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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there are a few in the pro-gun camp who really don't APPROVE of open carry of any gun at all, and wish others would stop doing it. I gather that's predominately because they'd rather not have anyone "freak the squares" as member UpperAtmosphere put it so eloquently in another thread. Or maybe they just like telling people what to do. ;) Small pistol, big rifle, whatever -- all have the chance of raising awareness to the wrong people in a negative way and thus harming "the cause" and all gun rights and gun folks by extension. So that's your group #1.

I think there are a few people who react in a very strongly negative way to the persons they're seeing coming out as the "poster boys" for OCT. Those who present themselves as established, upstanding, clean-cut, professional sorts who like to think of themselves as good ambassadors for RKBA and who recoil at seeing the slovenly, juvenile, buffonish caricatures (a half-step removed from what you'd see on People of Walmart) plastered all over the media as the true representatives (of the moment) of the American gun owner. I think that's who falls into your group #2.

But I think most of the posters who've expressed support for some of these stores are simply expressing something like sympathy for the untenable position many of these businesses have been hemmed into by the antics of OCT -- working hand-in-hand with the Moms, of course, to force uninvolved corporations to choose sides in a political battle they aren't involved with -- and are actually PLEASANTLY surprised at the restraint most of these places have shown in how they reacted.

Face it, if this was 1990, Chipotle, Target, etc., would have all immediately plastered their stores with "NO GUNS, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW!!!" signs and issued strict and dire warnings that guns were forbidden and you'd be eternally banned from their chain of stores if you were ever caught with a firearm. After 20 years of progress in mainstreaming the gun culture, these stores have recognized that a totalitarian edict like that (even though fully within their rights to declare) would alienate those good shoppers who happen to own guns. And they, I think, have some inkling of just how many folks that really is.

So they say, "Please, don't do that," in about the least confrontational way they could possibly come up with to do so, and many of us are really quite encouraged by such delicacy in the face of what look -- even from "our" side of the battle lines -- like extreme acts of provocation.

So we say, "good on them" for -- honestly -- being the bigger man, so to speak, and not reacting like big corporate left wing tyrants, and instead saying, "We recognize you've got beliefs and issues you want to debate in the public forum, and we're not opposing you or those beliefs, but we sure would appreciate it if you'd take that effort to some more suitable venue."

Time have changed.
 
I encourage everyone to go to the "Open Carry Texas" website and check out their photo gallery :uhoh:

fun game to play: how many gun safety violations do you count?

I for once would not appreciate a chick muzzle sweeping me at a burger place or folks leaning rifles against a bench in a restaurant or someone HOLDING (not shouldering) an AR at a frozen yogurt place.

It doesn't take much to realize how damaging these folks are .... :fire:
 
..."We recognize you've got beliefs and issues you want to debate in the public forum, and we're not opposing you or those beliefs, but we sure would appreciate it if you'd take that effort to some more suitable venue."...

That was my point, they DIDN'T say that. They DID say "no guns". I recognize that they didn't post official "NO GUNS" signs on the buildings but, in my state, adopting a policy of asking for no guns and posting a big billboard out front carries the same weight of law. They might as well have posted big signs in my state; it carries no weight until I am asked to leave, and then I can be charged with criminal trespassing. I'm sure that is like many states. Also, my state, and probably most states, do not have the same laws dealing with the TABC, but they didn't make the issue solely about protecting themselves against that issue (guns within an alcohol distributor).

My point all along has been exactly what you just stated above... that the stores could have accommodated a lot more of their customer base by asking what you asked: "We recognize you've got beliefs and issues you want to debate in the public forum, and we're not opposing you or those beliefs, but we sure would appreciate it if you'd take that effort to some more suitable venue."

Or, to put it more succinctly, "NO political movements within our stores". That would do it. I would support them 100% on that stance. They would still have the right to remove people from their stores, arrest people for criminal trespass, etc. Also, creating a nationwide policy is not a substitute for banning the carry of firearms within alcohol distributors in accordance with the TABC. That is not a valid excuse for creating a nationwide policy.
 
ShooterMcG and all - the fact is that Target issued a critical clarification, to quote:

Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said the retailer will not post signs at its stores asking people not to bring guns inside. “It is not a ban,” she said. “There is no prohibition.”

She said the company decided to make this statement after hearing from people on all sides of this issue
source: http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/jul/02/target-asks-customers-not-to-bring-guns-to-its-sto/

I suspect Target is chagrinned over Moms, etc. grandstanding over a supposed "victory." They are distancing themselves from that side as well. As for the idea of a no political movements sign, that's also fairly well covered in Target's longstanding no solicitation policy https://corporate.target.com/about/shopping-experience/Target-solicitation-policy The policy is worth a read, particularly the public soap box discussion. The public soap box does not exist within the private space.

Could OCT be ushered out the door using the "soap box prohibition" ... maybe, maybe not ... especially if the open carrier suggest they are not there to make a public statement, but just to carry his ar-15 while shopping for ... socks? dollar bin specials? :rolleyes: But that would be disingenuous in itself ... they are either there to make a public statement/spectacle, or not.

So, again, the public soapbox ban is stated policy. If OCT were there to get on the soapbox (even silently, with their OC display), then they were pretty simply violating existing store policy right there.

