I assume the church wants its freedoms of religion protected by the Bill of Rights. However the 2nd Amendment should be voided or at least placed under their control. Wesley Mouch would be proud of them

A product that threatens...societal interests.. this makes me hear boots marching in unison.

As a small retailer I have never been a fan of Wal-Mart. That being said I do not like the courts getting involved in this. If activists want to petition and send letters that is fine but I feel that when the "state" or the courts get involved that it has gone too far.

What does the church have anything to do with this article, besides it's a shareholder?

Neglecting that little piece of information, since any church being involved here is mostly irrelevant, why is a judge ordering them to allow shareholders to vote on this? Is it a requirement in their corporate organizing documents to allow such a vote? If not, tell the judge to piss off.

A federal judge ordered Walmart to let shareholders vote--
"Ordered?"
"To let?"
I have a problem with just that much.

If as a matter of fact, the court's order stipulates hi-capacity "Clips" then Wal-Mart should ignore the order. Then when the judge holds them in contempt, they will make a fool of him in the Higher Jurisdiction, because Wal-Mart sells no weapons that are equipped with "Clips" the few that they sell, even on the web, have "Magazines"
Evidently neither the Judge, nor the plaintiff Church, have rationalized the difference, making the same mistake as the NYS Legislature before the NRA accidently corrected the NY Safe Act. There is a principle difference between Clips and Magazines, Magazines have feeder springs that insure a supply of ammunition to the breech, Clips do not have any springs and are unable to supply ammunition that is not stripped from them by the bolt. Even the semi-automatic shotguns have a tubular magazine with a big spring that ejects a round into the chamber when the bolt is positioned out of the way, this is why some weapons are prone to jamming because the chamber is large enough to allow double-feeding.

What the religious anti-second amendment zealots don't understand is that if they succeed, in 10 years Walmart will carry only hijabs in their women's apparel department.

The judge is wrong. Why stop at Walmart. If the judge can force this on Walmart they can then force it on every legal store in the USA that sells fire arms. He must be an 0 man.

The church is playing a dangerous game. Next week it could be a court ruling on Trinity's activities.

I have a problem with religious institutions telling capitalist companies how to run their business.
Their demands are vague enough to be dangerously misused.
If they want to help, get in schools and stop values clarification from undermining religion. Go into communities and help freed kids from the ravages of the drug culture. Focus on getting rights to practice Christianity without government interference back.
If they really want to protect communities go camp on the doorstep of network smut TV or the gansta record culture.

$5Au supports the Court on this one. Boards of public corporations first obligation is to the owners (shareholders). Yet they manipulate corporate governance largely for their own interests. CEO's making millions even when their company loses money is all too common. This is not a second amendment issue per se; it's a shareholder rights issue.