Couple Who Survived El Paso Shooting Sues Walmart Over Inadequate Security

BigStock

Well this is awkward. Earlier this week, Walmart caved to the braying anti-gun chorus and announced that they’re ending the sales of handgun ammunition (and apparently .223/5.56 as well) in their stores. They also asked their customers to refrain from carrying sidearms openly.

That will undoubtedly mean fewer armed people in Walmart stores. Law abiding gun owners don’t react well for being (even indirectly) blamed for the criminal acts of a lone wacko. His actions have nothing to do with the rest of us 100+ million lawful gun owners, many of whom spend their money (or did) in Walmart stores.

Bentonville hasn’t designated Wally World’s locations “gun-free” zones yet, but that seems to be the direction in which they’re heading. Walmart CEO Doug McMillon is apparently unmoved by the fact that guns are used 20 to 30 times more often to save lives in this country than they are to take them.

Never mind. McMillon got to issue a press release that (he apparently thinks) will appease the anti-gun #WalmartMustAct forces and let him continue to sell shotguns, hunting rifles and some ammo for those guns. He let himself be mau mau’d into giving up over 10% of the nation’s ammunition sales in exchange for…what exactly?

Bless his heart.

Now, however, two people who were injured in the shooting at an El Paso Walmart store last month are now suing the retail giant for failing to adequately protect them while there were on the premises.

By David Warren, Associated Press

A Texas couple who were injured in a mass shooting at a Walmart store in El Paso last month recently filed a lawsuit against the corporation alleging it did not have adequate security in place to prevent the attack that killed 22 people.

The lawsuit submitted Friday by Guillermo and Jessica Garcia is the first filed in the aftermath of the Aug. 3 shooting that also injured about two-dozen people, including the El Paso couple.

Guillermo Garcia has undergone several surgeries for his wounds and remains hospitalized in critical condition. Jessica Garcia also was hospitalized but has since been released.

The suit also requests that a restraining order be imposed to preserve evidence found at the store and prevent Walmart from destroying or altering any relevant material. The retail giant announced two weeks ago that it will reopen the El Paso store but the interior of the building will first be rebuilt and the renovation will include an on-site memorial honoring the victims of the shooting, many of whom were Latino.

Patrick Luff, an attorney for the couple, said Wednesday that shootings have previously occurred at Walmart stores, including one in 2016 in the Texas Panhandle city of Amarillo, and the company should have had adequate security on a busy shopping day at the El Paso store.

“So the question is why aren’t they taking sufficient steps to prevent this from happening?” Luff said.

Authorities believe the suspected gunman, 21-year-old Patrick Crusius, posted a racist screed online before opening fire on shoppers . He’s being held on a charge of capital murder.

Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove said Wednesday that the shooting “will be with us forever and our hearts go out to the families that were impacted.”

“We preserved what information we have, and we’ve worked meticulously with federal and local authorities as they documented everything that took place on August 3,” he said.

Walmart announced earlier this week that it will stop selling handguns and short-barrel rifle ammunition, while requesting that customers not openly carry firearms in its stores, even where state laws allow it, such as Texas.

It will also discontinue handgun sales in Alaska. Walmart stopped selling handguns in the mid-1990s, with the exception of Alaska. The latest move marks its complete exit from that business and allows it to focus on hunting rifles and related ammunition only.

comments

  1. avatar Steve says:

    These types of lawsuits are so ridiculous the lawyers need to face disbarment for these frivolous suits. What would you have EVERY store, park, and other location do, become literal prisons with restricted access, no windows, and heavily armed security at the one and only entrance?

    Silly.

    1. avatar raz-0 says:

      I dunno man. Wal-Mart seems to have admitted some level of culpability as they have made changes to their business they claim will impact the occurrence of mass shootings. So if you are going to say .. hey I’m kind of guilty… might as well cut the check.

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        In tort law, taking steps to correct what another party has alleged was a cause of their loss, is not evidence of liability. If it were, nobody would ever correct a condition, hazardous or otherwise, for fear of additional liability.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          True. As a matter of policy, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible as proof of negligence.

        2. avatar Rad Man says:

          You said it better, I’ve been out of practice for more than a few years.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Good legal commentary, thanks for the expertise!

      2. avatar joefoam says:

        If they designate their store as a gun free zone, or restrict the customers ability to defend themselves, then they should supply the necessary security required. This could set a precedent ending gun free zones which have proven to be ineffective at best and an invitation for mass shooters at worst.

        1. avatar Randy says:

          My sentiments exactly — if they designate their stores as gun free zones then they should be liable for your protection/security.

        2. avatar Joel says:

          Randy these people were injured BEFORE Walmart asked people not to carry guns in their stores so I don’t think your argument stands against basic reason. If they had been injured in a “gun free” retail store then I would say the lawsuit has merit, but they weren’t.

        3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          The whole damn Mall where THIS Walmart is located IS a gun free zone.. This Walmart is not a typical stand alone store therefore the parking lot which is included in the description of “mall property” is not primarily Walmart property and is subject to the rules of the primary. This Walmart did not have a choice as to whether or not to permit firearms at this location and I don’t think (unfortunately) that any lawsuit against Walmart itself will go anywhere, they are sueing the WRONG entity….

        4. avatar Scottlac says:

          As MADDMAXX said this WAS a GFZ WalMart. Simply do a Google street view and can see the (slightly blurry) Texas 30.06/07 signs on the doors of the store.

        5. avatar Jr says:

          Maybe they SHOULD do that but I don’t think you can hold them legally liable. You know exactly what their policies are and nobody is forcing you to go.

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        it’s not like they can’t afford it….one or two off-duty cops could make a difference….

        1. avatar jimc5499 says:

          “A couple of retired cops”. Really? A cop on active duty really did good for that school in Florida.

    2. avatar American Patriot says:

      Hey…Lets make America N.Korea, that will keep us safe……

    3. avatar cloud says:

      so what? Walmart is now an enemy of free people and the Bill of Rights. I hope this couple wins and takes walmart to the cleaners. Phuck walmart.

    4. avatar jbob says:

      Many times they are, but not this time. Walmart parking lots are some of the most dangerous places in the country. Company policy is the bottom line and so they intentionally don’t spend money securing or protecting their parking lots. What store security they do have is strictly geared towards reducing theft not protecting shoppers.

      1. avatar Joel says:

        It’s not Walmart or any other retailers job to provide security for their customers. Walmart sells cheap goods at a cheap price. Taking measures to prevent theft is a good business practice.

        Knee jerk reactions to tragic events are not such good ideas. For example, banning items that could have minimized the tragity if they had been present….

        As to the dangers of wal mart parking lots, it’s the busiest retail chain in the world. I have no idea how many people walk into Walmart stores daily but I’d bet the second busiest retailer in the world is lagging WAY behind in volume of customers. Add the targeted demographics into the equation and Of course they will have the highest crime rate.

    5. avatar Not Telling says:

      Well, if companies trample on Constitutional Rights and in doing so indirectly make their patrons less safe….I’d say they deservexto be sued and this isn’t a frivolous lawsuit. Hope to see more of them filed.

    6. avatar joefoam says:

      I wouldn’t describe the actions suggested as creating a prison like environment but I certainly think that if more armed security were present less shootings would occur. The side benefit would be the public being more accustomed to seeing weapons and becoming comfortable around them rather than being terrorized as the anti-gun crowd would have it.

    7. avatar Rose says:

      I think that its kinda sad that this couple had to resort to this. I see greed. How was Wal-Mart suppose to know that this individual would go in and do what he did. Adequate security, really! Then all businesses around there should be thinking of adding more security. Not wait the whole city.

    8. avatar Blue Frost says:

      Any store that restricts a persons rights to protect themselves with a no gun policy yes they should be held responsible. By having that no gun policy you should be insuring them protection.

  2. avatar Brewski says:

    Yeah… good luck with that.

    You know what would be cheaper than requiring all businesses to have “adequate” security? Abolishing gun free zones so people can protect themselves.

    Better yet, you shouldn’t be able to sue any establishment for YOUR failure to arm yourself and putting yourself in the position of a victim.

