask them about it.  To my surprise, they told me to go get it.  Although I, a happy purchaser, couldn't carry it out of the store, I, a disgruntled customer, could carry it back into the store without an escort.  (Someone please explain the logic in that to me.)  Walmart, of course, did nothing to correct the situation, and I had to send it to Marlin who treated me right.  From that point on, I have never purchased a firearm without handling the actual gun to be purchased and inspecting it well.  I learned my lesson.

I can't say that I won't ever buy another gun from walmart, but they aren't my first choice.

As to the original post, if they buyer wants it, has the money, passes the background check, and can legally purchase it, the clerk should sale it to her.  I don't care if a 4' tall 80lbs woman wants to by a .50 cal barrett; you make the sale if that's what she wants.  If asked for an opinion, then he could give it.  I may even accept him politely offering it, but not refusing the sale because he didn't think it was the right gun for her.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

Sorry Tom, but I saw nothing in Jr's post or the original story that rose to the level of legitimate denial of either a firearm or ammunition.  If this was supposed to be on the line of a straw purchase the clerk, which is all the blue vested zombies are, should have dialed 911 as the law requires.  However, to just refuse to do business based on an opinion of a person's ability is not covered in the law.

I was talking about the OP, I was referring to his post immediately before your post of "Yesterday at 09:37:53"

F*ck it, this is getting confusing.

[RTFM]

FQ,

    Like I said, I'd sell her the gun not the ammo. If she demonstrated a lack of knowledge of handling the weapon even in the store, then I think some precaution is necessary, but I wouldn't violate her "rights".

That statement to me make you no better than the Walmart employee -

[Jrlobo]

Apologize guys as I was out "ridin' fence" with my son yesterday. Looks like I stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest with my comments. If we believe we have inalienable rights to fire arms, and I certainly do, then we must also believe that other people have inalienable rights not to sell us fire arms. Go to an auto dealer, have your driver's license and insurance, but when they check your credit rating it doesn't look so hot. The law, constitution, nothing, says anything about your credit rating, but the dealership says 'no sale'. Have they violated your rights? Do they have a right to do that? Okay, fire arms are mentioned in the constitution and autos are not, so my analogy might not be the the best. I am just trying to point out that every transaction has some human-to-human interaction that may not be perfect. Has anyone found any reaction from Walmart to this incident? If the story as I read it was true, then I hope Walmart fired his butt. But, if there is another side to the story, I'd still like to hear it. Thanks for responding positively and negatively...that's how I learn!

[MikeBjerum]

Jrlobo,

O appreciate your starting this debate and your reply.  However, you did not answer my question concerning why you would have denied a purchase in this situation.  That is what debate is all about, and that is what we do around here.

Please give us your reasoning for why YOU would have not have completed the sale.

[tombogan03884]

Jrlobo,

O appreciate your starting this debate and your reply.  However, you did not answer my question concerning why you would have denied a purchase in this situation.  That is what debate is all about, and that is what we do around here.

Please give us your reasoning for why YOU would have not have completed the sale.

Now that we both seem to be talking about the same post I'll recomment.

FQ,

    Like I said, I'd sell her the gun not the ammo. If she demonstrated a lack of knowledge of handling the weapon even in the store, then I think some precaution is necessary,

The only way the post made sense to me was to assume JrLobo screwed up his sentence structure.