The response of nationwide stores to Open Carry Texas...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't blame the stores

Not that anyone cares what I think, but I don't blame the stores for their reaction to this.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Around here the ranges and gun stores have a sign out front that if you walk in carrying a weapon in the open they assume you are going to rob them. Makes sense to me.

It seems to me that common sense is drying up. Offending people is not the way to get them to agree or at least accept your way of thinking. If the store does nothing, then they are agreeing by omission which will offend those who do not agree.

At one time the right to disagree made our nation strong but now we have polarized so many issues that can never be resolved. The middle ground is disappearing.
 
I have a constitutional right to call people "fathead." But if I start walking up to people in stores or my place of business and calling people "fathead" left and right, I shouldn't be surprised if 1.) I'm asked to leave and 2.) the store or employer develops or re-emphasizes an anti-bullying/anti-verbal-abuse policy.

And if a third person sees reactions 1 & 2, even if they believe in free speech, they're not very likely to get upset.
 
I warned you guys a couple of posts ago that MDA is trolling FB to find pictures to use against us!
Hence number 6 in the official OCT press release ....

"6) Do not post pics publicly if you do get permission and are able to OC in a cooperate business."

They are well aware of the fact that photos are being taken out of context and used by the antis as fuel for their gun control campaign.


Out of context? Exactly what factors am I supposed to see when there are pictures and videos of you guys entering or attempting to enter TABC Licensed businesses?
 
Does anyone know what other states have TABC like requirements for the retailer to keep firearms out of the establishment?
I don't know exactly, but I do know other states have different laws, like how Georgia (I think) recently made carry in bars legal. TX also has some goofy ways of determining the nature of the establishment (the 51% rule thing, which allows carry in walmart but not a liquor store, and only some restaurants). Like I said, it is complicated, and I would be doing some careful research and seek knowledgeable peoples' opinions before making a plan of action (maybe not lawyers, because $, but at the very least recommendations from people who know the rules well)

Does anyone from OCT post here?
Probably. After all, THR is a great resource for getting the word out, getting feedback, advice, and working to get people in your corner, even aside from all the non-productive blathering that goes on here from everyone. Of course OCT members are here, but they understandably want to keep a low profile; I imagine most do not actually endorse the most obnoxious behavior on display, and are embarrassed to be associated with it, though they still support the mission/goal.

At one time the right to disagree made our nation strong but now we have polarized so many issues that can never be resolved. The middle ground is disappearing.
That's real lamentable, and everything, but there actually is no 'middle ground' on irreconcilable issues. The middle simply sort themselves into either side as they are made aware of the circumstances. Gun rights is ultimately as wide a philosophical divide as any other we've had in this country, and it will eventually be settled when once side submits and moves on to another outrage. We went through this with slavery, currency, international intrigue, civil rights, and now gun rights. The practical stakes aren't as apparent because we're talking lumps of metal, but the same balance between state and individual is at play as always; there is no compromise even if we wanted one.

TCB
 
I have another reason why Corporations are asking "No OC" in their stores.

If Klingons carrying edged weapons were common, would they tolerate that? No. Why? Because regardless of the rights of the individual to carry whatever they please, there is also a commensurate responsibility to handle them without injuring other citizens in near proximity.

If you have been thru Basic Training, and carried a long arm 24/7 for weeks on end, you know - a front sight between the eyes, getting banged in the head, having the gun catch on the surroundings and impacting the carrier or another individual nearby, it all happens and it's entirely due to complete clumsiness and a lack of experience.

Hopefully no one with a tactical serrated muzzle device has a kid run up close and open up their scalp chasing their sister in the store. Klingon or OCT, it's going to be a ugly situation with the bloody child crying, an outraged mother in someone's face, security, EMT's, LEO's, management, lawyers, judges, and about 20 million people remembering the name of "that guy who OC'd and tore up the poor kid."

It won't be any less if it was a set of protected sight ears or whatever. Kids bounce around in stores, adults brush by, and if anything, the public being used to it means even more indifference and ignorance about the likelihood of ND's ricochets, etc.

