Target Store: Moms 10,000 sign Petition to Ban Guns

[Madcap_Magician]

Let me explain: They are exercising their rights under two articles of the Bill of Rights, the First and Second.

A right, by definition, is something you don't NEED to justify.

Vern, they have no First and Second Amendment rights on a private person's or corporation's private property. The Bill of Rights only restrains the actions of state actors.

You have no more right to carry a rifle into Chipotle than you do to walk into a Shell gas station with no shirt or shoes.

 

[barnbwt]

What changed this was not because of in-your-face demonstrations, but getting organized to become a meaningful political force. When our legislators realized that we could make or break many of them at election time a whole lot of perceptions changed, and it ceased to be a Republican v. Democrat issue.

This is the point I'm trying to make. AZ has few restrictions, notably as far as OC is concerned for this conversation. I am told and have seen that OC seems accepted-to-common in the state. How and by what mechanism did that happen? I want open-carry to be common and accepted in Texas, since that is the only way to ensure the next legislative push won't ban it again; but how do we get there? As I said before; at some point between now and after the new law passes, we'll have to start carrying handguns if we want to keep that right. Since rifles/handguns are not and should not be perceived as substantially more lethal than each other (more 'appropriate' maybe, but that's not a legal matter) we would want them to share similar status in the public/legal eye, ideally. That would suggest they would need similar marketing, or at the very least, similar levels of publicity to keep people aware of the freedom to open carry, and why it is important to maintain that freedom.

I don't see how you can ultimately promote a freedom without acting on it in some capacity (and the only capacity to do so publicly in Texas at the moment is with rifles). Because I believe the goal of accepted open carry is achievable (while it was historically common to see pistols and rifles daily in all walks of life, some on the boards now claim we can never return to that culture), I have to believe there is some way to both promote our cause effectively, as well as a way to act upon the freedom we are working to win.

barnbwt, that's the best rationale you can come up with?

Um...yes. That is exactly my reasoning, feel free to poke holes in it, I guess? I still don't see why we'd want OC laws off the books if we don't want anyone to practice it anywhere. If you agree the goal is to eventually get to a place where people can practice OC in some places according to their personal discretion, would agree that we need to at some point tolerate people carrying openly in accordance with the law, by their personal discretion? And if that time is not now, then when and where?

TCB

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Wrong on that one, but nice try getting folks riled up!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp

(The Toys for Tots thing is also mentioned in there.)

He's correct, actually. It's even mentioned in the link that you threw out.

I also wanted to mention that I think a lot of you are assuming too much about what is happening without doing any research.

Carry on.

 

[Sol]

No, it is a very fair comparison.


The closed-off, well-announced gay street party you tossed out is something I know is occurring, and can choose whether or not to participate in or be involved with. It's on public property.

What you described is not a fair comparison.


When families take vacations to Disneyworld, paying a few hundred dollars for entry tickets, they don't expect to walk into a gay party parade. It's inappropriate - even if one supports gay rights, or is gay himself - to see dozens of dudes dry humping each other and performing other lewd, sexually provocative behavior at a family theme park.

That behavior doesn't make people sympathetic to the lifestyle. It alienates, and if the park tolerates it, makes guests angry at the park and decide to go someplace else for vacation.

Its also why they abandoned that "in your face at the amusement park" campaign.


Now, if that is considered acceptable behavior at the gay day street party . . . I guess its just a commentary on a whole different, sidebar topic.

But at least that political/social protest is not being forced upon private property owners, and shoved in the faces of people who don't want to be annoyed by it.

Well, YOU can choose whether or not to go, the families and businesses on the street have no choice but to attend, whether directly or indirectly.

I can see the complaints at Disneyland, but those "gay families" also paid.
The government legislates gun laws and a myriad of other nonsense.
They don't legislate "family units" or moral behavior.
While I don't really welcome the whole gay thing with open arms, I limit my comments because it involves people.
On a social level it's ok to spew how much you hate guns, they are an object after all.
Once you start getting into murky waters, it's really easy to turn the tables and use terms such as intolerant, bigot, anti-human etc.

 

[barnbwt]

What changed this was not because of in-your-face demonstrations, but getting organized to become a meaningful political force. When our legislators realized that we could make or break many of them at election time a whole lot of perceptions changed, and it ceased to be a Republican v. Democrat issue.

