Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Court Rules Walmart Shareholders Cannot Infringe on Customersís 2nd Amendment Rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member HeroHog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    653

    Exclamation Court Rules Walmart Shareholders Cannot Infringe on Customersís 2nd Amendment Rights

    After less than a year under appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit released its opinion in Trinity Wall Street v. Walmart Stores, Inc., explaining that Walmart cannot be forced to allow shareholders to infringe on customersís 2nd Amendment rights. The path to this judgement began in April 2014, when NYCís Trinity Church sued Walmart to force the retailer to allow shareholders ďto vote on the Ďsale of high capacity gunsíĖi.e., guns which take Ďhigh capacityí magazinesĖas well as Ďother potentially offensive products.'Ē
    - See more at: http://constitutionalrightspac.com/a....6zp61H0f.dpuf
    Speedy: LOCAL League Sec/Treasurer, Information Officer
    AKA: Hero Hog, Dr. Speed, "The Brass Mangler" and "That fat, old, balding, Grey-bearded gimpy guy"

    I don't have NEAR enough ammo on hand. `nuff said.

    NRA Life Member, LSA, USN-DAV

    "Stay safe..." - Paul "Skidmark" Henick, RIP

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    United States Third Circuit

    Trinity Wall Street v. WalMart Stores Inc.
    14-4767
    Decided: July 6, 2015


    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1707676.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    United States Third Circuit

    Trinity Wall Street v. WalMart Stores Inc.
    14-4767
    Decided: July 6, 2015


    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1707676.html
    Except for the pervasive and continual misuse of the term 'Assault Rifle' when in fact no actual assault rifles were present or part the debate... it was a decent read.

    Would have been funny if the Judges response was short and sweet... "After review of Wal Mart sales history, Wal Mart does not, nor has ever, sold any Assault Rifle as defined by (law). Plaintiffs argument that Wal Mart should be forced to stop selling something it is not selling is moot. Case Dismissed."
    Last edited by Baked on Grease; 07-15-2015 at 04:29 PM.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    So instead of just selling their shares they sue to have their minority position made law.......glad they lost.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •