I don't believe that to be true at all. Yes, you could go many places in public while carrying a weapon with some legitimate purpose -- walking out to your hunting grounds, walking through the city to go shoot rats at the dump, heck, in Wilkes-Barre, PA (at least) the shooting range was a field right in the city! But to say no one would have taken notice of someone walking into a store or restaurant (or bank?) openly carrying a gun is simply not true. In fact, more than a few towns and cities banned the practice entirely (for their law-abiding citizens anyway.
I don't know where you were raised, but until the 1930's, it was quite common for folks in cities and towns in the South and Midwest to have both long guns and handguns on their persons while in urban areas. I've seen photos of men who were armed with holstered handguns and dressed in Sunday finery, and they were taken in the 1920's and '30's.
Sure. But you don't know what the context was of those pictures, nor can you with any authority say that they could go anywhere they wanted so armed without anyone taking special notice or getting alarmed.
That would be demonstrably untrue, as is evidenced by the number of towns and cities that passed laws (or discussed passing them) specifically to outlaw that practice back in the 19th century. You can say it was more common, and it certainly was. But it was not some universal thing.
Well, not because of phobic political correctness, at all, actually. More because of the direct, present, immediate damage that those actions are proving to cause, again, and again, and again. "Let's keep doing this until EVERY STORE has officially decided to prohibit us!!!" is a really bad strategy.
I'm not positing on the "appearance" of someone who is openly carrying. If you want to look like "Rambo", be my guest.
Eh...what?
My argument is the rash reaction by Target's management to the du jour "Mommy" groups who are vociferous, but lack any reasoning power. Yes, it's there property, and they may post all the signs they wish. ... Rash actions, without end-to-end rational thinking is the epitome of political correctness.
It isn't a rash action. It is responding DIRECTLY to their customer base. That's what retailers DO. You aren't their target (ha!) audience. A bunch of moms ARE. They know exactly what the "end-to-end" results of this will be. A few gun dudes will stop coming in every once in a while... or more likely will continue to not ever come in because they weren't anyway ... and some of these moms will be happy with them and continue to shop there because they took a stand ... and they'll stop getting their store's picture in the paper and on the 'net with "scary gun guys" walking around with rifles in them. That's a win-win for them. They really don't count you or me as a dedicated customer or any kind of loss if we carry on not shopping there...maybe double-plus-ultra-not-shopping-there now.
But, in some states, it will become a hollow gesture, depending on that state's open carry laws.
Not so. It may be a hollow gesture regarding CONCEALED weapons (as it would be here in PA) but this does give each store manager a clear direction regarding how to treat OPENLY carried weapons. If the manager sees your rifle or pistol they now will know to ask you to leave. If you refuse, that's trespass, regardless of the reason for asking. So open carry can actually be ended in Target stores -- i.e.: not a hollow gesture.
You miss their point. They don't particularly care WHAT the environment in their stores is, so long as that environment is friendly and welcoming to the greatest number of average lower-to-middle class 20-30 year old women. Period. Anything at all that makes any of those lady shoppers the least bit uncomfortable and unlikely to return and spend more money is going to be unwelcome. Target can ignore the occasional disruption to field-hockey-mom bliss, but not a repeated "movement" of such events, and certainly not once what claims to be a 400,000 member strong posse of them sends an official "either they go or WE go" notice.
Hardly. It is no more a "movement" to practice the 2nd Amendment as it is the 1st.
Ok, so it isn't a "movement." Call it whatever you want. A gun walk get together to make a point or make scene, or a chance to take some kewl photos for my facebook page, or go anti-gun cop-baiting, or whatever you want it to be. Target ignored one or two of these events. But as copycats started making it a regular thing, AND they started getting complaints, they felt the need to act. And, of course, they act against us who are less likely to be their customers than the folks complaining are.
I'm well aware of focus groups, and the amount of money spent on toilet paper colors, but we're not a nation of focus groups. We are a constitutional republic, and the rights of the minority have to be protected.
I'm also aware of private property rights, and Target's rights to place restrictions on who and how there property is availed.
At some point, short of confiscation and relinquishing rights, we have to exit the practicality of "just getting along" and not disturbing the status quo. At some point Jefferson, Adams, et al., decided that abiding by George III, and the British Parliament's laws had become intolerable, and a break was made with Great Britain.
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?
All actions have reactions. Whether it is your right to act a certain way or not. You/we don't have a Constitutional protection from consequences.
If the aggressive open carry movement causes 20 or 30 or whatever more major chains to "fall" to policies like this, is that ok? Is that a good thing? What has been gained? If several million of your neighbors say, "I used to be neutral on the guns issue but gun guys are STUPID AND DANGEROUS! Look at these morons with assault rifles in a public store!" Are you ok with that? Is that an acceptable loss to balance what we've "gained" here?
As long as someone is acting within the law, they have Constitutional protections for those actions or behavior.
Sure. But that doesn't make their actions consequence-free. Their Constitutionally protected actions can cause negative reactions which will bother, inconvenience, and even hurt the rest of us.
And just who defines "aggressive open carry"? Does my 1911 in a belt holster define "aggressive open carry" if I haven't brandished it? That's why we have laws protecting minority rights. If public opinion carries the day, then we've devolved to a social-democratic tyranny. Is that what you're proposing?
No one has to define "aggressive open carry." You have no rights to stand on this person or company's property with your rifle or openly carried pistol if they don't want you to. If what you're doing (whatever it is) bothers someone, they can ask you to leave. They can ask ALL of us to leave, nationwide. And we now have to chalk up another company into the "bad guy" list.
Target isn't the government. You can't cry about lost rights because of anything they do.
We haven't "gained" anything. We are only maintaining a status quo against an aggressive socialistic minority.
Well, no. Maintaining a status quo would mean NOT getting kicked out of nationwide stores. We're actively LOSING, with this. That's the opposite of "status quo."
Just Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby over their right to pay for certain birth control drugs. The very basic question isn't about Obama care. If anyone thinks it was, then they've missed the larger issue. Instead the following must be answered:
Why was the vote 5-4?
Why wasn't the vote 9-0?
Why did this case even have to be considered?
What does this have to do with gun rights?
