I wasn't referring to the "west". Wichita and Dodge City weren't founded until the 1870's, and their dictates for forcing folks to leave their guns at the town marshal's office was unconstitutional on its face. Whether those were desperate times or not.
That's fine. However, it does negate what you'd actually said about carrying rifles in any public place without raising any alarm. Clearly that is UNTRUE. So, I assume we can set it aside.
One doesn't get to pick and choose among the methods of gathering data and trends, since it "rigs" the outcome, and gives one the answer they seek in many instances. From an empirical perspective, "snapshot" or "flash mob" type campaigns do not define the best course of action for any organization, and decisions made under those conditions are frequently wrong.
One doesn't? One certainly does. One may make decisions based on whatever data and trends they want to, or they are able to obtain, or which are presented to them on a silver platter. In this case, there is a big fat data point from 400,000 people who bothered to petition the store, and it couples very well (I'm sure) with the opinions of the average Joe and average Jane managers, directors, and company policy makers who see these images and feel undoubtedly a very similar sentiment to the "Moms" and to many of us here, i.e.: "
What the hell are these whackos doing with RIFLES in a department store?"
They're presented with a data point, with a significant size/weight behind it, and which fits quite well with the views of all but a VERY VERY VERY few people in American society. Yeah, they can and will choose to act on it.
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.
No one's arguing just to be arguing. You made a broad generalization as to trespass laws without any evidence to back up your assertion.
It is NOT a broad generalization to say that trespass laws throughout the entire country say that if a property owner/manager/representative asks you to leave for whatever reason, and you refuse, that is the criminal act of trespassing. If you want to maintain I don't have "any evidence to back up" that assertion, please provide the list of states where you CAN refuse to leave private property and not be subject to arrest for that.
Go ahead. I'll be waiting to see how far wrong my assertions are.
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.
No one on the "2nd Amendment side" forced Target to take any action. "Moms...." screed was to whom Target reacted.
Oh good grief. Yes, Target could have completely ignored them. It would be quite odd for a company to do so, based on ANY cost-benefit-analysis of that decision. A few hundred thousand of our customers (Moms) ... and undoubtedly a significantly larger quantity of customers who's opinions align but who didn't get a chance to sign a petition ... are really put off by shopping next to a group of dudes with big black rifles over their shoulders. Some unknown group of (lets be honest here) "gun nuts" will be all bent out of shape if we ask them not to do that, but it seems clear that there are probably not very many of those guys and they are highly unlikely to be our shoppers anyway. So we make a gesture to happify lots and lots of our regulars and annoy a handful of folks who don't spend money here anyway.
You don't really need a focus group to make such a judgment call. In their shoes, I'd make the same call. A company is in business to make money, not sacrifice sales to make a fringe political statement. Especially not one that there's no reason at all to believe they agree with!
Whether the individuals are the poster children for advancement, or not, a number of posters seem to think that the image is more important than the message. How does exercising one's rights become a negative? They didn't threaten anyone! Somehow, seeing a "Gomer" with a slung AR15 is far less threatening than SWAT officer decked out in his gear, and carrying an MP5 or M4.
Uh, dude, SWAT officers decked out in all their gear don't shop in Target EITHER.
That's like saying "folks don't like shopping with alligators running loose in the store, but TIGERS are even scarier!"
How does "exercising a right" become a negative? Any time you manage to push public awareness and opinion AGAINST you, become a driver that encourages companies to make official policies AGAINST you, and in general become a difficult-to-ignore nuisance to your peers and the public alike -- WITHOUT A SINGLE POSITIVE RESULT TO SHOW FOR YOUR ACTIONS. That's all lose, no win.
Again, we're faced with the disconnect between the concept of what your RIGHT to act a certain way might be and what the CONSEQUENCES of those action might be. Your RIGHTS don't eliminate negative social CONSEQUENCES.
You have the right to walk down Wyoming Ave. in Detroit at 2 am, with $100 bills taped to your shirt and singing about "White Power." No one can lawfully deny you your right to do so. But you are very likely to suffer consequences of doing that and might really want to do a little cost-benefit analysis before you set out. Same basic deal here. Carrying rifles into Target bothers some people pretty bad, and "reads" very OFF to millions of average folks, and can't be shown to provide you or your peers/movement any benefit AT ALL. You might want to think about whether or not doing this is worth the negative reactions you will produce.
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.
Any establishment which posts a sign saying that firearms are not allowed, is by definition anti-Second Amendment. If you carry concealed, you're still violating the signage. And, depending on the state's laws, you could be committing criminal trespass.
Well, a) they haven't posted any signs, and b) so what? They still aren't violating your rights.
And, please! These establishments were never neutral. Corporate America, by its nature is confrontational averse. Avoid those things which affect the bottom line.
Being "confrontational averse" doesn't mean they aren't "neutral." But really, the best thing a corporation can be is focused on the bottom line. That's what I've been saying. If these guys wandering the aisles with rifles is losing them sales, they SHOULD make the rifle guys leave. Not to do so would be unethical malfeasance to their share-holders.
They allowed a fringe element to dictate corporate policy.
To be clear, TWO fringe groups were in play and they chose the route that would hurt sales least. Sounds like wisdom to me.
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.
Hiller, and McDonald were, both by the vote, and the content, narrowly decided. There was no sweeping decision by the majority which finally made uniform, the gun laws of the U.S. California, Connecticut, New York, among others have placed such restrictions on firearms ownership, as to make it impossible for a person to even get a carry permit. Instead the range of freedom (from restrictive, to non-restrictive) is greater than ever.
Folks in New York City still can't get "shall issue" carry permits, and California is fighting one of its own counties over "shall issue"
Ok...does that have anything to do with Target or the discussion here?
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.
"We" didn't push Target, et al, to make an idiotic policy decision. That's a cop out. Target's management allowed themselves to be boxed into a corner by kowtowing to a minority pressure group.
Or, rather, chose between two minority "pressure" groups, as I pointed out before. They could have stayed neutral until someone publically challenged them to choose a side. At that point, NOT choosing a side was choosing a side...and for their bottom line it would have been the WRONG side.