    However suing any business that prohibits firearms or posts signs announcing itself as a soft target should be standard practice.

    1. avatar Ton E says:

      “Better yet, you shouldn’t be able to sue any establishment for YOUR failure to arm yourself and putting yourself in the position of a victim.

      However suing any business that prohibits firearms or posts signs announcing itself as a soft target should be standard practice.”

      If you go into the gun free business YOUR also choosing to go into said business no one forced you to go into it and why would you want to patronize a business that disagrees with your rights? Sorry I respectfully disagree don’t like the sign don’t shop there.

      1. avatar PosseMan says:

        Except for the fact that there are places you *have* to go, which are gun-free zones. Such as the DMV and hospitals, for starters. I know they have “security” at those places, but IME, they are unarmed, and therefore completely worthless.

        1. avatar DonS says:

          Of course, whether places like the DMV or hospitals are “prohibited” depends on where you live.

          Here in Colorado, the only places that are off-limits to licensed concealed carriers are:
          * places prohibited by federal law
          * public K-12 schools
          * public (i.e. “state or local government”) buildings with security personnel and electronic screening permanently in place at every entrance
          C.R.S. 18-12-214

          There are only two places I’ve ever **had** to go that are “prohibited”.
          1. My kids’ schools. I grudgingly leave the gun in my vehicle. If I know that’s the only place I’m going, I just leave it at home (again, grudgingly).
          2. Every 5 years, I go to the Sheriff’s office to renew my permit. They have the above-mentioned “security”.

          Of course, if a private entity like a hospital has screening at an entrance, they can deny entry. I ran into that a few months ago. Had to go put the gun in the vehicle. (Though my Dad left his Buck knife at the security station – it’s conceivable that I could’ve done the same with my gun, not that I’d want to.)

        2. avatar NAC says:

          That’s scary your allowed to carry your weapon in places that make most of there money on alcoholic sales? Also in all your pot shops?

      2. avatar CLarson says:

        There are many places in the country where shopping at Walmart might be your only real retail option for basic goods like food without going out of your way for a hundred miles. They are the water holes in the savanna were the predators know the prey gathers.

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Walmart might be the “OASIS” but for the most part they are also responsible for creating the need for said oasis.. The Walmart business model is based upon moving into an area and pricing any and all potential competitors out of business even if it means operating at a loss until the have achieved that goal… It is the larest retail store in the country owned and operated by the wealthiest family in the country and if they open a store in a gun free space thay should be responsible for the safety of their customers… Conversely anyone who pays attention to those malls, movie theaters and other non government “soft” targets and CHOOSES to do business there is also complicit in the liability for their own personal safety… I don’t know about Texas but in Fl if a place is NOT designated by State or Federal regulations (schools, bars, DMV, VA, State and Federal builings, etc) it is not a crime to carry a firearm into other businesses that post no guns allowed signs, at most the store can only tell you to remove yourself from their property.. I really don’t care what Walmart does with their guns and ammo, the only thing I ever bought there was a box of .22 lr once. I don’t open carry and have no desire to and if I read the Walmart press release correctly they are only “asking” that customers not open carry in their stores.. I would suggest that no one purchase the remaining handgun and 223/5.56 ammo they have in stock which will force them to possibly make a bulk deal with someone and sell at a major loss (which they are good at anyway)… I also happen to agree with previous posts that seem to suggest that Walmart go phuck themselves…

  3. avatar GS650G says:

    I guess suing the gunman woild not have produced the lottery winnings Wal-Mart is capable of.

  4. avatar Baldwin says:

    @ Dan Zimmerman…Was this article about Walmart being sued IRT not protecting its customers from random acts of violence or was it about Walmart’s virtue signaling by ceasing to sell some ammunition? Because it was not clear. The two are not one and the same. Two subjects worthy of attention, but as presented, is just piling on.

  5. avatar Uncle Jethro says:

    Why not sue clothes manufacturers over their clothes not stopping bullets?

  6. avatar MB says:

    You are ultimately responsible for your own safety. Carry a gun or don’t carry a gun. Your choice. Just remember the police have no duty to protect you, says SCOTUS. The police are there to arrest the criminals and draw chalk lines around the victims, I prefer they draw chalk lines around the perp.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      To clarify, police exist to protect the municipality that hired them. They are not elected by the people. Consider them as a very large private security force that answers to the Mayor of that city. While I don’t agree with it, I understand it.

      A county Sheriff is an elected office holder who is constitutionally duty-bound to protect the citizens of his township.

      Two very different platforms.

      1. avatar MB says:

        @I Haz A Question. Essentially you are correct, in most states, including Texas, the County Sheriff is the leading LEO in the county, with jurisdiction over the entire county and is elected by county voters, but in states like Rhode Island, the sheriffs are glorified taxi service for prisoners and court security, and that’s about it and it’s a appointed bureaucratic position. They serve at the pleasure of the judges, who are also appointed bureaucrats. So it depends where you live, what level of protection you may receive.

      2. avatar Anymouse says:

        Police and sheriff have a duty to protect the community, in general. They have no duty to protect you, specifically. As long as they are taking criminals off the streets (usually post-crime), they’re doing their duty. They aren’t responsible if you’re victimized before they can get the criminal, if they ever do.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Wrong. See my explanation above again.

  7. avatar TommyGNR says:

    This is exactly what should be done every time there is a shooting in a establishment that has declared itself a “Gun Free Zone”. Businesses should be held responsible if they take away patrons ability to defend themselves and they have not provided the security necessary to defend its patrons from attack. The attack in Walmart would not have happened if Walmart had armed security presence.

    1. avatar MB says:

      When a business declares a Gun Free Zone, the business is accepting responsibility for your safety.
      Wal-Mart in making the politically correct choice, but not the legally and morally correct choice, and this will cost them dearly, in lost revenue, goodwill and ultimately in the courtroom.

    2. avatar Brewski says:

      The attack in Walmart would not have happened if Walmart had armed security presence.

      That is no guarantee for safety in any scenario. Armed security is useless if they are still out of sight when someone attacks you.

      Even being armed doesn’t guarantee your safety, it just gives you options and improved odds to possibly survive and prevail against a surprise attack.

    3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      I see a situation where if WalMart has one or two armed security personnel , that a shooter will do a walk thru before getting his stuff together and enter the store and knock off the security first. If said potential shooter goes into a store and sees 5 or 10 open carry individuals in the store he will pick another location.

  8. avatar rt66paul says:

    At the least they should have armed guards if they want to declare a gun free zone.

    1. avatar KTR says:

      If they’re going to have armed guards, they need to be armed guards that are willing to run TOWARDS the danger to protect the innocent rather than run away.

  9. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Wally World only cares about one thing,money,the bottom line,other wise they could care less.

    1. avatar Karl says:

      They are willfully giving up sales in order to appease the types of people who do not shop at Wal*Mart at the risk of losing sales from the types people who do shop there.

      They have stopped caring about just the money.

  10. avatar Jim Warren says:

    So they survived a shooting, suing the place that had nothing to do with it That’s gratitude for ya.

    1. avatar cloud says:

      if walmart is going to lecture the rest of us about what we can and cannot have to protect ourselves while also failing to defend their customers, fuck em’. I hope this couple wins regardless of their intentions.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        cases like this are a welcome presence and will hopefully set a precedent…they’re long overdue…

      2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        “if walmart is going to lecture the rest of us about what we can and cannot have to protect ourselves while also failing to defend their customers, fuck em’.” ???
        Where exactly did you HEAR a lecture from Walmart about what you can or cannot do about personal protection? So far all I’ve read and/or heard simply indicates a company making a business decision (perhaps a BAD one) that is pandering to a group of people that already hold Walmart and its customers in contempt anyway… Walmart in no way is reducing YOUR ability to self protect unless you are incapable of using a firearm from a concealed carry postion… Target stores do NOT sell guns, ammo or accessories (never have) so are they dictating what you can do to protect yourself? Sears was at one time the largest gun retailer in the country (including catalog sales) now only sells BB guns and air rifles. There are still litteraly 100s/1000s of places to buy guns, ammo and stuff both in stores and on line (mostly a lot cheaper) so if the Walmart decision has put your life in danger I would suggest that you (1) do not shop at Walmart and (2) try expanding your horizon explore the possibilities you will be amazed at the number of businesses that are still anxious and able to fulfill all of your personal protection needs and desires.. Personally I’m disappointed (but not surprised) that Walmart has decided to move in this direction but it does not affect my life in any way…