This is the point I'm trying to make. AZ has few restrictions, notably as far as OC is concerned for this conversation. I am told and have seen that OC seems accepted-to-common in the state. How and by what mechanism did that happen? I want open-carry to be common and accepted in Texas, since that is the only way to ensure the next legislative push won't ban it again; but how do we get there? As I said before; at some point between now and after the new law passes, we'll have to start carrying handguns if we want to keep that right. Since rifles/handguns are not and should not be perceived as substantially more lethal than each other (more 'appropriate' maybe, but that's not a legal matter) we would want them to share similar status in the public/legal eye, ideally. That would suggest they would need similar marketing, or at the very least, similar levels of publicity to keep people aware of the freedom to open carry, and why it is important to maintain that freedom.

I don't see how you can ultimately promote a freedom without acting on it in some capacity (and the only capacity to do so publicly in Texas at the moment is with rifles). Because I believe the goal of accepted open carry is achievable (while it was historically common to see pistols and rifles daily in all walks of life, some on the boards now claim we can never return to that culture), I have to believe there is some way to both promote our cause effectively, as well as a way to act upon the freedom we are working to win.

barnbwt, that's the best rationale you can come up with?

Um...yes. That is exactly my reasoning, feel free to poke holes in it, I guess? I still don't see why we'd want OC laws off the books if we don't want anyone to practice it anywhere. If you agree the goal is to eventually get to a place where people can practice OC in some places according to their personal discretion, would agree that we need to at some point tolerate people carrying openly in accordance with the law, by their personal discretion? And if that time is not now, then when and where?

This reminds me of Eula Mae Suggs.

Funny story, but what's it got to do with the price of tea in Dallas? A lot of moaning is going on from both sides, but it's because we're divided and need to sort this out before we take our guns to town (literally and figuratively). I'm rapidly losing hope since the strongly pro/anti-OC contingent seems really emotionally invested in this issue, but gunnies tend to be the more logical set, so hopefully we can all arrive at some common conclusion (not a middle ground; we need to actually solve this discrepancy ). I say we all likely have the same end goals, but that not everyone truly accepts that yet, or at least, haven't thought very hard about the consequences of the gun-rights movement actually winning the issue at last. I once thought weapons bans could end a large portion of violence, but I came to terms with the fact that there is no easy solution; gun owners need to come to terms with the fact that firearms freedom means there will be people who strain our tolerance, but that the benefits of reduced restriction far outweigh the increased lawlessness*.

To think this whole situation could have been averted if the Dallas DA had pressed charges against those two guys...anybody know anything about the Tarrant County DA Office's opinion on the matter? Why or why it should not constitute illegal brandishing? I think that's a very important topic that's being dutifully avoided by all sides, here.

TCB

*Yes, lawlessness, as in lack of laws; as in lack of gun carry laws.

 

[barnbwt]

The closed-off, well-announced gay street party you tossed out is something I know is occurring, and can choose whether or not to participate in or be involved with. It's on public property.

Ha! You should visit Austin some time, if you don't; you have to wade through some kind of organized protest or festival or even almost every day. "Choosing not to participate" isn't much of an option. And that's not even counting the assorted weirdos, hipsters, d-bags, bums, stoners, and run of the mill idiots that are far more offensive but don't give advance warning . I do think it's basic decency to warn or announce your event beforehand, and to seek permissions from the people in charge of where you'll be; that's just good manners. Supposedly, the vast, vast majority of OC protests operate in this manner and raise no hackles other than the MAIG set (who, it seems, are usually protesting or being protested by the OC'ers) and those who read about it in unsympathetic media.

TCB

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, they have no First and Second Amendment rights on a private person's or corporation's private property. The Bill of Rights only restrains the actions of state actors.

You have no more right to carry a rifle into Chipotle than you do to walk into a Shell gas station with no shirt or shoes.

Actually, they DO have First and Second Amendment rights. I can walk into a store with a T-Shirt that has a political message on it, can't I?

They can ASK me to leave, but until they do, I'm within my rights.

And once again, whining about what other people are DOING, while we sit on our hands is not advancing the cause in any way.

