BSA1
member
I wonder how much money that Wal-Mart takes in from it’s customers they are going to use in their push for “common sense” gun control?
Activists On Both Sides See Walmart's And Others Policy As A "Middle Ground"
- Thread starter Speedo66
- Start date
- Status
JTHunter
Member
There is a certain fast food chain that used to use the line "In sight, it must be right." The same could be said to these misguided businesses as well. After all, when somebody is intent on robbing a store, do they advertise that they have a firearm and OC? Of course not. They want the "shock value" of pulling out their hidden firearm and sticking it in your face.
TomJ
Contributing Member
Businesses who inject themselves into politics unnecessarily are led by fools, as they immediately alienate a large percentage of prospective customers regardless of which side they take. The following are quotes from McDonald's and Dunkin Donuts, basically telling people we just want to sell hamburgers and donuts, so leave us out of this. Walmart should have followed their lead.
Here's a statement from McDonald's spokeswoman Lisa McComb:
“We recognize that there is a lot of emotion and passion surrounding the issue of firearms and open carry weapons laws.
While we respect the differing views of all our customers, McDonald’s company-owned restaurants follow local, state and federal laws as it relates to open carry weapons in our restaurants.
For franchisee-owned restaurants, operational decisions regarding open carry weapon laws are made by the independent franchisee.
That said, as with all aspects of operating a McDonald’s restaurant, we expect our franchisees and their crew to follow local, state and federal laws.”
And Dunkin' Donuts spokeswoman Michelle King:
"Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin-Robbins restaurants are owned and operated by individual franchisees who are required to follow all federal, state and local laws with regard to firearms."
Here's a statement from McDonald's spokeswoman Lisa McComb:
“We recognize that there is a lot of emotion and passion surrounding the issue of firearms and open carry weapons laws.
While we respect the differing views of all our customers, McDonald’s company-owned restaurants follow local, state and federal laws as it relates to open carry weapons in our restaurants.
For franchisee-owned restaurants, operational decisions regarding open carry weapon laws are made by the independent franchisee.
That said, as with all aspects of operating a McDonald’s restaurant, we expect our franchisees and their crew to follow local, state and federal laws.”
And Dunkin' Donuts spokeswoman Michelle King:
"Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin-Robbins restaurants are owned and operated by individual franchisees who are required to follow all federal, state and local laws with regard to firearms."
Mousegun
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 737
Septin' your house is PRIVATE while a store is PUBLIC and that store may be stompin' on my second amendment rights by restricting my carry.
A "request" not to open carry is an entirely different thing.
Charlie Horse
Member
Thats actually not the case. I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. (I have to smile using that quote!)
Private property, as defined here, is different than public property, as defined here. Just because you are in public, doesn't mean its public property. For the most part, privately owned business are allowed to do as they see fit on their own, privately owned property. There are of course, restrictions. They can't do a real life institution of "The Purge," but they can ask you to leave if they determine that you are causing a disturbance. Here, and I have gone on these calls, all the property owner, or "manager" if you will, has to do is ask you to leave. If you don't, and refuse, then you can be arrested for trespass. I will go out on a limb here and say that if you refuse in this type of situation, you probably will be arrested.
Now I'd like to desensitize the public of their hoplophobia too, but walking into a Walmart, with an openly carried gun, when they have expressly asked everyone not to, is a really bad idea and will not make us any friends at this point. Its time to move on to the next idea, and I'm not sure what that is.
Last edited:
I have no problem with Walmart or any other business to ban OC or CCW on their premises. It's the "Golden Rule"......Those with the gold rule. They have that right on their own property. Just as I have the right to avoid any business that prohibits CCW as this makes it more likely to be chosen as a safe haven for miscreants to work their will on those who have been rendered defenseless within.
The biggest problem I have w/Walmart's new policy is, "Walmart is a charter member of the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership, organized by Walmart and Everytown for Gun Safety." I choose not to finance their efforts to abridge my 2nd amendment rights.
Regards,
hps
The biggest problem I have w/Walmart's new policy is, "Walmart is a charter member of the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership, organized by Walmart and Everytown for Gun Safety." I choose not to finance their efforts to abridge my 2nd amendment rights.