There are very specific and strongly enforced rules in the military about when you do and don't carry loaded, all based not on the combat situation as much as what humans will do in error, and getting your team mates shot by negligent handling. It's exactly the reason why even CCW aren't welcome in some places. How many toilets have to be shot to make that point?

Apparently some still don't get it. OC as an expression of our specific legal rights isn't what is being opposed as much as the stupid things that happen when we do. I suspect that even an OC proponent who is center punched between the eyes by his buddy's rifle slipping off their shoulder will immediately compare their cranium to their colon and describe the similarity of it's contents.

If you have served, you've likely heard it, too. Explicitly. From your team mates, companions, Drill instructors, and commanders.

You don't just start OC'ing in public in a crowd of people without consequences. And that is exactly why the reasonable person does not. He knows it can happen, doesn't want it to happen to him, and by extension, does not do it out of consideration of others.

Only the truly arrogant and egotistical think it can't happen. And, when it does, the reality comes as a flash of light and a resounding sense of pain directly in their skull. For those who still don't get it, the application of the blunt end of the rifle to the same area reinforces the message, too.

Stupid people have a hard life. We all get stupid, the smarter ones extend the lessons to other parts of their life. ie, Klingons with edged weapons are not welcome in the store.

Not rocket science to see why customers are being asked not to carry, and why employees are restricted completely. I might chafe against my rights being denied, but reality is that I really don't want to OC all day long when I'm busy waiting on customers. And those customers that do OC aren't getting by that easy when they add what they have purchased to what they are already carrying.

Slung rifle, check. Curtain rods, check, four foot flourescent tubes, check, broom, check, axe, check, 8 foot PVC, check, trim boards, check.

You gotta be kidding me. Put it in a cart? Sure, the rifle goes first at the front door, I'll push it down the aisles, thank you.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that TX is a large enough market all on its own, but if other states have the same restriction then the retailer faces an additional need to make a national policy, as Shooter has pointed out, to respond promptly and efficiently to the local, regional, and national attention.

Looks like AZ has a law against it as well. *they are the only one I looked up, as they arguably one of the least restricted states when it pertains to firearm laws.



29. For any person other than a peace officer or a member of a sheriff's volunteer posse while on duty who has received firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board, the licensee or an employee of the licensee acting with the permission of the licensee to be in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer. This paragraph shall not apply to:

(a) Hotel or motel guest room accommodations.

(b) The exhibition or display of a firearm in conjunction with a meeting, show, class or similar event.

(c) A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 who carries a concealed handgun on the licensed premises of any on-sale retailer that has not posted a notice pursuant to section 4-229.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/4/00244.htm
 
Looks like AZ has a law against it as well. *they are the only one I looked up, as they arguably one of the least restricted states when it pertains to firearm laws.
This is part of our liquor code (no OC in bars except in some circumstances) and would not apply to retil stores like Target.

Mike
 
Ideal, no, but about the best they could make.
They've asked people coming on their property to not bring firearms into the stores, but they've not posted them. By not posting their establishments they've avoided making carry on the premises against the law. By asking they've placated Michael Bloomberg's organization publicly (which was able to gather enough support to move the needle with these businesses while we sat around complaining).

Is it ideal by anyone's standards? Not by Bloomberg's and not to us, but as a compromise it is about as inoffensive as possible.
Right on the nose. agree
 
My personal opinion is that they are the biggest idiots in the world and are doing more harm to the right to bear arms than school shootings. They are reinforcing every bad stereotype that antigunners have and its a matter of time before one of them gets mistaken for an active shooter and gets shot probably by a CCW holder and won't the antis just love that.
 
This is part of our liquor code (no OC in bars except in some circumstances) and would not apply to retil stores like Target.
I stand corrected. Guess I should have looked up the definitions to your On-Sale and Off-Sale :)
 
This is what happens when you have in your face open carry demonstrations. They are going about this in the wrong way. The general public is rejecting their methods as are many gun owners. The will end up reaping the opposite of what they want.