 

[TennJed]

Actually, they DO have First and Second Amendment rights. I can walk into a store with a T-Shirt that has a political message on it, can't I?

They can ASK me to leave, but until they do, I'm within my rights.

And once again, whining about what other people are DOING, while we sit on our hands is not advancing the cause in any way.

So what have you done today about this issue other that complain on a internet message board? I sent a respectful message to OCT CEO, VP, and director of marketing asking them to make a public statement against the actions of these few individuals.

Here is their contact info. Hopefully we can get enough people filling up their inbox that MAYBE we can make a little difference

President/CEO - CJ Grisham
[email protected]

Vice President/Chief Communications Officer - Victoria Montgomery
[email protected]

Director Marketing and Branding - Pliny Gale
[email protected]


I would like to find some email addresses for Open carry texas tarrant county but cannot. If anyone does have some please post them.

Vern what have you done?

 

[Old Fuff]

This is the point I'm trying to make. AZ has few restrictions, notably as far as OC is concerned for this conversation.

We always had open carry going back to the frontier days – with the exception that a few towns prohibited it within the city limits. This was to give the town’s marshal some leverage when some (so called) cowboys got drunk and started shooting at anything that got their attention, including gas-fired street lamps.

When Arizona became a state a new constitution was written, and this was when concealed carry for anyone except law enforcement officers was banned.

This got turned around when modern legislators started getting enough mail on the subject to worry them.

Generally speaking those living in rural areas with no likelihood of getting a quick response to a 911 call were lobbied by pro-CCW advocates, and got off their dead butts. As the numbers of letters, e-mails and such increased so did a change to allowing concealed weapons carry with a “shall issue” license system. This was then, and you can see what we have now.

Start by calling for open carry outside of major cities where population density is thin and then when you get that go forward from there. Baby steps work better then trying to get it all in one big gulp. Also don’t hesitate to point out that those states around you that have open carry now haven’t found that it caused any noteworthy issues. This blunts the "blood running in the streets," argument.

As a side note: While back I was in a local Supermarket stocking up. Place was full of women, many with children doing the same thing. In walks a young man open carrying a Glock and nothing that would indicate he was associated with any law enforcement organization. So I followed him around to see if they’re was any reaction on the part of other shoppers.

They’re was absolutely none.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So what have you done today about this issue other that complain on a internet message board? I sent a respectful message to OCT CEO, VP, and director of marketing asking them to make a public statement against the actions of these few individuals.

Quote a bit, actually. As Secretary of my local Republican Committee, and Republican representative on the County Election Commission, I'm running early voting in the Republican runoff for Arkansas Attorney General. We have two excellent candidates who are pledged to advance our Second Amendment rights.

What have you done today?

 

[Dean1818]

@barnbwt

so how is the OC protest working for you guys? Any examples where it achieved something?

Because if you do it over and over again - and it always leads to the same outcome (= chains banning OC on their premises) ... then MAYBE it's time to rethink the strategy :banghead:

As A Texas CHL holder I agree 100%

 

[Dean1818]

I have to say, it's ok to NOT agree that we have to have open carry everywhere.

The last I checked it was still America where you can have a dissenting opinion

I can understand asking fellow gun owners to stand together....but

To have a different opinion, even a little bit gets some peoples dander up

I see no issue with OC in rural settings. However, CC gives allows me to have my 2A rights covered just fine in urban settings

There is a time and place for everything.

I am concerned most about the VOTING public that is "out of sight and out of mind " types

A few more of the OC "activities" and all of a sudden their may be no CC either in MOST places vs. just a few

I am of a type that if someone posts anti gun, I don't go in, even if the sign is illegal.... It's their place..... Their choice

The in your face crap isn't helping anyone.....

 

[barnbwt]

Start by calling for open carry outside of major cities where population density is thin and then when you get that go forward from there. Baby steps work better then trying to get it all in one big gulp.

You ferget this here's Texas; we don't do baby-anythings

The problem is we would rather not encourage the practice of cities imposing more stringent laws than the countryside; one rule of law is enough. And in that one rule of law is a single passage forbidding the open carry of firearms. So, we either accept that Austin, Dallas, and Houston metro areas can and will ban open carry (followed soon after by God knows what else, no doubt) or we tackle this open-carry issue in one gulp. From what I can tell, the particular circumstances in Texas make this method the most practical (with a very intermittent legislature, it would be incredibly hard to keep them focused on a niche issue like this for multiple sequential sessions; we only get one shot every few years). Now, would polite Texans realize that big guns (pistol or long guns, both) may not be socially acceptable in all boroughs right away, and then tread lightly if at all to start off with? Yes. Are all Texans polite? No. Should we expect occasional grand-standery from jerks if we give them the freedom to do so? I don't think we have much of a choice.

The only "baby steps" we could take would be to pass open carry and simultaneously strengthen brandishing laws enough that people would be very hesitant to try a Chipotle stunt without getting everyone on board. But knowing the fickle mistress known as politics, we'd likely get the restrictions but not open carry :banghead:

So I followed him around to see if they’re was any reaction on the part of other shoppers.

They’re was absolutely none.

Well, except yours

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

I am concerned most about the VOTING public that is "out of sight and out of mind " types

I've said it before; if we allow our goals to be shaped by our opposition, we've already lost. Do you want all guns allowed everywhere, or not? That's the issue at hand. It's really quite simple when you get down to it.

Then, we get lost in the weeds of when it's appropriate and reasonable, who will take reasonable offense, what types of carry are the most reasonable, how we should all act in order to be perceived as reasonable people, and...

Yes, there's a risk of pushback, but that's history. No matter how slow we push, there will be a recoil. The same thing happened when the anti's were on top; the tide eventually turned against them when conditions weren't favorable. I say we see how far we can go, since we'll regret it when the tide turns once more.

TCB

 

[Sam1911]

I've said it before; if we allow our goals to be shaped by our opposition, we've already lost. Do you want all guns allowed everywhere, or not? That's the issue at hand. It's really quite simple when you get down to it.

That might be a simple goal to state, and it may even, for the sake of argument, be one that "most" gun folks would support, but the path there can be intelligent (strategic, well planned and smart) or brutishly direct (thoughtless, unplanned, unaware, almost certain failure).

Then, we get lost in the weeds of when it's appropriate and reasonable, who will take reasonable offense, what types of carry are the most reasonable, how we should all act in order to be perceived as reasonable people, and...

Two ways of looking at this. Either those concerns are getting us "lost in the weeds" or those concerns are the entire game, and we win or lose that game based on how well we understand those issues and plan our moves.

Yes, there's a risk of pushback, but that's history. No matter how slow we push, there will be a recoil. The same thing happened when the anti's were on top; the tide eventually turned against them when conditions weren't favorable.

Almost anyone who succeeds at accomplishing anything will tell you of the strategy they had to employ to realize their goals. The runner knows he can't start out throwing everything he's got into his speed -- he'll fall flat long before he gets to the finish line. A guy felling a tree doesn't swing that axe one time with all his might and expect it to fall. A young romeo doesn't set out to win the fruits of a young lady's affection by grabbing her and tossing her onto a bed. And an "all firearms accepted anywhere at any time" attitude is not going to be developed in our society by frightening/startling/alarming very large numbers of people at once with our guns.

If this actually IS a goal we as a group care to win, we're going to have to use the tools of patience, strategy, and intelligence to stretch society's expectations and acceptance a little bit at a time -- a little here, a little there, then more and more until years down the road folks look around and realize that guns are now everywhere and they aren't bothered by it.

Sure, there's a LITTLE opposition to each step, a little discomfort, a negative reaction or two each time we push a half-step ahead, but that's ok. Things settle back down and we move ahead a little more. But if we're pushing so hard so fast that we run up a huge bow wave of opposition all at once, we're gonna get swamped.

I.e.: a little opposition is inevitable and can be surmounted in small doses. Getting the whole country scared and opposed at once will just mean we lose all position and credibility.

I say we see how far we can go, since we'll regret it when the tide turns once more.

Oh absolutely! But not stupidly, and not all at once. Bulling ahead like the tide's about to turn against us will only bring on that turn of the tide faster than ever.

 

[Curator]

These same "target-moms" hope against hope that their man is up to the task when the SHTF. No matter, inside Target stores or anywhere, women want Chuck Norris to be there at their side. Lacking that, Casper Milquetoast with an attitude and a .25 caliber pimp-gun will do, even if it is against the store's wishes.

My ex-wife, who was solidly anti-gun and would sign any petition to take guns from ordinary citizens was the perfect case in point. When camping in Ocala Nat. Forest, three OTV guys with ski-masks thought she and a couple of the teen-age girls would provide some fun and maybe more. My unexpected appearance with Mr.870 12 gauge changed their mind but not hers. Go figure!

Many people respond to threatening situations emotionally, not logically. There is no denying the logic of 9 pieces of 00 buckshot or 158 grains of .38 special. Unfortunately, facts do not counter emotions.

 

[Old Fuff]

So I followed him around to see if they’re was any reaction on the part of other shoppers.

They’re was absolutely none.

Well, except yours

I like to think that under the circumstances I was just a fly on the wall...

==================

I would be delighted if the folks in Texas could push through a bill that resulted in 100% open carry anywhere in the state. However at this time I wonder if they could get anything passed that didn't exclude the few big cities. Here in Arizona we fought to get a toehold, proved that it didn't cause the problems opponents proposed, and then went forward from there.

I know Texas is different in many ways...

 

[Officers'Wife]

Riiiight. It's all the fault of gun owners.

And you know this because the mainstream media told you so.

Hi Vern,

It's more like standard cause and effect. That group in Texas had their little demonstration carrying rifles into stores hoping to cause a reaction. This may or may not be the reaction they wanted but it's the reaction we have. Now it the time to figure out how to minimize the damage.

 

[gunsandreligion]

BULLFROGKEN
Barnbwt, I most certainly can support Open Carry while at the same time condemn foolish behavior done in the name of a protest.

The guys carrying rifles into privately-owned urban businesses are not doing it because its normal behavior. People don't walk about their daily life carrying rifles on 3 point slings. Handguns in holsters, openly displayed or concealed, sure. But I carried a rifle as an infantryman, and it's not convenient. Its a pain in the rear doing daily tasks with a rifle hanging off you.

The guys doing this are doing it to be provacative and take selfies to share with friends.


Guns are not props to be used for attention-seeking stunts.

I support open carry. I do not support this juvenile behavior.

+1


Carrying a rifle into a public area is completely irresponsible. I open carry occasionally in my area, and it is generally viewed as normal, although I only ever do that dressed and acting in a manner as not to alarm. There is absolutely no reason for the carrying of rifles or very large rifle caliber pistols in public. In a defense situation a rifle could be incredibly dangerous to bystanders while presenting no advantage over a handgun. Every nongun person I know views such behavior as that of delusional wackos. These attention getting stunts have the potential to become incredibly detrimental to the more sophisticated and responsible reputation gun owners have been gaining recently.

 

[1911 guy]

The latest development seems to be Moms Demand Action being suspected of placing a loaded handgun in the toy section of a Target store. Of course carry will be banned after a tragic "accident", right?

To be fair, it is only suspicion at this point, but the fact remains that a loaded handgun was found in the toy aisle.

 

[barnbwt]

Sam1911; voice of reason as always. At least someone here seems to understand where I'm coming from.

Almost anyone who succeeds at accomplishing anything will tell you of the strategy they had to employ to realize their goals. The runner knows he can't start out throwing everything he's got into his speed -- he'll fall flat long before he gets to the finish line. A guy felling a tree doesn't swing that axe one time with all his might and expect it to fall. A young romeo doesn't set out to win the fruits of a young lady's affection by grabbing her and tossing her onto a bed.

Those three examples are all perfect illustrations of individuals with clear, focused goals. I'm not sure we're there yet, so going very far down the road is a poor decision, in my mind. I honestly don't want us to get OC down here before we understand what we want to do with it, because individuals will act on their own interpretations and inevitably make miscalculations. If we don't know which we can tolerate ahead of time, it will be very easy for the opposition to seize upon them and divide & discredit us. Whether all gun owners agree with the premise or not, pretty much everyone knows the premises of the CCW, BCG, and AWB debates; I want that clarity for open carry before we start flipping legal switches with unintended consequences.

Two ways of looking at this. Either those concerns are getting us "lost in the weeds" or those concerns are the entire game, and we win or lose that game based on how well we understand those issues and plan our moves.

