Matt Lewis

Wal-Mart and gun control, ctd

Last night on the “Kudlow Report,” Lars Larson took issue with my assertion that the White House might be attempting to co-opt Wal-Mart into supporting a campaign to close the s0-called gun show loophole. (Start watching at about the 4:30 mark)

Larson disagreed with my theory that Wal-Mart could profit financially from regulations that would de facto prohibit individuals from selling guns.

His argument was that new regulations would merely require individuals to go down to the local gun store and pay a nominal fee in order to perform the background check.

My response?

That’s what happens if Wal-Mart doesn’t cut a deal.

The fact that Larson’s scenario makes perfect sense only provides more leverage for the White House — if and when they attempted to cut a deal with Wal-Mart (and let’s be clear, as far as we know they have only reluctantly agreed to meet with the administration about this issue.)

This is not to say Larson’s idea couldn’t or wouldn’t come true. It depends on whether or not Wal-Mart is willing to play ball.

There are many ways the administration could help them. Perhaps it will turn out that individuals are technically allowed to sell guns privately (via a local gun shop), but that the hassle of the additional background check would be cost or time prohibitive.

Or maybe Wal-Mart will cut a deal that gives them something else?

It’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Obama originally signaled that he wanted to curb the cost of medicine by instituting price controls and allowing for drug reimportation. But in order to pass Obamacare, the White House abandoned those plans in order to get PhRMA on board. (PhRma spent about $75 million to help pass ObamaCare.)

This is how crony capitalism works.