The stores are reacting to the reaction of the general public and I cannot blame them. I don't like it, I don't support it, but I understand their position.
In concept, I agree.
 
Could these Open Carry Fools actually be conspiring members of an anti-gun organization wanting to inflict the most damage to the pro-gun movement with the least expense and greatest potential for nation wide publicity?
I have my suspicions along that line as well.

Not all those OCing long arms are members of MDA or some such group, but I wouldn't be surprised if an anti-gun group is running a false flag operation and finding enough useful idiots to (unknowingly) go along with them.

This reminds me of newspapers publishing the names of CC permit holders.
1. Is it legal?
2. Should it be done just because it's legal?

I know a number of states have since passed laws / had decisions / directives handed down by the state AG that lists of CC permit holders are no longer to be released to the public.

If the clowns carry long arms openly in retail establishments persist, you can expect similar (or worse) results.
 
I hope some of the OCT members are seeing what is going on.

Change the tactics please before you get EVERY business to post.


This recent negative actions are MOSTLY on you. Please don't take your 1A rights to the extreme, that is actually limiting EVERYONEs 2A

Shout loud and long for your rights, be peaceable, financially support a pro 2a candidate, then VOTE!

This isn't the 1840s with Indians flinging arrows. There is a time and a place for everything.

I have to be honest. I have loved shooting my whole life and have a great love for 2A. I love getting
New loads dialed in for my AR.

However, I don't want to be in a society that AR15s and AK47s are slung over every shoulder
In every setting. It's just not practical.

I will also say, as a CCW, if I see someone walk in a business with a semi auto weapon, I am not more comfortable, I am less. I wonder if I will have to use my CCW weapon pea shooter.
Imagine what the person that has NO gun experience thinks?

Do you think that adds 2A supporters, really?

The person that is now on the fence about the topic, may now become an ardent supporter and contributor to Anti 2A activities.

Remember...... This person votes! We are ONE vote away on the Supreme Court from having things change in a HUGE way for gun ownership..... 5-4 on the last major gun vote. That's an end zone catch. That's kicking the winning field goal with 10 seconds left.

I know many people in Texas CCW anyway when there is a non-legit sign......... I choose to not, because I do believe in property rights (corp or individual)

In Vietnam a strategy of winning hearts and minds was employed. All it took was one over aggressive soldier, and the good will built up was immediately destroyed.

The average 2A person is being lumped in with these actions, on a nationwide level.

Most of the pro2a gun owners aren't with you............

Sorry for the rant, but I will speak my mind when actions from the few could ultimately cost me MY rights
 
Last edited:
Now... For those of you who I consistently hear supporting these stores for saying "no guns", because their establishments were used as a speaking platform for this movement, do you still think they made the ideal decision?
Yes I do. Target's decision will not deter me from shopping there. I frequent Target mostly because their average shopper is more courteous and well behaved than the average Walmart shopper so I drive past WM to get to Target.

I like the food at Chipolte and they haven't posted a No Gun sign so I continue to frequent them, often while concealed carrying, yet I am boycotting other restaurants that I like better than Chipolte because the other restaurants have recently posted legally enforceable No Gun signs.

I don't drink coffee so I still don't frequent Starbucks.
 
We know a good bit more just due to this thread -

If you sell alcohol in Tx the TABC (Tx Alcohol Control Board) can pull your license to sell if you don't tell people openly carrying firearms to leave the property.

TABC said:
Originally Posted by TABC
Reminder: "Long guns" prohibited in TABC-licensed businesses.
With the recent publicity surrounding the open carrying of rifles and shotguns, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) would like to remind the public of the following:

Although an individual may have the legal authority to openly carry certain firearms in public, a business that is licensed to sell or serve alcoholic beverages is prohibited by state law from allowing rifles or shotguns in the building.

Specifically, Section 11.61(e) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code says that TABC shall, after the opportunity for a hearing, cancel a permit if the permittee knowingly allowed a person to possess a firearm in a building on the licensed premises. There are some exceptions included in this law, including licensed concealed handguns.