Any reason we can't do both? They're hardly incompatible. A philosophy/world view underpins and directs a political movement, but political action is what actually wins battles. You need both, or your movement will either take on a mind of its own and wander off message, or die off in frustration in seeking the perfect in lieu of the good. Perhaps it is just individuals within the movement who cannot think along both lines simultaneously, and we can possibly find understanding in that we serve the same goals but in different ways? One group mans the rudder and the crow's nest (up in the clouds), another the oars (down in the filthy, filthy bilge ) and hopefully there's at least one leader who can see both perspectives directing them. Both groups need each other to get anywhere, at least until we're no longer becalmed in the mainstream media (okay, no more boat-references).

On that note, allow me to say we need guys willing to make fools of themselves for the cause, because plenty of us are not so enthusiastic; but we need tactical minds directing their foolish energy in useful ways. Anyone stop to wonder if the OCT-TC guys may have tired of poor or otherwise ineffective leadership, and tried striking out on their own? From what I gather, they'd done the same organized, 'respectable' protests a zillion times on public venues for years to no discernible effect; so can we blame them for wanting to change tactics? But with change comes risk, and a need for rational thinking; lacking the latter, they found the former.

If this actually IS a goal we as a group care to win, we're going to have to use the tools of patience, strategy, and intelligence to stretch society's expectations and acceptance a little bit at a time -- a little here, a little there, then more and more until years down the road folks look around and realize that guns are now everywhere and they aren't bothered by it.

Sure, there's a LITTLE opposition to each step, a little discomfort, a negative reaction or two each time we push a half-step ahead, but that's ok. Things settle back down and we move ahead a little more. But if we're pushing so hard so fast that we run up a huge bow wave of opposition all at once, we're gonna get swamped.

Smartest thing I've read tonight. Emphasis mine, and the rest is truthy, as well (and a bunch more maritime metaphors )

TCB

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Target Store: Moms 10,000 sign Petition (in 24 hours) to Ban Guns


http://www.wlwt.com/money/Mom-s-group-wants-Target-to-ban-guns-in-stores/26331192#!U6Wrn


"Gun control group Mom's Demand Action for Gun Sense in America launched an online petition calling for Target to prohibit people from openly carrying guns in its stores."


So....why did Moms get this petition going?


"The recent petitions were triggered by rallies from gun enthusiasts that show them openly carrying firearms, including large assault rifles, into public places like restaurants and stores, which has alarmed customers."


Nice going OCT, now what store is next to ban guns? We really showed them...didn't we?

.

Nothing more dangerous than a misinformed or agenda driven Woman.

 

[barnbwt]

"The recent petitions were triggered by rallies from gun enthusiasts that show them openly carrying firearms, including large assault rifles, into public places like restaurants and stores, which has alarmed customers."

http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/tag/texas-penal-code/

Yesterday, three more OCT members were cited under Penal Code Section 42.01(a)(8) in Austin. This comes on the heels of three individuals in San Antonio being cited under the same offense for lawfully carrying openly according to Texas law and the Constitution.

The Penal Code reads, “DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly…(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”

As can be plainly seen, we already have a suitable mechanism for reigning in the worst shenanigans of OC provocateurs (or even agent provocateurs ). OCT themselves readily admit their activities are restrained by the statute, but then of course defy logic/experience/evidence/reason to say that they aren't breaking the law because they don't intend to alarm anyone (conveniently ignoring the "knowingly" and "calculated" parts in conjunction with their own personal experience of causing alarm to people by their specific actions ). The Chipotle guys can still be cited for disorderly conduct by the video/photographic evidence; I'm not entirely sure why they haven't been . A few bail/bond payments, some public condemnation of illegal behavior, and these fools' resources to protest will dry up overnight; problem solved.

Note: I've been saying the OCTC guys should be cited for brandishing, but from what I understand, there is no specific brandishing statute in Texas law, and it is instead lumped into the disorderly conduct statute along with equally unsafe behavior from all other manner of weapons (carrying a bow or knife in a manner calculated to cause alarm is equally punished). Seems a very reasonable approach to curtailing the root problem of unsafe behavior, if you ask me, which is certainly not limited to firearms carry.

TCB