Walmart & Kroger Succumb to Gun Control Pressure

Walmart & Kroger Succumb to Gun Control Pressure

Walmart & Kroger Succumb to Gun Control Pressure

Like it or not, our country is at a crossroads. With increasing pressure from the media, liberal politicians and all those vocal Hollywood so-called stars, our Second Amendment rights are under assault. The slow erosion faces the very real potential to become a landslide that will see the federal government seizing our weapons and telling us it’s all for our own good. It doesn’t help when venerable corporations like Walmart and Kroger succumb to pressure and fall in line like good little sheep to insure the only people with access to weapons are those who shouldn’t have them.

The short version of what the two “stores” are planning is this: Walmart will no longer sell handgun ammunition once its current supply is gone. It, along with Kroger, are also asking people not open carry on their premises. You see, apparently there are folks who are “uncomfortable” at the just thought of someone legally carrying a weapon in the same large store they might be in.

The longer version is even more chilling for supporters of the Second Amendment.

This is from Walmart head, Doug Macmillon, to the company’s “associates”:

Today, we’re sharing the decisions we’ve made that go further:

  • After selling through our current inventory commitments, we will discontinue sales of short-barrel rifle ammunition such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber that, while commonly used in some hunting rifles, can also be used in large capacity clips on military-style weapons;
  • We will sell through and discontinue handgun ammunition; and
  • We will discontinue handgun sales in Alaska, marking our complete exit from handguns.

But he hopes the “inconvenience” this will cause its customers is something “they will understand.” The new focus is supposedly only hunting guns and apparel. Riiight. This is all about knee-jerk reactions to terrible events without waiting for the full reports to come out from the law enforcement agencies involved in the various investigations. It is all about giving in to the pressure of the anti-gun crowd.

Macmillon does admit, although not in these words, that the “request” customers not open carry in their stores is because there have been a few folks who weren’t comfortable seeing a gun being carried by someone legally allowed to do so. Oh, then there are those instances where people legally carried into the store and someone overreacted and caused stores to be evacuated.

But this is all for the safety of its customers. Stop selling ammo, stop people from open carry and no one would dare come into their store with ill-intentions. At least not with a gun.

Sure, that’s going to work.

So what is the real reason behind this latest move by Walmart? The New York Times nails it, in my opinion.

And while it remains a dominant force in rural America, Walmart is betting much of its future on growing its e-commerce business in East and West Coast cities and suburbs, where potential shoppers tend to hold more liberal views, including on the need for more gun restrictions.

That certainly makes more sense than cutting out a solid income stream when other actions could be taken to help prevent repeats of the shootings in El Paso and elsewhere.

Not to be outdone, Kroger has also announced that it is “asking” its customers not to open carry in its stores.

Kroger is respectfully asking that customers no longer openly carry firearms into our stores, other than authorized law enforcement officers,” Jessica Adelman, group vice president of corporate affairs, said in an emailed statement. “We are also joining those encouraging our elected leaders to pass laws that will strengthen background checks and remove weapons from those who have been found to pose a risk for violence.”

At least their request for expanded background checks includes the proviso that a person be “found to post a risk for violence” before being denied the right to own a gun. Of course, as with Walmart, Delta and other companies urging much the same thing, there is no explanation of what sort of evidence will be necessary for such a finding or who would make it. The potential for abuse is high and if it doesn’t scare you, it should.

So, how are Walmart and the others going to deal with open carry where it is legal without actually banning it?

According to the New York Times, Walmart associates will be trained to approach those who enter the store while openly carrying and in a “non-confrontational” way ask the customer to either hide the weapon or remove it from the premises. Pardon me while I laugh hysterically. What is going to happen is something very different. In fact, it is something Dan Bartlett, Walmart’s executive vice president for corporate affairs, laid the groundwork for.

 In some cases, the store may say nothing to customers with weapons if they seem innocuous. If customers or employees feel unsafe around someone openly carrying a gun, the store will contact the authorities.”

What this means is someone can be minding their own business, doing nothing to bring undue attention to themselves other than carrying a gun on their hip and have the cops called on them because someone doesn’t feel safe. It doesn’t matter if the person is being reasonable in their “feeling”. Their feelz will trump the other customer’s legal right to carry a weapon.