  11. avatar cloud says:

    Not only did walmart ban open carry and decide to stop selling ammo, the CEO called on congress to ban semi-auto rifles and confiscate them from everyone. This clown CEO of walmart can go pound sand.

    1. avatar MB says:

      14 Million AR’s few million AK’s and several million Mini-14’s, Mini-30’s, 10/22’s and S&W M&P-22’s Good luck to them trying to collect all the semi-auto’s It would take years…

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        “Good luck to them trying to collect all the semi-auto’s It would take years…”
        Depending on the mindset of the person about to see his or her firearms confiscated it could be a life time either for the confiscator or the gun owner, I can see a lot of resistance and a lot of unnecessary loss of life on both sides of the issue before the powers that be realize their fuck up and rescind their bullshit confiscation attempt..

  12. avatar Mark N. says:

    I agree that the case has limited chance of success, but much, at least initially, depends on how conservative or liberal the trial courts are in El Paso, and whether there are any appellate level cases in which the issue is raised. Such suits have had very limited success in California as the Supreme Court recognizes that absent specific threats, the cost of armed security to prevent incidents is prohibitively high, and thus there is no duty to provide it. the only exception is where there have been repeated incidents of violence in or adjacent to the commercial premises either due to a lack of security or,m in one case, an absence of adequate lighting in a parking lot next to a bar, a dark place that became a hunting ground for thieves. This attorney’s reliance on a single incident in another store in another city isn’t going to be enough to impose a duty on WalMart to provide armed security at every location it operates in the country in order to PERHAPS ward off unpredictable and statistically rare attacks by lone gunmen.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Thanks again for offering valid legal advice, and clear and forthright passion. Comments like yours help move the discussion forward.

  13. avatar bryan1980 says:

    You’re responsible for your own safety, pal. Even if they had provided armed security, who’s to say they wouldn’t have been the first ones to get taken-out? I’ll admit I do like the timing of this lawsuit, right after Wal-Fart “got woke”.

    1. avatar Hush says:

      If Walmart becomes a GFZ and does nothing relative to security and someone is shot, then Walmart is negligent. Thus, negligent homicide could be the charges Walmart faces. A level of self protection has been denied and it makes no difference the customer had a choice to enter or not to enter.

      1. avatar bryan1980 says:

        Not sure why you replied to my post with that, but I agree with you.

  14. avatar Guest says:

    When exactly did Wal-Mart declare itself a GFZ? The statement that was put out asks people not to open carry. Nothing was mentioned about not allowing concealed carry. Now corporately the company did virtue signal with the ammo & encouraging the passage of more gun control laws.

    In my opinion this lawsuit should get tossed out but will probably be settled out of court as that will probably be cheaper than going to trial. It’s all about the bottom line.

    1. avatar TommyJay says:

      Yes. I think the CEO is a jerk because they eliminated handgun and its ammo sales, as well as AR-15 ammo. Also, because they did not step up and provide legal mechanisms for continued CA ammo sales. But, …

      Suggesting that customers don’t open carry, but still allowing concealed carry is reasonable.

      If you want to complain try: [email protected] (Investor Relations)

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        Haha…you said “suggesting”.

        The CEO said Walmart employees will address open-carriers in an “unconfrontational manner”. That should be interesting.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          That comment was one of the reasons I don’t really get mad at WalMart about this. They’re just trying to protect their business from the shitstorm they knew was coming in the current political climate.

          When they say “nonconfrontational manner” they mean that they’re going to make a public statement of “We’d prefer you don’t…” and nothing more. Nearly none of their $12/hour employees are going to say anything and neither is management.

          They’ll watch the OCer and if they’re suspicious because the person is acting strange, evacuate the building.

          Short of walking around with a PC/chest rig and a rifle they’ll probably never even really notice the person.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          So this begs the question…what if people decide to go the “freedom of expression” route (as has been done here in CA) and sport an empty holster as both a sign of compliance and silent protest at the same time?

          Nothing overtly provocative. Just a well-attired and clean person with an empty black holster at the hip.

        3. avatar bryan1980 says:

          Walk in there well-dressed with a 1911 on your hip, and I guarantee that none of those drones will even notice.

  15. avatar Moltar says:

    The courts in this don’t matter. Wally World will settle this quickly and behind closed doors. They always have and always will, no matter the case it’s cheaper and faster for Wally World to just up and settle rather than fight it. They’ll cut the couple a 5 or 6 figure check for their pain and suffering and have them sign a gag order. I used to work for Wally World a few years back and anytime a customer sued the store corporate settled quickly to avoid getting dragged into court and facing the chance of getting a bad name in the press.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      WalMart has a reputation of NOT settling frivolous litigation–or any litigation for that matter. I think they may have modified that stance a bit as to meritorious claims (they used not to settle those either), but typically they play hardball. If I were its attorney, I would tell them to fight this one. I think that people have to understand that a proprietor generally owes no duty to protect patrons except from harms caused by the proprietor’s negligence. which thus excludes liability for the criminal misconduct of third persons. And security is not there for the protection of the patrons, but for the protections of the business(es) that hire the security.

  16. avatar Hannibal says:

    It was entirely legal for Guillermo and Jessica Garcia to be armed that day; it even fell entirely within Walmart policies. So why weren’t they, if they’re concerned about security?

    They’re hoping for a payday from a quick settlement despite having no case.

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      The Mall property on which this particular Walmart store is located has a no guns policy which must be honored by all businesses located within the boundaries of that property.. Don’t know if that places any liability on the mall owners but each individual store should still be responsible for providing a SAFE environment for their customers…

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I see you. 🙂

      You have been un-ghosted, apparently.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Apparently I’m back. Ain’t that special.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Welcome back. How was purgatory?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          It looked a lot like California.

        2. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          I resemble that statement.

  17. avatar sound awake says:

    all i know is im not shopping there
    ever
    again

  18. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Didn’t this star in the parking lot? To secure the parking lot at the complex where my Walmart is would take a company at least and from side to side or front to back would require a sharpshooter to take out a bad guy. Like when I was in the parking industry in Philly and some lawyer would ask how we could protect patron’s cars and I would tell him if could restrict foot traffic to those with a ticket for the facility and search EVERY vehicle on entry and exit. They usually mumbled something about civil rights. But that was the way to make sure.

  19. avatar enuf says:

    On the one hand the lawsuit is foolish, as no place offering open and constant flow of large numbers of the common public can be secured against violent crazy person assault via anything less than the most stringent and severe of security plans and infrastructure. Even that does not negate the potential of an attempt to do harm by a crazy person or committed terrorist.

    However, there is the problem that Walmart has now announced steps to combat “gun violence” which specifically cites their own business practices. This absolutely opens up and adds credence to legal claims that they see some responsibility for these attacks in their business choices that have long been in place. The changes to their business practices do not explicity state this link, but the charge by the parties claiming harm does logically follow from Walmart’s own statements of corporate changes made as a response to the violence.

    While I’ve no doubt there are good legal arguments to the contrary, I certainly do not see Walmart as being in the clear on this. Their own fault, as they decided to put their foot forward on this only to realize they have quite stepped in it now.

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      Yeah, that’s what’s funny about this whole thing; Wal-Mart’s “good deed” just gave the plaintiffs’ legal team some ammunition (pun intended).

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Nope. These new policies, which have nothing to do with sight security anyway, are inadmissible under the rules of evidence in a civil action as proof of negligence.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      how about opting for a police sub-station on or near the premises?…..

  20. avatar Ken says:

    What exactly is short-barrel rifle ammunition?

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I guess anything that can be used in an NFA Class III SBR.

      Right, Walmart?

      1. avatar Ken says:

        So all ammo.

    2. avatar ScottMc says:

      I know a couple of guys, who work in the sporting goods departments of two Walmarts and they have no idea what they will be selling. Right now they are getting everything they normally have stocked in the past, but eventually some of these will go away. Apparently sales are way up.

      Some states, Ohio as one example, only allow slugs and straight walled cartridges for deer so 44 Magnums are fairly common deer rounds and necked cartridges are virtually useless as Ohio doesn’t have a lot of bigger game. I’m not sure they are as common, but a 357 Magnum (generally lever action) Carbine with a barrel over 16 inches is a formidable deer round as well, with close to 30-30 ballistics and some weigh around 5 lbs.

      Then there are the universal cartridges for many applications the 22 LR and 22 Magnum. Are they short barreled rifle rounds, long barreled rifle rounds, or handgun rounds?

      1. avatar Ken says:

        So in Ohio you could hunt deer with a .450 BM but not a .243.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          This is why the .350 Legend was developed.

      2. avatar William Wall says:

        What’s left? Zebcos and Ugly Sticks, volleyballs and cornhole stuff.

    3. avatar SKP5885 says:

      I don’t know about anyone else….but I can personally guarantee that includes .556, .223, 300 blackout and wait for it….22lr. They may not have thought about the fact that 22lr can be used in rifles, pistols and yes SBRs. Obviously as others have said, it pretty much includes all ammo. FYI the ATF needs to speed up the damn process for getting form 1s and 4s approved. 14 month wait for my last one. I think they finally got tired of me calling once a week for the last 8 months of the wait to check the status.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Eh Wal-Mart can go to he!!😫

  22. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Stop selling SBR ammo…🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😅😅😅😅😅🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
    WTF is that. I haven’t been in a Walmart in a long time, but I doubt they sell Hornady Black ammo…

  23. avatar 24and7 says:

    I hope they win the case! Walmart has always put profit over their workers and patrons safety..big business should be required to have armed security.. even if they have to pay the police officers overtime..alot of officers would gladly pull shifts over there and other large stores and malls ( what is left of them).. a lot of them had become cesspools of criminal activity..

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      …which would not only increase their prices overall due to the increased payroll expense, it would deter plenty of people who don’t like walking into a store that has Johnny Badge in a uniform at the entrance, looking at them like they’re suspicious when all they did was come for the groceries and AA batteries.

      That’s *EXACTLY* why I stopped going to Best Buy several years ago after patronizing the same location since it was built. A security guard was suddenly posted inside the entrance one day due to their new policy, and didn’t like the fact that I had a backpack with me. I held up my helmet in my hand and said I ride a motorcycle, and the backpack is the only way I can bring my purchases home with me. He refused to allow me in, I said ‘kiss my ass’, and I never spent another dime there again.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        thinking more of a mobile patrol in the parking lot…[the most dangerous place…especially after dark]…they could always be summoned inside if needed…..

    2. avatar MtnDewey says:

      I disagree completely, no business needs to provide security for anyone in the U.S.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        ….and yet they do…

  24. avatar jwm says:

    I recall that the McDonalds in socal that had a massacre in the 80s? had lawsuits brought against the company.

    Anybody know how that played out.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      McDonald’s won. Guided by the foregoing, we conclude as a matter of law the Rowland factors and specifically the unforeseeability of the unique, horrific San Ysidro event require negligence liability to be restricted here. First, as to the foreseeability of harm to plaintiffs, the theft-related and property crimes of the type shown by the history of its operations, or the general assaultive-type activity which had occurred in the vicinity bear no relationship to purposeful homicide or assassination. In other words, under all the circumstances presented, the risk of a maniacal, mass murderous assault is not a hazard the likelihood of which makes McDonald’s conduct unreasonably dangerous. Rather, the likelihood of this unprecedented murderous assault was so remote and unexpected that, as a matter of law, the general character of McDonald’s nonfeasance did not facilitate its happening. Huberty’s deranged and motiveless attack, apparently the worst mass killing by a  [*510]  single assailant in recent American history, is so unlikely [***24]  to occur within the setting of modern life that a reasonably prudent business enterprise would not consider its occurrence in attempting to satisfy its general obligation to protect business invitees from reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct.