Regards,
hps
sparkyfender
Member
Good discussion, and I see many good points being made for both sides of this issue.
I agree that Wal Mart is a private company, and should be able to make whatever rules they see fit when it comes to their stores. I think the law and the courts pretty much agree on this. Private property should be just that.
BUT; it is also pretty obvious that if any private business would attempt to restrict the presence or activities of another group of citizens, especially any citizen that belongs to a "protected" class, then all that goes out the window, suddenly the store is public, not private, and different rules apply. And the laws and courts are not going to back up the property owner in such cases. Just pointing out that there seems to be a double standard, whether it is right or wrong.
The truth is this is all leading toward one goal; the disenfranchisement of gun carriers and gun owners. No matter how it is sugar coated.
The anti freedom forces want you to give up your firearm, not merely cover it. And that is the next step.
I agree that Wal Mart is a private company, and should be able to make whatever rules they see fit when it comes to their stores. I think the law and the courts pretty much agree on this. Private property should be just that.
BUT; it is also pretty obvious that if any private business would attempt to restrict the presence or activities of another group of citizens, especially any citizen that belongs to a "protected" class, then all that goes out the window, suddenly the store is public, not private, and different rules apply. And the laws and courts are not going to back up the property owner in such cases. Just pointing out that there seems to be a double standard, whether it is right or wrong.
The truth is this is all leading toward one goal; the disenfranchisement of gun carriers and gun owners. No matter how it is sugar coated.
The anti freedom forces want you to give up your firearm, not merely cover it. And that is the next step.
If gun carrying to protect yourself can be seen as a basic right that overrides property rights, one might have a case. One can argue that when you open a business to the public, you give up rights you might have for your home. After all, in a restaurant you must follow health rules. If you are open to the public, you expect the public to pay taxes that afford you police protection and fire protection. Why then do you deny folks the right of self-protection?
As far as the protected classes, we don't want to go there by saying that we should not have such anti-discrimination laws. We should expand the protection to gun carrying in public businesses. That would be the better comparison.
A national trainer (won't say who, if I got this wrong) says: You usually cannot shoot someone over property (TX has some very specific and special circumstances that relate to the property being crucial to life), life trumps property. Thus, why does your property rights in a business that you decided to open to the public trump my right to my life and self-defense?
Balancing the role of property and lethal force is a common debate in the legal literature on the use of lethal force.
BTW, just saying it is your 'castle' is emotional, primate, territoriality - you need a rational basis for the policy.
As far as the protected classes, we don't want to go there by saying that we should not have such anti-discrimination laws. We should expand the protection to gun carrying in public businesses. That would be the better comparison.
A national trainer (won't say who, if I got this wrong) says: You usually cannot shoot someone over property (TX has some very specific and special circumstances that relate to the property being crucial to life), life trumps property. Thus, why does your property rights in a business that you decided to open to the public trump my right to my life and self-defense?
Balancing the role of property and lethal force is a common debate in the legal literature on the use of lethal force.
BTW, just saying it is your 'castle' is emotional, primate, territoriality - you need a rational basis for the policy.
P5 Guy
Member
Could the folks hurt or the estate of those killed in the walmart shooting sue walmart for not providing adequate protection?
Doubtful.
Double edged sword of doing business with them. Places like that want you disarmed to come in, but if you get splattered by some nutter while you’re there they’ll issue a public statement stating that they followed all federal state and local laws and that they notified the police ... all the while ignoring the role they played in disarming you.
That’s why people who have guns either ignore their wishes or should stay off their property entirely.
We've discussed suing for inadequate protection before and the general answer is no. Not a lawyer, but unless there is a very, very specific threat of violence, institutions are not responsible for third party actions. Our lawyers can correct me but that's what I took away from previous posts. Every store in the country would have to provide armed guards if otherwise - that is not going to happen.
The police do not have a responsibility to protect you, why should a store?
The police do not have a responsibility to protect you, why should a store?
Charlie Horse
Member
Thy also would have 2 mitigating factors locally.
1. They have not asked anyone not to carry concealed, at least, not where I've seen. Not yet.
2. All of the Walmart properties locally have off duty LEOs as security inside with private security outside.
Can they sue? Sure. Doesn't mean it wont be thrown out, or that you could even get a lawyer to take it in the first place.
BlueHeelerFl
Member
You are wrong. In the same email detailing the ammo changes the CEO stated Wal Mart will be actively lobbying for gun control.
Isn't that going against gun owners?
At a seminar on carry issues and expenses, an expert on such said that:
1. For schools, if they allow employees to carry and said employee shoots an innocent in a critical incident or the employee himself or herself goes nuts, as an agent of the school, the school is liable. The estimated cost of being sued exceeded the financial risk the expert thought the school would vulnerable to, if a third party shot up the place and you claimed something about protection.
2. It was similar for stores, in an article for a business journal, if you let folks carry and said carrier shot an innocent or went nuts, you allowing the carrier's guns put you more at financial risk than the financial risk of a third party shooter action.
If this is true - out of my lane, just the what an expert in institutional risk said to me. She said it was a rather bloodless analysis but that's the way the world works. It follows the classic exploding Ford Pinto schema. Cheaper to pay off the few folks incinerated then fix them.
1. For schools, if they allow employees to carry and said employee shoots an innocent in a critical incident or the employee himself or herself goes nuts, as an agent of the school, the school is liable. The estimated cost of being sued exceeded the financial risk the expert thought the school would vulnerable to, if a third party shot up the place and you claimed something about protection.
2. It was similar for stores, in an article for a business journal, if you let folks carry and said carrier shot an innocent or went nuts, you allowing the carrier's guns put you more at financial risk than the financial risk of a third party shooter action.
If this is true - out of my lane, just the what an expert in institutional risk said to me. She said it was a rather bloodless analysis but that's the way the world works. It follows the classic exploding Ford Pinto schema. Cheaper to pay off the few folks incinerated then fix them.
BlueHeelerFl
Member
Their new sales and carry policies are one thing. Actively lobbying for gun control by Wal Mart is what got me fed up with them
Part of this is everyone has a inalienable right to life and liberty and to seek economic opportunity. Property rights, on the other hand, are alienable and have always been considered such--the county and city can tell you to maintain your property, tax you on it, take it from you given court order payments, and so on. If you engage in business, there is a whole host of regulations that federal, state, and local governments can apply that alienate at least part of your property rights. The right to seek general economic well being is that of being able to sustain one's life. It is not a generalized inalienable property right. Because one enters society to protect the right to engage in economic activity and acquire property, one gives up a certain degree of control of one's property.
Firearms are a necessary tool for life preservation via self defense at the individual and societal level because they change the natural rule that the strong do as they wish and the weak will submit as they must. Even now, less than lethal armament is not necessarily reliable in stopping assaults on people. The old, the disabled, the weak, because of Sam Colt became the equals of the strong intending harm. Thus, the right to own weapons for self defense is a necessary requirement for it. A right to firearms is not alienable as it is crucial to preserve that life as is the right to engage in economic pursuit of happiness. If the right to life is universal as it should be considered crucial to preserving it.
However, if you use this argument, the anti's will claim that firearms represent a class of alienable property and thus could be banned by the state but they cannot get around the fact that self defense of one's own life from criminals has been regarded an inherent right even in some of the worst tyrannies in history. Thus, removing a person's ability to exercise self defense requires a substitute such as being protected by armed guards, recourse to the courts if a death occurs in a "gun free area" due to a failure to foresee and protect individuals by the property owner, or an absolute duty for government to protect individuals rather than society at large OR they can simply allow individuals their natural right to provide for their own self defense (or not) . This does not include violent felons who by attacking the society cannot then complain that their rights in the societal compact were removed. There is a reason that outlaw means outside the protection of the laws of society.
Right now, denying citizens the right to means of self defense is costless to government and corporations. It would be reasonable to demand that both government and corporations allow recourse in courts for a failure to protect when they force citizen disarmament on their property or territory. I suspect that corporate retailers would then not be so keen to adopt the costs of having armed guards nor assuming liability if they could not do so. I also suspect that government that is liable to failure to protect individuals in gun-free zones or by banning guns by government edict would soon change their firearm policy accordingly. New Jersey is bankrupt now, imagine if their failure to issue a needed firearm permit by authorities that resulted in the death of the permit seeker could be redressed by a lawsuit. Self enforcing laws such as lawsuits and juries take out the clout that government officials and wealthy corporations use to shield their behavior from correction.
Last edited:
badkarmamib
Member
I used the links provided by the VCDL
https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=b28f1d9ea359b104b09836c4c&id=469da54069
to contact some of the bigger companies. I was at work, so I just copied and pasted
So far, CVS is the only one to respond, with an email that basically said that firearms do not belong in places that provide health care, and that they are responding to social changes. I responded back with a more personal reply:
I am truly sorry that you believe that someone intent on doing harm will consider your policy, and choose another location based on that policy. Recent events, "mass shootings", have almost always taken place in locations where firearms were "restricted", by nothing more than words, which were obviously ignored, as said words were only heeded by the law-abiding, which left them defenseless victims. I refuse to be defenseless, when you are unable to provide the necessary security to GUARANTEE that a criminal, intent on causing harm, will not be ABLE to carry THEIR firearm in. As such, I will no longer patronize your stores.
https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=b28f1d9ea359b104b09836c4c&id=469da54069
to contact some of the bigger companies. I was at work, so I just copied and pasted
So far, CVS is the only one to respond, with an email that basically said that firearms do not belong in places that provide health care, and that they are responding to social changes. I responded back with a more personal reply:
I am truly sorry that you believe that someone intent on doing harm will consider your policy, and choose another location based on that policy. Recent events, "mass shootings", have almost always taken place in locations where firearms were "restricted", by nothing more than words, which were obviously ignored, as said words were only heeded by the law-abiding, which left them defenseless victims. I refuse to be defenseless, when you are unable to provide the necessary security to GUARANTEE that a criminal, intent on causing harm, will not be ABLE to carry THEIR firearm in. As such, I will no longer patronize your stores.
FlSwampRat
Member
OP
OP
Speedo66
Member
Makes sense, every Walmart I've been in, the sporting goods dept. is in the far corner, you have to pass through most of the store to get there. Sort of like milk in supermarkets.
LiveLife
Member
So, now if gun owners won't need to walk through the store to get ammo, Walmart will lose out on additional higher profit margin product sales that may catch gun owners's eyes on their way to get ammo. And ammunition manufacturers will offer volume discounts to other vendors who sell "handgun" ammunition and thus price of Walmart "non handgun" ammunition will go up.
So instead of just losing 20% market share of national ammunition sales, Walmart will lose even more on other non-ammo sales.
Nice, foolish Walmart CEO/management.
Last edited:
Jack Ryan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 777
Criminal invaders carry concealed in Walmart. Not very welcome though.
https://tolleystopics.com/2019/06/2...ZboVAI_j2PI-7-g3QhozZ1_SDk443_yJNlc9_1M5Qe5yE
https://tolleystopics.com/2019/06/2...ZboVAI_j2PI-7-g3QhozZ1_SDk443_yJNlc9_1M5Qe5yE
22-rimfire
Member
I personally shop at Walmart regularly. I haven't bought ammunition from them in years. I will continue to shop at Walmart. I spend more money at Walmart and Sam's Club combined in month than all the other stores combined on a bi-annual basis. I will not boycott WM because of an open carry policy, but I don't like their decision not to carry certain ammunition.
LiveLife
Member
The big question is for gun owners who bought handgun ammunition from Walmart for years. Where will they shop for handgun ammunition now?
And will this change impact Walmart's bottom line? I am sure it will, negatively.
And we still haven't heard back from Walmart on sales of 22LR. Since Walmart managed to piss off so many gun owners, they better continue to sell 22LR (I believe 22LR was a huge part of 20% national ammunition sales) or they will piss off even more people and negatively affect their bottom line even further.
I have a feeling many in Walmart management is going, "What have we done?"
BlueHeelerFl
Member
What do you think of their plan to actively lobby for gun control?
Everyone seems to miss that part of the story.
- Status