I don’t know about you, but this new policy does not make me want to visit the local Walmart or neighborhood Kroger. While telling customers who want to avail themselves of their legal right to open carry they aren’t welcome to do something that is legal, they are also announcing to the criminal element that they are open for business. Come inside and help yourself because no one here is going to be in a position to stop you.

Yes, it will become that bad. Once we go further down the slippery slope of gun control, it isn’t long before law abiding citizens will not be allowed the right to carry concealed. How long after that will it be before we will no longer be able to buy a gun for protection or for hunting?

Remember, Beto O’Rourke has said he will force us to turn in certain firearms if he’s elected. Other Democratic candidates have said the same and have even gone further.

The Kroger statement about its new policy mentions “the growing chorus of Americans who are no longer comfortable with the status quo and who are advocating for concrete and common sense gun reforms.”

Most Americans agree there needs to be common sense gun reform. But that doesn’t mean further restricting our right to bear arms. It doesn’t mean letting cops break down our doors and confiscate our guns on the suspicion that we might, at some future time, commit an act of violence because we said we wished ill on someone. It certainly doesn’t mean “keeping firearms out of the hands of those at risk for violence.” Why? Because who is “at risk for violence” and how is that determination made?

What none of those advocating for stricter control refuse to admit is that stripping weapons out the hands of citizens who respect the law will not stop gun violence. Those intent on getting a gun for evil purposes will find a way. If they can’t, they will resort to other means of doing violence. Look at knife violence in Great Britain. Consider how easy it is to create a Molotov cocktail. The ways to commit violence are limited only by our imagination. Removing guns from the equation won’t stop what’s happening.

Walmart, Kroger, Starbucks and others have made the decision to prevent Americans from exercising their legal right to carry, wither openly or concealed. That is their right. Just as it is my right to choose not to spend any of my money in their stores. How you decide to respond is up to you. But if we let this latest round of the assault on our right to bear arms to go unchallenged, it will be even more difficult to stop the slide down that proverbial hill when the next onslaught begins.


Welcome Instapundit readers!

Featured image by Brett Hondow via Pixabay. Creative Commons 2.0 license.

Written by

  • GWB says:

    the only people with access to weapons are those who shouldn’t have them
    You mean criminals AND government, right?

    while commonly used in some hunting rifles, can also be used in large capacity clips on military-style weapons
    Evidently they are too gun-ignorant to know that LOTS of hunting calibers “can be used in large capacity clips [sic] on military style weapons”. As a matter of fact, one of those styles is labeled with the ominous “AR”! An AR-10 uses the equivalent of .308. Oh, and the scary AK-47 (various semi-auto variants) doesn’t use 5.56 either. Guess what was used in the WalMart shooting in El Paso!

    no one would dare come into their store with ill-intentions
    Let’s be honest. This isn’t about making their stores safe. This is about appeasing the gun-confiscators in hopes shareholders won’t do something stupid and kill the golden goose that is WalMart.

    The New York Times nails it, in my opinion.
    At least partly, yes. Because growth is the only true measure of success in the financial world nowadays. (Blame the killing of dividends for that, partly.)

    authorized law enforcement officers
    Sorry, folks, but that phrase just chaps my behind. I *am* an “authorized law enforcement officer” because I am a free citizen of the US of A, and law enforcement authority derives from MY authority. The law enforcement officer would have NO power to walk around with a gun on his hip unless *I* said it was ok.
    To advocate for “only authorized law enforcement officers” is to advocate for a state where power flows down from the government, instead of up from the people. (And one where rights are granted by those in power, rather than by Almighty God and merely protected by the gov’t.)

    strengthen background checks
    Ummmm, gov’t would have to do its job well to have that happen. What they want is expanded background checks, intruding into private transactions* and making it impossible for anyone to acquire a firearm without gov’t approval of said person. (Some also advocate for non-adjudicated lists to be used – such as the “no-fly list”.)
    (BTW, ALL sales should be “private” transactions to the federal gov’t, unless they cross state lines – actual sales, not mere shipment to a FFL. The Constitution gives the federal gov’t no authority to intervene in commerce except between the states. “Public accommodation” is a bullsh*t concept in its entirety.)

    who have been found to pose a risk for violence
    “Found”? By whom? To what level of evidence? (You nailed that.) To what level of adjudication? To what level of responsibility for false accusations?
    (This is what our current background check system is supposed to do. The fact it’s not catching everyone is not reason to make the system bigger, while leaving holes in the net.)

    “the growing chorus of Americans who are no longer comfortable with the status quo and who are advocating for concrete and common sense gun reforms.”
    Translated: Americans are too stupid to be allowed to run their own country.
    Because, honestly, if this many Americans (and these polls are usually very slanted) can’t grasp the importance of the Constitution and the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, then their right to vote needs to be removed, as well. They are literally too stupid to be allowed to roam loose, deciding who should govern our country (or their state or city, or, heck, even their HOA).
    Sadly, this is what the left is actually aiming for.

    stripping weapons out the hands of citizens who respect the law will not stop gun violence
    It will, however, create a monopoly on violence by the gov’t and criminals (BIRM).

    I don’t think WalMart’s decision is all that disastrous – except to them, as they will lose business. But it does demonstrate the power of the media and the mob. WalMart and Kroger feel the need to “do something!” or they will be hounded by the Blue-Check Mafia and Chris Hayes. How weak do you have to be to let those folks dictate your behavior? *smh*

    • Amanda Green says:

      Let’s just say there is so much room for abuse when it comes to the new “safeguards” the gun grabbers want that it isn’t funny. In fact, it should scare the crap out of all of us–gun owner or not.

  • Uncle Lar says:

    Funny how the media never gets around to mentioning the simple fact that the shopping list of “common sense” gun control laws that are trotted out before the blood is even dry after every shooting tragedy, none of them would have prevented that event from taking place.
    It’s all a scam in aid of their ultimate goal, the sort of gun control that was imposed on the Brits with promises that it would make them safe. You know, a gun banner wet dream, no handguns whatsoever, no semi auto or quick repeating long arms, and apparently no longer any right to the use of force of any sort for self defense. And as a result the formerly Great Britain now has a violent crime rate somewhere North of four times that of our gun drenched United States of America.
    And once we’ve surrendered the most capable tools for defense, well then the progressive left think that with all lethal force under government control (and supposedly under their direction) they will at long last possess the ability to make us follow their direction and do what they determine is in our best interest. After all, this is a proven tactic that has worked ever so well in the past. Just look at Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Fidel, and the list goes on.

    • Amanda Green says:

      So true, Uncle Lar.

      What always amazes me is how the left so easily “forgets” about the guns illegally obtained. Guns that won’t be “voluntarily” turned in. When asked about these guns, those wanting to delete the Second Amendment from history quickly change the topic or mumble something out cops finding them and taking them off the streets. Yeah, right. That’s worked so well already, hasn’t it?

  • Rick Caird says:

    Dear Walmart. We understand all right. You are virtue signaling to a portion of the population who rarely shop at your stores. It is hard to imagine a more stupid response: please people who hate you and piss off your customers. Not very bright at all.

    • Amanda Green says:

      Yep. They have gone down the same road as so many in publishing, the entertainment industry, etc. The result should be a decline in profits and angry shareholders demanding an explanation on why their beliefs and their rights were be shat upon.

  • Snidely Whiplash says:

    “Most Americans agree there needs to be common sense gun reform”? What would those be?

    • GWB says:

      Well, I, for one, would like to see the “machine-gun” and “sawed-off” bans repealed. And I don’t think aircraft and military vehicles should have to be “de-milled” before sale to a citizen. (If someone could loan me some money, I would love to pick up a couple of OA-37s, with hardpoints intact. That would be FUN. LOUD and fun.)

      Or, are we on different wavelengths about “common sense”?

  • JohnM says:

    Walmart is misbehaving, but the open carry request is not a bad idea. Open carry hurts the cause of gun rights, because it scares just the sort of people who might be on the margin. But, frankly, it scares me and I carry, but discretely – it scares me because it suggests a lack of judgement on the part of those who carry.

    Why carry a gun openly when you know it will offend and scare people, the very people we may need to protect our rights? Or, are you a macho type who has to show off for your ego? And, you know that you’ll be the first target, which roughly balances the value of the quicker draw from open carry.

    So please, don’t carry openly except where you need to – out in the wild, etc.

    And please, write a letter, like I did, to Walmart explaining that you will be avoiding them wherever possible. I wrote as a citizen, a Vietnam veteran, and a long time stockholder. Walmart is way out of line. So is open carry when you don’t need to do it.

Leave a Reply

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

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner