Gun Business: Wal-Mart Loads Up With Guns in U.S. Stores

This week CNN.com reported that Wal-Mart has announced that it will be restocking many of its U.S. stores in an effort to combat slumping sales. It was in 2006 that the world’s largest retailer stopped carrying firearms in all but 1,300 stores.

Beginning soon Wal-Mart will carry long guns including rifles and shotguns in about half of its 4,000 stores, although handguns will only be sold in select stores in Alaska.

The stores that will carry the firearms will reportedly be in areas where hunting and fishing are popular, and CNN.com noted that a spokesman for the company indicated that the majority of firearms sold at Wal-Mart are made in the United States.

Background checks will be required for all purchases.

Official ATF Stance on Long Guns From Border States

There has been a lot of confusion on what possible new regulations on the sale of long guns in the four border states with Mexico mean. So rather than debate it again, let’s see what ATF has to say. Below is an official letter from Ken Melson, the Acting Director of ATF. It speaks for itself:

 

A recent initiative by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has caught the attention of national media outlets.

I wanted to make sure everyone heard from me about this law enforcement initiative so there isn’t any confusion.

Recently, ATF announced through the Federal Register our intent to initiate a new Demand Letter requiring the reporting of multiple sales of certain long guns by Federal Firearms Licensees, known as FFLs, in the four Southwest Border States. We took this step as a way to help gain actionable law enforcement intelligence which we believe will help reduce criminal firearms trafficking along the Southwest border.

Before we can actually issue the Demand Letter we must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget for purposes of the paperwork reduction act. We expect to receive that approval in early January, 2011. Read more

National Shooting Sports Foundation: ATF to Require Multiple Sales Reports for Long Guns

What will new ATF rules on long gun sales mean? Our friends at the National Shooting Sports Foundation offer their take:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is moving to require federally licensed firearms retailers to report multiple sales of modern sporting rifles beginning January 5, 2011.

Specifically, the ATF requirement calls for firearms retailers to report multiple sales, or other dispositions, of two or more .22 caliber or larger semi-automatic rifles that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine and are purchased by the same individual within five consecutive business days.

The Washington Post suggests that the reporting mandate would be limited to retailers along the Southwest border; however, the Federal Register Notice does not limit the geographic scope of the reporting requirement. Read more

Canadian Liberals: Evil NRA Attacking Canada

Bloomberg via Businessweek.com reported that David McGuinty, a Liberal Party lawmaker, has called out the ruling Conservative Party to clarify any links with the NRA. This comes as the Conservative Party has announced that it would eliminate the long gun registry in Canada.

According to the story:

“The NRA has been involved in efforts to scrap the Canadian registry for a decade, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported today.” Read more

California Long Gun Registry Gets Little Notice in MSM

The mainstream media, even in California has been mostly mum on the pending legislation in California that could possible expand the state’s current handgun registration law to all long guns. The California Outdoor Heritage Alliance via our friends at Ammoland.com have followed the bill closely.

The current bill could come up for a vote on the California Senate Floor at any point. COHA noted that the bill “raced through the Assembly earlier this summer and is moving equally quick on the Senate side.” Read more

Illinois Enacts New Gun Laws

Is Chicago trying to scare law-abiding citizens from ever thinking about buying guns? That almost seems to be the logic, but it isn’t limited merely to the Windy City. WQAD is reporting that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has signed new gun legislation:

“The new law, signed Monday, will increase penalties for unlawful firearm possession including a one to three year long prison sentence for aggravated use of a gun without a registration card. The bill also includes offenders merely in possession of an illegal gun. Quinn called it a right step to keeping the streets of Illinois safe.”

We have long stressed that law-abiding citizens should have the right to legally own firearms, but what we continually see is that some politicians continually move the bar, making it all the more difficult to in fact “legally” own a gun. FirearmsTruth also questions why this law is only now being introduced?

So we’d like to ask Govenor Quinn how exactly will this keep the streets safe? Why would those who already had illegal guns suddenly give them up?