If an individual does choose to carry a rifle or shotgun into a TABC-licensed business, the individual is placing the business owner's TABC license at risk. Also remember, a business owner may ask a patron to leave the premises. If the patron refuses, that individual may be subject to criminal trespassing charges under Texas Penal Code Section 30.05.

We ask that Texans, while exercising individual rights, please respect the obligations of business owners under state law.

Openly going into retailers and restaurants in Tx and elsewhere puts the business at real risk of having their license cancelled. Doing so to draw attention and then publishing it on the internet provides proof of the violation of TX TABC rules and increases the risk to the business making it impossible for them to ignore the activity. This has gotten enough attention not only in TX, but nationwide that the TX TABC has published the above reminder and THAT is hard proof that posing with obvious OC like ARs and AKs puts the businesses in the unhappy position to publish openly that they ask customers to not carry on the premises.

Anyone faulting these businesses isn't paying attention to the facts of the situation or isn't interested in the facts.
 
I agree with private property laws as well. I can rudely ask anyone to leave my home for whatever reason I want. Race, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, ugly shoes, pink hair, etc.

Stores, however, are open to the public. They have to maintain public restrooms, have X amount of handicapped parking spaces, and although they "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," their ability to do so is pretty limited. A man carrying a rifle in the store qualifies. A holstered handgun, concealed or open, if legal, does not. If a man walked into a store I owned or managed with a rifle, slung or otherwise, he would be asked to leave. To be honest, I don't even see that in gun stores.

If box stores started posting "No black T shirts" signs and kicking people out because of them, a whole lotta folks would be complaining about it. Even the folks saying "property rights!" would be saying "They don't have the right to tell me what to wear!" Black T shirts have as much effect on a business as my handgun..

However, I will still honor their wishes, by shopping elsewhere.

Personally, I think the "Please don't bring your guns" without posting signs approach started by Starbucks is a good way to handle the aftermath of the OC demonstrations. Best way to come out on top. No more OC demonstrations, the antis scream "we won!" a few progunners scream "boycott!" meanwhile there's not a "no guns" sign and carry on the property is still legal...
 
Personally, I think the "Please don't bring your guns" without posting signs approach started by Starbucks is a good way to handle the aftermath of the OC demonstrations. Best way to come out on top. No more OC demonstrations, the antis scream "we won!" a few progunners scream "boycott!" meanwhile there's not a "no guns" sign and carry on the property is still legal...
I agree. I think the leaderships of these organizations have done a fantastic job addressing the situation. Their goal at the end of the day is to avoid these situations in the future without pissing off too many people in the process. They have done that. I can go to Target tomorrow concealed with no problems. But the OCT guys know they are not welcome(rightly) and will almost certainly not test those waters again.

Very unfortunate situation they were put in but they have done a great job managing thru it.
 
Personally, I think the "Please don't bring your guns" without posting signs approach started by Starbucks is a good way to handle the aftermath of the OC demonstrations. Best way to come out on top. No more OC demonstrations, the antis scream "we won!" a few progunners scream "boycott!" meanwhile there's not a "no guns" sign and carry on the property is still legal...
So what you're saying is it's only a negative outcome for the groups we already don't care about? :p (anti's don't get their gun free zone, OCT doesn't get their parade ground, and meathead gunnies don't let themselves shop there anymore ;))

I have high praise for stores taking this approach; it is a very fair and measured solution. Just as a verbal correction is often more useful than an incarceration, so is this non-binding "corporate policy" reprimand. We all know the knee-jerk reaction could easily have been to post a law-carrying sign, or demand "there should be a law" publicly, but a controlled response was made instead. Impressive :cool:

TCB
 
On both sides of the debate - e.g. the Mothers/MAIG and the OCT folks - tend to the fringes. The large body politic (and body apathetic) tend towards the center of the curve (possibly even generally tend a bit further towards the Mothers’ side). Most of “noise” however is generated at the fringes of the curve. In other words picking hypothetical numbers 2% of each side of the debate generates the noise – the other 98% of us react to that noise in differing ways (and that 98% is most of the shopping public for Target, Starbucks, etc...)

The question is what kind of noise is generated at the fringe, and what impact does it have on the rest of us? The intentional generation of fear (or shock value) seems to be a tactic that both sides of the fringe are comfortable in engaging in for their own respective political and social purposes. Yes, more commonly on the anti-RKBA side, but OCT is showing a new kind of shock value being used by ostensibly pro-RKBA groups.

Such extremists are engaging in tactics that basically using shock value (in the case of OCT, ostensibly to desensitize mainstream folks to the presence of firearms, but are merely disturbing order on private property and potentially scaring/intimidating “mainstream” folks).

On the other side are the anti-RKBA activists who seldom pass up the opportunity to stir up fear, or more cravenly, capitalize on fears in the aftermath of tragedy.

The extremists on the OC side seem to want to make people more comfortable with firearms, with a tactic that plainly consternates mainstream folks. The OC extremists want to make the point about responsible firearms handling, while handling their firearms in rather irresponsible ways (reference the infamous photo of the two OCT yahoos in Starbucks, one in a “ready” position).

The extremists on the anti-RKBA side want to make people uncomfortable with firearms, by fear-mongering, and now lampooning the activities of the OC extremists. Whose agenda do the OC extremists play into more effectively – the pro-RKBA side, or the antis?

It isn’t as though the more extreme OC advocates are unaware of what effect they have on mainstream folks (usually not positive). The technique of their protests usually distract from the whatever RKBA/constitutional agenda they had behind the protest.

Both contingents of extremists are using fear mongering in some form or another, to try and sway more and more of the mainstream body apathetic. The extreme OC folks are combining fear mongering and shock value, and one has to wonder about the point of diminishing returns on this technique. The extreme anti folks are combining fear mongering with impassioned pleas to "save the children".

Which approach is going to resonate more favorably in the main body politic? And what if the tactics of those focused on a relatively narrow question (OC) are serving to further the agenda of those with a much broader anti-RKBA agenda?
 
Yes I do. Target's decision will not deter me from shopping there. I frequent Target mostly because their average shopper is more courteous and well behaved than the average Walmart shopper so I drive past WM to get to Target.

I like the food at Chipolte and they haven't posted a No Gun sign so I continue to frequent them, often while concealed carrying, yet I am boycotting other restaurants that I like better than Chipolte because the other restaurants have recently posted legally enforceable No Gun signs.

I don't drink coffee so I still don't frequent Starbucks.

Ok, so you are saying that their decision to ask "no guns" is a better decision than asking "no open carry". ...and you are openly willing to skirt their request by carrying concealed. Point taken.

If you violate their request by CCing, and someone else violates their request by OCing, do you believe the OCer to be more "wrong" because people can spot the violation?
 
If you violate their request by CCing, and someone else violates their request by OCing, do you believe the OCer to be more "wrong" because people can spot the violation?

From one way of looking at it, no not more wrong, just dumber because he's likely going to be asked to leave before he manages to grab what he came for. That would be stupidly self-defeating.

From another way of looking at it, yes, because he's continuing the farcical drama instead of helping to let it all blow over.
 
Thanks Sam. Fair points.

I typically CC and I sometimes OC (a holstered pistol, with retention). I have never OC'd a long gun, aside from when deep in the woods, target shooting. People rarely notice my OC'd pistol in stores/public and, if they do, I have never heard a negative comment - ok, maybe 1, from a CC guy who was convinced it was not legal. Because of the new policies made by these companies, nationwide, I have been asked to stop CC and stop my very discrete OC practices within their stores. I'm not complaining about their policies directly, but I am trying to point out that they have chased me away as a customer. It doesn't seem to be in their best interest, but hey, I have been wrong before :)

1. I suspect/wonder if many/most of the support of these "no guns" policies is from folks who disapprove of OC, all OC, even a small pistol in a retention holster, carried in such a manner for comfort's sake, not for a political statement.

2. Or, are their policies gaining such support from carry-advocates in order to renounce the actions of OCT? If so, I can understand that, but I believe there are other ways without also giving up our rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top