Ok, but that still doesn't prove your statement that someone could go anywhere armed however he pleased without causing any alarm or concern.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And, please! These establishments were never neutral. Corporate America, by its nature is confrontational averse. Avoid those things which affect the bottom line. They allowed a fringe element to dictate corporate policy.
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, 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.
But none of that has anything to do with the matter we're discussing in this thread, regarding Target's new policy.
Whatever caused Target's decision seems to be relevant, along with any appropriate background causal factors.
E - O - D