      Lopez v. McDonald’s Corp., 193 Cal. App. 3d 495, 509-10, 238 Cal. Rptr. 436, 445 (1987)

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Yeah. I was curious so I looked it up and was coming back to answer my own comment. “Unforeseen’ figured large in the dismissal.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Except that there weren’t any “gun free” signs at the entrances of stores like there are today (and multiplying).

          Posting a GFZ sign at the entrance does away with the “unforeseen” defense.

    2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      Aug 28, 1991 … The last lawsuits stemming from the 1984 massacre at a San Ysidro McDonald’s restaurant were dismissed Tuesday, bringing to a close the … Apparently not too well for tha plaintiffs…

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      McDonald’s has hired security…even armed security from time to time…friend of mine did just that…used to snarf-up all those burgers they throw out on a regular basis to feed his dogs…

  25. avatar Fred says:

    I wonder if the plantiffs speak English or if the lawyer is “speaking” for them? Hmmm!

    When I go to the closest 2 Super Walmarts in my area, I even pack my spare mag even though there is usually local PD there.

  26. avatar MtnDewey says:

    adequate security was provided Dec, 15 1791….F off asswipes

  27. avatar Pete says:

    Difficult to decide. If, in fact, the Walmart in question, was a posted no gun zone, there might be a reason to support the case. If a business denies you the means to defend yourself they assume the responsibility to protect you.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      walmart has the habit of buying [cheap?]parcels of land just off the beaten path…making police patrols more problematical….

  28. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Funny situation to which Walmart execs can’t see the forest for the trees: most of the very people trying to come down on Walmart for firearms/ammo sales wouldn’t shop there anyway- all those “smelly” people and being the demise of mom and pop stores, which these people also never shopped. The virue signalling can only cost Walmart, it would be well for most of us to find somewhere else to spend our money. Also wouldn’t be a bad idea to write the head office once in a while.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Flood their E-mail with comments declaring a boycott on their stores. Tell everyone you know to do like wise. Even if you/they don’t shop there. Even if it doesn’t change the behavior. It still sends a message. With any luck they’ll see the same or near loses as Dick’s. Nothing like taking money from rich people and stock holders to make them squeal. Keep Your Powder Dry. The clock holds at 3 minutes till midnight…For Now.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      they were a good place to get cheap ammo…especially .22’s…bought my last batch there..

  29. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Too bad Walmart never thanked this CCW pastor for protecting walmart customers. Good guys with guns do what multi-billion dollar companies aren’t willing to pay for.

    “Hero CCW Pastor Who Shot Carjacker Comes Forward”
    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/hero-ccw-pastor-who-shot-carjacker-comes-forward/

  30. avatar Popeye the Sailor Man says:

    Hey, every time this sort of thing happens it’s good for small business owners. How often can you say that about Walmart’s policies?
    No skin off my ass.

  31. avatar Alan1018 says:

    Jut what would unarmed “security” have done? What we need is the ability to sue business that refuse to allow CONCEALED carry as once they take away our ability to defend ourselves they assume responsibility for our safety.

  32. avatar NOTGUNFREE says:

    Sue all the gun free zones to hell…..and the States for Trillions!

  33. avatar borg says:

    It seems to me that Walmart may have assumed liability to protect gun owners that can not afford to carry concealed and therefore are rendered defenseless due to being too poor to acquire a CCW license. Considering that the poor are Walmart’s target demographic it could be argued in court that most of their customer base is rendered defenseless. The majority of their customer base likely consists of minorities especially when you consider all women minorities since all women are typically considered minorities. If the majority of those affected are minorities than an open carry ban in the store could be treated as an attempt to disarm minorities. I hope Walmart is forced to revise policy to allow the open carry of handguns in order to avoid a claim of racially motivated gun bans.

  34. avatar borg says:

    I wonder if Walmart will find it harder to fight a lawsuit over inadequate security after denying customers the means to armed self defense via open carry in light of the prevalence of mass shooters.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email