Denham Springs Walmart policy?

thperez1972 said:

If you were speeding for the mile before a wreck, the insurance company could say you are partially at fault because you shouldn't have been in the intersection when the other guy ran the stop sign. Whether they reduce your payout or raise your rates, that little device is there to help out the insurance company, not you. You may benefit from it but that's not why they advertise it. And like you, I would never put one in my vehicle.

Back to the denial. I believe you are inflating the issue to support your claim. The law says the dealer must report a possible crime to the police. I would suggest it is reasonable to say that before it is investigated, there's no way to know if the denial were a mistake or legitimate so it can be viewed as a possible crime. So the dealer notifies the police. Let's pretend I'm the police. I know the denial is either a mistake or legitimate. I'm not dropping everything and rushing out with blue lights and sirens to escort you out of the establishment. That's too much work. I'm going to run your name and look at your state rap sheet. If there's nothing to suggest you were a prohibited person, I may run a triple I to see if anything shows up in another state. If I see a CHP on your rap sheet, I have to assume there's nothing in your record up to the date the CHP was issued. All of this points to a mistake rather than a legitimate denial. I'm logging it with the explanation as to why no further investigation is needed.

If the rap sheet indicates you are a prohibited person, I may head over to the dealer. If you're there, I'll talk to you. While I know a crime may have been committed and information suggests they have, I may not be able to rely solely on the rap sheet for various reasons I won't fully explain. The short version is the information on the rap sheet is pretty accurate but nothing can be inferred by information not on the rap sheet. I may have to visit the courthouse to get minutes to show you were convicted of a felony. If I show up and you are still there and you confess you are a prohibited person, you'll be escorted out, likely in handcuffs.

Although many people get escorted out of stores for many reasons, being denied in and of itself would likely not be one of them. And because many people get escorted out of stores for many reasons, that would not alert people to the fact you just bought a gun. One big reason for that is you can't buy a gun if you were denied.

Click to expand...

That last part is a bit of an aside. I find it distasteful to be escorted out like I had done something wrong when I buy a gun a Walmart or Academy. That’s if everything goes through and you get to go home with a gun you are escorted from the store by management (not the police or anything) but for me it send the wrong message and since they hand you a box at the door not in a shopping bag anyone watching the door from the parking lot know you just bought a gun and guess what. It ain’t loaded and everyone knows it.

But I don’t want to drag this off topic further, so what you are saying is the investigation is pretty basic and rarely even done in person lowering the likelihood of a conflict occurring from a non-criminal with a-government-phobia (prescribed amounts is healthy).

But, again there is still a fair amount of autonomy lost from this. It sounds to be mostly unseen but it still takes place. I think that is a large portion on the sentiment surrounding this subject as well, is the loss of autonomy. The fact that guns are more efficient tools makes people uncomfortable with unfettered access, but we have given away freedom for the hope of security. And this hope of security may prove itself a danger when the leftist win a get a ban.

Bangswitch said:

That last part is a bit of an aside. I find it distasteful to be escorted out like I had done something wrong when I buy a gun a Walmart or Academy. That’s if everything goes through and you get to go home with a gun you are escorted from the store by management (not the police or anything) but for me it send the wrong message and since they hand you a box at the door not in a shopping bag anyone watching the door from the parking lot know you just bought a gun and guess what. It ain’t loaded and everyone knows it.

But I don’t want to drag this off topic further, so what you are saying is the investigation is pretty basic and rarely even done in person lowering the likelihood of a conflict occurring from a non-criminal with a-government-phobia (prescribed amounts is healthy).

But, again there is still a fair amount of autonomy lost from this. It sounds to be mostly unseen but it still takes place. I think that is a large portion on the sentiment surrounding this subject as well, is the loss of autonomy. The fact that guns are more efficient tools makes people uncomfortable with unfettered access, but we have given away freedom for the hope of security. And this hope of security may prove itself a danger when the leftist win a get a ban.

Click to expand...

So the escorted out you refer to is part of their purchase process. I've bought guns from academy before. I did the paperwork in the back and an employee walked the gun to the front so I could pay for it.

I've never conducted this particular type of investigation before but I would have to believe the first step before going to the store would be to find out if going to the store is necessary. If it turns out the denial was legit, the next step is to get a warrant. Then it's a matter of tracking them down. And they have an address to start their search.

When you mention a loss of autonomy, are you referring to with the store or to with the government? If it's with the government, you're already giving up a bit of autonomy when you fill out the paperwork. We can discuss if that's right or wrong but that's a different discussion. If someone is denied and the government gets the information the guy provided on the government form, is there a larger loss of autonomy? If so, what degree greater? After all, you gave the government information so they could ensure you were legally allowed to own a firearm. Isn't that what the investigation is supposed to determine? I don't know if you have a CHP but is the denial investigation much more in depth than the CHP investigation?

thperez1972 said:

So the escorted out you refer to is part of their purchase process. I've bought guns from academy before. I did the paperwork in the back and an employee walked the gun to the front so I could pay for it.

I've never conducted this particular type of investigation before but I would have to believe the first step before going to the store would be to find out if going to the store is necessary. If it turns out the denial was legit, the next step is to get a warrant. Then it's a matter of tracking them down. And they have an address to start their search.

When you mention a loss of autonomy, are you referring to with the store or to with the government? If it's with the government, you're already giving up a bit of autonomy when you fill out the paperwork. We can discuss if that's right or wrong but that's a different discussion. If someone is denied and the government gets the information the guy provided on the government form, is there a larger loss of autonomy? If so, what degree greater? After all, you gave the government information so they could ensure you were legally allowed to own a firearm. Isn't that what the investigation is supposed to determine? I don't know if you have a CHP but is the denial investigation much more in depth than the CHP investigation?

Click to expand...

Yeah it’s been a while but I believe both places maintained control of the firearm until I exited the building. Walmart I paid at the sporting goods counter and I believe he walked to my truck with me it was quite awkward.

And yes when I was referring to the autonomy lost by filing out the NICS form and the FFL logging the purchase. Is it worth it? I really can’t say we have surely kept guns out of the hands of those not overly ambitious, but we have also given up the right to privacy of purchase. And yes this another diversion of the main conversation but once we see how the NZ deal plays out I’m betting more people will wish their AR’s were either 80% or private purchases. I know the process of following a serial number back the the purchaser is a bit of a process and in mass quantities it will prove to be difficult to do but it is possible because we gave up the privacy to purchase from a business. Again I can’t say if any of the regulation surrounding the firearm purchase is worth it or not because we haven’t seen what it will cost us in the end.

This is all a touchy subject even with most freedom loving gun people because we don’t want to have to use our guns on someone who we think ‘shouldn’t have been able to get a gun in the first place’. But the founders felt so strongly about the individuals right to armed self defense and defense of others that they devoted an entire amendment specifically to it. Think about it; a lot of amendments discuss multiple freedoms simultaneously prime example is the first: religion, speech, assembly, petition.

Edit:
I didn’t completely answer your question shocking I got off on a tangent.

But yes to some degree having been denied and a subsequently being investigated afterwards is a loss of privacy information given to one agency (albeit willingly) was shared with another. Is it that big a deal maybe not. And I would have to believe the background check for a CHP is no less in depth than from a denial.

thperez1972 said:

I already did but I'll try to simplify it. Before the investigation, the only evidence available suggests you are the criminal rather than the law abiding citizen.



Yet some people voluntarily do a version of this already. They plug a snitch into their vehicle in exchange for a lower insurance rate and provide the insurance company the information to justify denying an insurance claim. For example, the insurance company will now know the driver was speeding at the time of the wreck so the insurance company can now justify lowering the payout after the wreck because they assign some of the blame for the wreck to the driver.

Click to expand...

except in Louisiana Speed cannot be considered as a factor for guilt for a wreck. (I think this is the case)

A good example is the Black ACES Tactical previous considered as a ‘firearm’ with the folding brace and mag which has been redefined as an AOW based on my reading of the letter from the atf this is the type of weapon they are targeting with the revised regulation. Now what stops the atf from tracking down each serial number to the buyer and confiscating them permanently or at least until the rightful owner obtains a stamp for it. We have discussed on here that lieing to the ATF is a crime on its own so the ole I lost it in a boating accident may be a bold move.

Don't get me wrong good has come from NICS and documenting purchases at the FFL level, but it comes with a price.

There was a guy that went to the gun counter in a local store. He was looking at guns and asked the clerk what kind of bullet fit the gun he was looking at. The clerk got a box of bullets and showed the guy. He loaded the gun and shot himself. That is why we all have to be escorted out of the store with a newly purchased gun.

themcfarland said:

except in Louisiana Speed cannot be considered as a factor for guilt for a wreck. (I think this is the case)

Click to expand...

Does that cover the civil agreement between you and your insurance company? Or does that cover to cops responding to the accident? Either way, those good driving devices are not to help you out.

thperez1972 said:

Does that cover the civil agreement between you and your insurance company? Or does that cover to cops responding to the accident? Either way, those good driving devices are not to help you out.

Click to expand...

We are in 100% about the box, but Collision Insurance is to cover your vehicle when you are at fault. It doesn’t matter the fault unless their are specific exclusions in the policy I’ve been guilty of not reading mine, but I would imagine it would be pretty hard for an insurance company to get away with not covering your repairs up to your limits additionally they are on the hook for whatever damages you caused to others up to your limits. Now if we are talking insurance companies fighting over who was at fault and it went to court discovery would require the crash data be shared with the other side but up until that point it’s in the best interest of your insurance agency to not disclose your bad behavior.

Again free advice. If it doesn’t work I have a money back guarantee on all free advice.

Barry J said:

There was a guy that went to the gun counter in a local store. He was looking at guns and asked the clerk what kind of bullet fit the gun he was looking at. The clerk got a box of bullets and showed the guy. He loaded the gun and shot himself. That is why we all have to be escorted out of the store with a newly purchased gun.

Click to expand...

Not at Bass Pro. Just bought a shotgun there, payed at the gun counter and walked out un-escorted.

The impression I’m getting is folks are under the mistaken impression the person denied committed a crime by attempting to buy a firearm. You can’t get arrested for attempting to buy drugs. Money must change hands for a crime to be committed. The crime is the attempted purchaser falsifying the 4473 when they check the box that says they’re legally allowed to own the firearm and then they sign the 4473 affidavit. At least, that’s how it’s been explained to me...

And people who would be mentally prohibited from possession can’t be denied unless they’ve been mentally adjudicated. That’s the impetus behind most of the lawsuits concerning the legality / pointlessness of NCIC since, due to HIPPA, healthcare (and mental health) records are not accessible to LEAs without either a nearly-unobtanium warrant or applicant consent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

El Pozzinator said:

The impression I’m getting is folks are under the mistaken impression the person denied committed a crime by attempting to buy a firearm.

Click to expand...

The impression I'm getting is you are under the mistaken impression that folks are under the mistaken impression the person denied committed a crime by attempting to buy a firearm. The law says it's unlawful for any person to knowingly ask a licensed dealer or private seller of firearms or ammunition to sell a firearm or ammunition under circumstances which the person knows would violate the laws of this state or of the United States. In other words, attempting to buy a firearm when you are a prohibited person is illegal. You can be 100% honest on the form, including listing you are not allowed to own a firearm and if you try to solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice a licensed dealer or private seller to sell you an item you are not allowed to own, you have broken the law.

El Pozzinator said:

You can’t get arrested for attempting to buy drugs. Money must change hands for a crime to be committed.

Click to expand...

Attempted possession of illegal narcotics is crime. Money does not have to change hands for a crime to be committed. The crime is not in the buying of drugs per say. The crime os in the possession or attempted possession of CDS. People get arrested for attempting to commit crimes all the time.

"Southwest Louisiana Booking Report: Tuesday, April 30
Eric Leger, 35, Lake Charles, LA: Attempted possession of marijuana; 1st offense, two counts of disturbing the peace."
https://www.kplctv.com/story/38083232/southwest-louisiana-booking-report-tuesday-april-30/

"SWLA Arrest Report- July 8, 2019
Taurel Dwayne McMichael, 59, Sulphur: Domestic abuse battery, attempted possession of drug paraphernalia."
https://www.kplctv.com/2019/07/09/swla-arrest-report-july/

"North Shore assistant DA arrested on drug, theft charges
Kim DeBrock was booked with felony attempted possession of a schedule II controlled dangerous substance and two misdemeanors..."
https://www.nola.com/news/northshore/article_49c1fbdd-c335-5999-9c78-2fc647da3bd0.html

[please note: I have not provided any information about the individuals that was not previously provided to the public.]

El Pozzinator said:

The crime is the attempted purchaser falsifying the 4473 when they check the box that says they’re legally allowed to own the firearm and then they sign the 4473 affidavit. At least, that’s how it’s been explained to me...

Click to expand...

You got one right. I truly hope the person who explained it to you did not or does not work in law enforcement.

El Pozzinator said:

And people who would be mentally prohibited from possession can’t be denied unless they’ve been mentally adjudicated. That’s the impetus behind most of the lawsuits concerning the legality / pointlessness of NCIC since, due to HIPPA, healthcare (and mental health) records are not accessible to LEAs without either a nearly-unobtanium warrant or applicant consent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

BTW, Here's the entire text of the law regarding fraudulent firearm and ammunition purchases:

RS 14:95.1.3
§95.1.3. Fraudulent firearm and ammunition purchase; mandatory reporting

A. It is unlawful for any person:
(1) To knowingly solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice a licensed dealer or private seller of firearms or ammunition to sell a firearm or ammunition under circumstances which the person knows would violate the laws of this state or of the United States.
(2) To provide to a licensed dealer or private seller of firearms or ammunition what the person knows to be materially false information with intent to deceive the dealer or seller about the legality of a sale of a firearm or ammunition.
(3) To willfully procure another person to engage in conduct prohibited by this Section.

B. For purposes of this Section:
(1) "Ammunition" means any cartridge, shell, or projectile designed for use in a firearm.
(2) "Licensed dealer" means a person who is licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923 to engage in the business of dealing in firearms or ammunition.
(3) "Materially false information" means information that portrays an illegal transaction as legal or a legal transaction as illegal.
(4) "Private seller" means a person who sells or offers for sale any firearm or ammunition.

C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to a law enforcement officer acting in his official capacity or to a person acting at the direction of such law enforcement officer.

D. Whoever violates the provisions of Subsection A of this Section shall be fined not less than one thousand dollars or more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than twenty years, or both. The sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

E.(1) If a person is reported ineligible to purchase firearms by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the licensed dealer shall report the NICS denial to the sheriff of the parish in which the attempted purchase occurred and to the Louisiana Automated Victim Notification System.
(2) If at any time a law enforcement agency discovers that a licensed dealer knew or should have known that a purchaser or attempted purchaser of a firearm was prohibited from possessing a firearm and the licensed dealer failed to report as required by this Section, the sheriff or law enforcement agency shall notify all state and federal licensing agencies of the licensed dealer's failure to report.

Appreciate the clarification. Might be a good idea to start incorporating that into training for LEAs and DAs’ offices, then. Just another example of why I’m glad I’m not in charge of anything except feeding the dogs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thperez1972 said:

I already did but I'll try to simplify it. Before the investigation, the only evidence available suggests you are the criminal rather than the law abiding citizen.
.

Click to expand...

Well that sounds an awful lot like guilty until proven innocent.

In case anyone here has forgotten or otherwise favors the corruption of our justice system, here in this country a person is PRESUMED INNOCENT first. Yet we see it repeated over and over, law abiding citizens being treated like criminals. Perez, If you ever wonder why an average civilian appears defensive or resistant to investigation, reflect for a moment and ask yourself if you treated them or talked to them as if they were a criminal or they were guilty of some crime. I reserve the right to defend myself against any such treatment.
Yet another great reason to not shop the big box stores.
I don’t see where you gave any good reason for law abiding citizens to suffer for criminals. Making anyone’s job easier is not a good reason. Hint: there is no justifiable reason, regardless of the rhetoric and propaganda of the times and the wishes of the establishment to be in complete control of the people, there simply is no justifiable reason.

If y’all haven’t yet read the book Three Felonies A Day, I recommend checking it out. While I’m still nearly ten years on trying to figure out this Napoleonic code stuff, it’s enlightening to see that there’s been research done showing how if the feds want to criminalize someone, they can.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

I’m actually surprised amazon has it listed as available. Granted the “other items you might be interested in” screen shows an overtly anti-trump book which the synopsis indicates all conservatives are mentally ill...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Magdump;1671257[B said:

]Well that sounds an awful lot like guilty until proven innocent.[/B]

Click to expand...

No, it sounds like there is evidence to suggest you are a criminal rather than a law abiding citizen.

Magdump;1671257[B said:

]In case anyone here has forgotten or otherwise favors the corruption of our justice system, here in this country a person is PRESUMED INNOCENT first. Yet we see it repeated over and over, law abiding citizens being treated like criminals. Perez, If you ever wonder why an average civilian appears defensive or resistant to investigation, reflect for a moment and ask yourself if you treated them or talked to them as if they were a criminal or they were guilty of some crime. I reserve the right to defend myself against any such treatment.
Yet another great reason to not shop the big box stores.
I don’t see where you gave any good reason for law abiding citizens to suffer for criminals. Making anyone’s job easier is not a good reason. Hint: there is no justifiable reason, regardless of the rhetoric and propaganda of the times and the wishes of the establishment to be in complete control of the people, there simply is no justifiable reason.

Click to expand...

That's because you don't want to see it. By your reasoning, an innocent person should never be inconvenienced yet you've failed to provide information on how to tell who is innocent and who is guilty before any investigation has been started. Therefore, it must follow that you believe nobody should be inconvenienced until they are found guilty. But guilt and innocence are courtroom decisions. The police do not, and should not, decide guilt or innocence. They operate under concepts such as reasonable suspicion or probable cause which do allow them to inconvenience people based on evidence rather than guilt or innocence. But if nobody should be inconvenienced until they are found guilty, nobody can every be found guilty if going to court is viewed as an inconvenience.

thperez1972 said:

No, it sounds like there is evidence to suggest you are a criminal rather than a law abiding citizen.



That's because you don't want to see it. By your reasoning, an innocent person should never be inconvenienced yet you've failed to provide information on how to tell who is innocent and who is guilty before any investigation has been started. Therefore, it must follow that you believe nobody should be inconvenienced until they are found guilty. But guilt and innocence are courtroom decisions. The police do not, and should not, decide guilt or innocence. They operate under concepts such as reasonable suspicion or probable cause which do allow them to inconvenience people based on evidence rather than guilt or innocence. But if nobody should be inconvenienced until they are found guilty, nobody can every be found guilty if going to court is viewed as an inconvenience.

Click to expand...

Not everyone believes in civil rights, that much is clear.
I don’t expect you to stray from your indoctrination, but simply being denied by a very imperfect system simply does not suggest a person is a criminal or is attempting to commit a crime. To believe otherwise is not reasonable. There are stupid criminals, no doubt, but I wonder how many of them would follow the proper channels knowing they can’t legally possess a firearm. Out of all the ways they could potentially come by one, including having someone with a clean record make the purchase, how many would actually go fill out the form and expect anything but a denial?
I’m guessing not too many. Although I do seem to remember a drug addict actually walking into a police station to report his missing illegal drugs...

Magdump said:

Not everyone believes in civil rights, that much is clear.
I don’t expect you to stray from your indoctrination, but simply being denied by a very imperfect system simply does not suggest a person is a criminal or is attempting to commit a crime. To believe otherwise is not reasonable. There are stupid criminals, no doubt, but I wonder how many of them would follow the proper channels knowing they can’t legally possess a firearm. Out of all the ways they could potentially come by one, including having someone with a clean record make the purchase, how many would actually go fill out the form and expect anything but a denial?
I’m guessing not too many. Although I do seem to remember a drug addict actually walking into a police station to report his missing illegal drugs...

Click to expand...

Is your position the police should ignore every denial?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does denial constitute reasonable suspicion?

Nathan Hale said:

Does denial constitute reasonable suspicion?

Click to expand...

You are the Legal Authority. What do you think?

JBP55 said:

You are the Legal Authority. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I can’t wait


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro