Judge orders Wal-Mart to let a New York church challenge gun sales

Posted by jchristyatty 6 years, 9 months ago to Business
23 comments | Share | Flag

“On critical issues such as the sale of products that may threaten the safety or well-being of communities, corporate boards must exercise their oversight role to assure balance among customer, shareholder, and societal interests,”
SOURCE URL: http://for.tn/1pwzPRw


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Itheliving 6 years, 9 months ago
    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
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ richrobinson 6 years, 9 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 6 years, 9 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 6 years, 9 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 6 years, 9 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 6 years, 9 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 9 months ago
      I have a problem with shareholders attempting to run companies - regardless their political or religious backgrounds. Companies are run by their CEO's, who are managed by their Boards of Directors, which Boards are elected by the Shareholders. Having the Shareholders directly influence corporate policy circumvents this entire mechanism, marginalizes the role of the CEO and Board, and subjects corporate strategy to ideological whim.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 6 years, 9 months ago
    $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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 6 years, 9 months ago
      Yes but all shareholders do not get the same voice. This smacks of judicial activism. And in Delaware. Guess where the vast majority of businesses incorporate?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 6 years, 9 months ago
        Hey, everyone... stick around to witness the future unintended consequences of that ruling.

        As our 'own' Judge N put it in a video I just saw, 'when it comes to "balance," come down on the side of Freedom.'

        Excellent example, here. Whose freedom gets trampled if that judge prevails, or the church or Wal-Mart shoppers?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo