Quote:

---

There is a notable torts verdict in Maryland where a jury handed down a multi-million dollar verdict against Walmart for selling a shotgun to an employee who used it to commit suicide. The verdict raises difficult questions over Walmart's responsibility for the suicide of Jacob Mace, who lied to store employees, under common law torts.

---

This verdict is wrong on so many levels imo. Even if I know that a person has claimed to be suicidal, that person still has the legal right to buy a gun as long as they meet the criteria defined by law.

As a manager, if an employee tells me they are suicidal in a private meeting, I'm now obligated to share that private information with every employee who works the gun counter to ensure that individual can't buy a gun? Could I not then be liable for sharing private information about the employee?

The complaint alleged that Walmart has a blacklist of people they "know" to have mental issues which implies they are using it up deny gun purchases?! How is that legal?



https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/24/maryland-jury-rules-walmart-liable-for-selling-shotgun-used-in-employee-suicide/

What's next, suing Walmart for selling people Coke and Fudge Rounds that led to their heart attack?

The war on the 2nd Amendment continues.

ts5641 said:

---

The war on the 2nd Amendment continues.

---

More like war against solid thinking people because our system - lawyers- load up juries with "something for nothing " people who love to stick it to anyone with more than they have.

If Walmart sold him a bottle of Tylenol, and he committed suicide by ingesting a lethal dose, how is Walmart responsible?

This case was predicated on liberal's brainwashed fear of guns.

My uncle was friends with an attorney who sued other attorneys for their outrageous contingency fees charged to clients. The attorney was highly successful, and was hated by almost all the local trial attorneys.

Any judge that doesn't NOV a case like this should be removed.

I think it is more than a vote against the 2A.

We live in a society where no one is held responsible for their own actions. Every bad behavior, every consequence of bad behavior HAS to be the result of someone else's actions, thoughts, inactions etc.

No one wants to be responsible for their own conduct.

His body his choice. Libs should be celebrating suicide.

We need a national divorce. Leftists do not believe in personal responsibility and have no ethical or moral boundaries.

These are the same people that will tell you it's a woman's right to partially birth a baby and then bash its head in with a hammer. Their concern for life in the OP's instance is a pretext for chilling gun sales.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

We need a national divorce. Leftists do not believe in personal responsibility and have no ethical or moral boundaries.

---

That's just not gonna happen. Leftists don't compromise in good faith, nor keep their word. They must be defeated over and over…financially, militarily, and via citizenry not following along to be lemmings.

Martin Cash said:

---

Any judge that doesn't NOV a case like this should be removed.

---

What is "NOV"?

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

There is a notable torts verdict in Maryland where a jury handed down a multi-million dollar verdict against Walmart for selling a shotgun to an employee who used it to commit suicide. The verdict raises difficult questions over Walmart's responsibility for the suicide of Jacob Mace, who lied to store employees, under common law torts.

---

This verdict is wrong on so many levels imo. Even if I know that a person has claimed to be suicidal, that person still has the legal right to buy a gun as long as they meet the criteria defined by law.

As a manager, if an employee tells me they are suicidal in a private meeting, I'm now obligated to share that private information with every employee who works the gun counter to ensure that individual can't buy a gun? Could I not then be liable for sharing private information about the employee?

The complaint alleged that Walmart has a blacklist of people they "know" to have mental issues which implies they are using it up deny gun purchases?! How is that legal?



https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/24/maryland-jury-rules-walmart-liable-for-selling-shotgun-used-in-employee-suicide/

---

Surely WAL-MART will appeal the verdict! Or have they already? That has Supreme Court all over it if an Appeals court doesn't overturn the verdict.

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

What's next, suing Walmart for selling people Coke and Fudge Rounds that led to their heart attack?

---

Wait, they have fudge rounds?

Quote:

---

This verdict is wrong on so many levels imo. Even if I know that a person has claimed to be suicidal, that person still has the legal right to buy a gun as long as they meet the criteria defined by law.

---

However, if you're the seller, you are not required to sell it to them.

A FFL can legally refuse to sell to anyone if they have a reasonable concern that something is not right with the individual.

I'll look more at the details of this specific case later. Gotta get a few things done before the icepocalypse hits later.

Got a Natty! said:

---

I think it is more than a vote against the 2A.

We live in a society where no one is held responsible for their own actions. Every bad behavior, every consequence of bad behavior HAS to be the result of someone else's actions, thoughts, inactions etc.

No one wants to be responsible for their own conduct.

---

So much this

VarkAg77 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Any judge that doesn't NOV a case like this should be removed.

---

What is "NOV"?

---

An acronym of Latin 'non obstante veredicto', meaning 'notwithstanding the verdict'. It refers to a judge's decision to reverse a jury's decision or guilty verdict when convinced that the decision is not reasonably supported by facts or law, resulting in a 'judgment N.O.V.

(I'm not a lawyer, but I watch Perry Mason)

Cen-Tex said:

---

VarkAg77 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Any judge that doesn't NOV a case like this should be removed.

---

What is "NOV"?

---

An acronym of Latin 'non obstante veredicto', meaning 'notwithstanding the verdict'. It refers to a judge's decision to reverse a jury's decision or guilty verdict when convinced that the decision is not reasonably supported by facts or law, resulting in a 'judgment N.O.V.

(I'm not a lawyer, but I watch Perry Mason)

---

I did not know that! (or that you watch Perry Mason!)

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

What's next, suing Walmart for selling people Coke and Fudge Rounds that led to their heart attack?

---

Or sold a 12 pack to someone who later drove drunk and killed someone?

VarkAg77 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Any judge that doesn't NOV a case like this should be removed.

---

What is "NOV"?

---

Short for JNOV - Judgment Not on Verdict. Judge overrules jury's verdict where there is no evidence to support it.

Since when can you buy guns in Walmart anyway? I know you used to be able to but every Walmart I've gone into in my area in Texas none of them carry firearms

Rapier108 said:

---

Quote:

---

This verdict is wrong on so many levels imo. Even if I know that a person has claimed to be suicidal, that person still has the legal right to buy a gun as long as they meet the criteria defined by law.

---

However, if you're the seller, you are not required to sell it to them.

A FFL can legally refuse to sell to anyone if they have a reasonable concern that something is not right with the individual.

I'll look more at the details of this specific case later. Gotta get a few things done before the icepocalypse hits later.

---

But I'd some fruitcake trans came in wanting to buy a gun, was acting erratic, passed the background check but the FFL refused to sell the gun, you can bet they'd be sued for profiling.