Pictures that were taken by photojournalists in the Louisville Courier Journal, and other local papers are archived, and I've seen them while researching term papers for poli-sci classes in the mid-1970's
Ok, but that still doesn't prove your statement that someone could go anywhere armed however he pleased without causing any alarm or concern.
That (anti-carry laws in the 19th century) may have been common place in the Northeast, but there were few, if any in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Indiana. Again, I've researched this in the past.
I was thinking of the west and mid-west like Wichita and Dodge City. But many places enacted laws like that. The carry of weapons is quite a bit LESS legislatively restricted now than it was in previous decades or even in the 18th century, in many places.
It's not? Without any research into the question, Target made a decision, not based on any "focus groups" as you posted earlier. Instead, they responded to a single-issue "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America" group which may or may not have any legitimate data for backing up their demands.
A direct request from 400,000 people is FAR more compelling than a focus group. A focus group gives you a general idea of trends and likely preferences of folks who you believe are similar to your customers. A direct request tells you exactly what some of your actual customers want you to do, right now. Target has no reason to care whether the request is logical or based on "legitimate data." All the "data" the Moms really need to show is, "we don't want to shop next to people holding rifles." That's IRREFUTABLE data. "This is what I want, period." If they don't want to shop in that environment, Target doesn't want that environment to exist in their stores. If 400,000 people put together a petition to tell target that they refuse to shop in a store that sells popcorn, Target would stop selling popcorn. Logic and "legitimate data" wouldn't have anything to do with it. Just customer preference.
State laws are not universally codified, and what constitutes trespass in one state may not be the same as trespass in another. You can't generalize.
Oh good heavens. Trespass is pretty darned universal in all the states, in that if a store representative asks you to leave, you have to leave or you can be arrested for trespass. That's really not a complex part of the law that varies greatly from state to state. Don't argue just to argue.
What the heck are you on about? What does Target's decision to ask "us" not to carry guns into the ladies' wear department have to do with government restrictions and taxation and refuting the authority of the monarch? Are you suggesting that FORCING our gun carrying habits on a business' property is some how the next great American Revolution? Is that what you mean about "exiting the practicality of just getting along?" We're going to MAKE them let us carry guns in their stores?
Or are you saying we're making progress here by torquing-off so many folks that we get banned from multiple retail establishments?
I did not write, or otherwise infer, that we force anything on anyone. Exercising one's rights is not a force upon another.
Oooh, kay. So what DID you mean? Is forcing stores to make official "no guns" pronouncements a positive step or not? What is this rifle-in-the-housewares-department photo-op stuff doing to HELP the movement? Explain why this is producing a benefit for anyone.
To repeat, we are not making progress at all.
Wait, what? The last 20 years has seen VAST improvements in 2nd Amendment rights and activity nationwide. We've made ENORMOUS progress. Things I never believed I'd live to see have happened. We live in the greatest time for gun rights since at least 1968, and maybe earlier depending on which aspects of the movement you most value. These guys are pushing too hard too soon and rather lampooning all of us through their ill-considered grandstanding, but I don't believe that even they can stem our rising tide.
People who believe in the Second Amendment are already banned from multiple establishments.
What? That's hogwash. Nobody's asking what you believe and telling you that you can't enter their establishments. However, now that these guys have been jumping into the news spotlights, and dragging major chain stores into the glare of media attention, now we're being officially asked not to bring our guns into some stores where no official policy was ever felt necessary before. Again, though, that's not banning ANYONE from entering a store, regardless of what they believe.
That isn't progress, it's regress. And it's capitulating to those who are incapable of rational thought.
What? This now sounds like you're agreeing with me. That pushing companies into making official "no guns" statements is a retrograde move. If that's your point, I concur.
What does this have to do with gun rights?
As with the all the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights, we have a U.S. Supreme Court minority, which believes in the primacy of the state, and not the individual. The Second Amendment issues of Heller and McDonald were decided 5-4. Hobby Lobby was no different. Just what don't the justices understand about individual rights?
Ok, but none of that has a lick of anything to do with Chipotle or Starbucks or Target getting pushed into making an official policy about guns in their stores. That's not a Constitutional issue, that's a private property owner's rights issue, and they're clearly well within every possible right to do what they've done. "We" just forced their hand.
I understand that the mods like to keep things very tidy, and narrowly aimed at 2nd Amendment issues. But a narrow focus also inhibits the contributions of the philosophies which are the foundation of individual rights.
But none of that has anything to do with the matter we're discussing in this thread, regarding Target's new policy.
. I always hated even a cent of my hard earned money going towards that store. I'll continue to carry concealed as I always do if I happen to step foot in that wretched place.
