The previous post about Wal-Marts decision to support Bloomberg's gun control agenda leads me back to the subject of law and policy. Wal-Mart as a private entity can do or disclose any information it feels like disclosing to anyone it feels like disclosing it too, so long as that information isn't protected by law.

Free and easy disclosure of all of this personal information is totally harmless as long the recipients are completely benevolent. Corruption anywhere along the way makes these disclosures dangerous. At some level you have an employee with your purchasing habits. If they think you are dangerous they can inform the government, if they think you are immoral they can inform their fringe activist friends. What is to prevent an employee from red-flagging a customer?

Allowing law enforcement to flag and monitor records without any oversight is a pretty huge club. The federal background check system apparently isn't enough, since it only holds a list of people who are prohibited because of a prior conviction or court order. Simple suspicion by a police officer or company employee is not enough to get into that system.

If Wal-Mart doesn't want to sell guns in New York then it should simply stop doing so. All of this shady reporting is not good for customers, shareholders, or citizens. I look forward to the lawsuit when somebody is wrongfully red-flagged by Wal-Mart and the police come and arrest them.