Clearly there have been many criminals with guns prior to the SCOTUS ruling, but this law just seems aimed at all gun owners. Of course it won’t affect criminals as they likely would own illegal guns anyway.

Firing Back: Chicago’s Take on Long Guns

This week we’re seeing a lot of the fallout of last week’s Supreme Court ruling. Chicago has attempted to do an end run around the Supreme Court of the United States – the highest court in the land – by coming up with new and extremely vague laws.

One part we missed at first is only getting minor play in the mainstream media. So far we haven’t seen much pickup on it either, suggesting that it is something the city is trying to slip through. Numerous news organizations, such as Bloomberg Businessweek noted it however:

“The new law limits possession of handguns to the home and possession of long guns to places of business.”

Are we reading this right? Long guns can only be held in places of businesses? Is it just us, or does this statement make no sense? Most workers, blue collar or white collar, probably don’t take a rifle or shotgun to work. So exactly what “place of business” requires or is suitable for a long gun? This sounds like a way to make it so difficult and impossible to own such an item that people won’t bother. Nice way to get around the Constitution. Let the lawsuits begin.

Huff and Puff Plays Loose With the Facts

We don’t expect The Huffington Post to be unbiased on the issue of firearms, nor do we expect them to be completely factual on the issue either. They didn’t let us down. In responding to the Supreme Court ruling, Josh Sugarmann offers the commentary: “McDonald Gun Case: More Deaths, Unending Litigation.”

OK, so much for anything but an editorial. But we should add that Sugarmann is also executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C. so we shouldn’t expect anything but anti-gun rhetoric.He offers the usual anti-gun rant, and that’s fine. But he also plays loose with the facts, noting the situation in D.C.:

“And contrary to the claims of the gun lobby, America’s cities are not waiting expectantly to exercise this newfound right offered by the Court. According to DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier, in the two years since the 2008 Heller decision overturning DC’s handgun ban, only 900 firearms have been registered in the District that otherwise could not have been registered before the ruling. The citizens of DC have thus far rejected the wrong-headed notion that more guns make us safer.”

What Sugarmann fails to note is that D.C. requires gun owners to take training courses (which cost money), spend time on the firing range (more money) and spend at least four hours in a classroom for course on gun safety (even still more money). On top of that the city has a weapons registry program that requires everyone to go through multiple background checks and get fingerprinted. Imagine if the process to be fingerprinted was required for anything beyond guns?

Civil libertarians would be up in arms, and liberals would call it an invasion of privacy. But this is what D.C. requires. And… all of the above, as in New York City, costs money. Now in fairness, the D.C. fees are less than New York City fees, but it costs about $60 in fees for handguns and $48 in fees for rifles and shotguns. Now this doesn’t include the costs you’ll have to pay to a certified range instructor.

Whether or not you agree with this being necessary to obtain a gun is not the issue, but what is the issue is that Sugarmann never notes these requirements. Could this be why only 900 firearms have been registered? And finally, do you ever think criminals will ever bother? We don’t believe they would.

California Assemblyman Wants Mandatory Long Gun Registration

CBSNews.com is reporting something that is a little alarming:

“California Democrat is proposing a new law requiring residents to register their shotguns and rifles or go to jail, CBSNews.com has learned.

 ”Assemblyman Mike Feuer, whose district includes Beverly Hill and West Hollywood, this week introduced legislation ordering law enforcement to ‘permanently keep’ records of anyone who buys a gun from a dealer or an individual. California already stores information about handgun purchases.”

 Thank you to CBSNews.com’s Declan McCullagh for posting about this. It seems most of the mainstream media isn’t reporting on this story.

More Vocal Bias From Canadian Mainstream Media

At Firearmstruth.com we thought it was only the American press that was so staunchly biased against guns, but the Canadian mainstream media seems just as bad. The Vancouver Sun didn’t pull any punches with this editorial headline:

“Scrapping long-gun registry is pandering to vocal minority” Read more