These stores are private property. Your 1A and 2A public rights pretty much stop at their doorstep. Same goes for your own home - you set the rules - you don't want solicitation, don't like what someone has to say, don't like that they are carrying (or not!), you are by and large free to ask a visitor to leave.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read the whole thread, I must admit. The two points that come to my mind are that: (1) we're talking about private property; (2) owned by a corporation. The corporation, whether it be Chipotle, Target, or Spats' SockDrawer, Inc., has one function: to make a profit. The corporation is answerable to its shareholders. The big corporations (unlike Spats' SockDrawer) have done extensive market research, and really only need to put two items on the scale: "people comfortable with guns in their stores" vs. "people uncomfortable with guns in their stores." Whichever one is deemed more likely to spend more money in the store wins.
 
That was my point, they DIDN'T say that. They DID say "no guns". I recognize that they didn't post official "NO GUNS" signs on the buildings but, in my state, adopting a policy of asking for no guns and posting a big billboard out front carries the same weight of law. They might as well have posted big signs in my state; it carries no weight until I am asked to leave, and then I can be charged with criminal trespassing. I'm sure that is like many states.
Well, I see your point, but of course that's not the way it works in all states, or most states, and I think they made it as simple as they could while seeming reasonable to the most people possible.

That is not a valid excuse for creating a nationwide policy.
:) Well, see, the thing is, we don't get to call their reasons invalid. They can do whatever they want with NO excuse at all. It's their right. "We" yanked their tail, or yanked the tails of enough other folks to make them have to (sigh) "do something" about it, and this is what we get.

Target isn't a pro-gun store (or necessarily an ANTI-gun store). Push them to the point that they feel like they've got to "do something" to quiet down a tangential (to them) sideshow and you've really got to accept whatever you get.

Yeah, they could have come up with a tailored policy that worked better in this state or that state, and could have specified the TABC, or could have broadened this to all political rallies, etc., etc. Sure could. But they didn't. Why should they go to the trouble? When a fairly mild-sounding "Please don't bring guns to our stores" message sounds a WHOLE lot clearer and more direct to 99% of the people hearing it?

As I said, they aren't pro-gun, as a store. They aren't out there trying to make sure you can still carry your concealed pistol while stopping people from protesting with rifles. They just want the whole thing to go away, and not to have their shoppers and employees frightened by a bunch of armed dudes walking in.

So, "please no guns."

It's like I tell my kids, if you get too wild and crazy and push me until I have to get up and come in there and lay down a policy, you might not like what I come up with. I'm not likely to sit down and optimize my "SHUT UP THAT RACKET!!!" policy to best suit your individual wants and wishes. Best to stay off my radar and I'll be pretty lenient about your shenanigans.

Some folks didn't learn crucial lessons as kids, I guess. ;)




[EDIT: And as wojowik says, they clarified that this ISN'T a ban/prohibition. How exactly that ... (what? gentle request?) ... translates to actionable matters of law in various states may still be in question, but it sounds like they did EVERYTHING they could not to alienate us gun nut types.]
 
Sam, I agree! I could be accused of being a little too nit-picky about policies and guns, etc., but I am a pretty literal guy and this is a passionate subject to me. If a store asks me not to bring guns into it's establishment, I don't bring a pink squirt gun inside.

Well, see, the thing is, we don't get to call their reasons invalid.
If I can clarify... I think we agree on the basis of this. Nothing they do is invalid, as long as it is within the law. However, if they can make a policy which solves a problem and causes no customer loss across the country, wouldn't we agree that it is the most effective? Wouldn't that be more beneficial than a policy which solves the problem and loses 5% of the customers in other parts of the country? ...for example.

I was sort of using "valid" interchangeably with "reasonable". Wrong wording on my part. If I want to get a tree branch off my car, it is not really a 'valid' excuse to burn my car, even though it still might accomplish the goal :)
 
Those open carry idiots who insist on OCing in places like Starbucks, for example, where the management has publicly asked them to refrain from doing so, are in my opinion, too stupid to be allowed to carry a gun anywhere and are only bringing crap down on all the rest of us. Eventually, there will be legislation in the state houses that will put an end to their OC exhibitionism, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see legislation that would put more restrictions on concealed carry, as well. In the meantime, the antics of these jerks will have turned a lot of the undecided public against us.
 
Last edited:
These OCT folks are doing the lefts heavy lifting. I can understand a business saying "not here". I have a CCW permit from Illinois, the rest of my family would panic at the sight of people carrying rifles or shotguns in public. We held on to the Individual right by the vote of one of our 300 + million citizens. I still can't relax when I see the envelope pushed to the extreme and others saying not here. Neanderthals with guns scare me more than the Sandy Hook psycho types.
 
ShooterMcG and all - the fact is that Target issued a critical clarification, to quote:


source: http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/jul/02/target-asks-customers-not-to-bring-guns-to-its-sto/

I suspect Target is chagrinned over Moms, etc. grandstanding over a supposed "victory." They are distancing themselves from that side as well. As for the idea of a no political movements sign, that's also fairly well covered in Target's longstanding no solicitation policy https://corporate.target.com/about/shopping-experience/Target-solicitation-policy The policy is worth a read, particularly the public soap box discussion. The public soap box does not exist within the private space.

Could OCT be ushered out the door using the "soap box prohibition" ... maybe, maybe not ... especially if the open carrier suggest they are not there to make a public statement, but just to carry his ar-15 while shopping for ... socks? dollar bin specials? :rolleyes: But that would be disingenuous in itself ... they are either there to make a public statement/spectacle, or not.

So, again, the public soapbox ban is stated policy. If OCT were there to get on the soapbox (even silently, with their OC display), then they were pretty simply violating existing store policy right there.

These stores are private property. Your 1A and 2A public rights pretty much stop at their doorstep. Same goes for your own home - you set the rules - you don't want solicitation, don't like what someone has to say, don't like that they are carrying (or not!), you are by and large free to ask a visitor to leave.

I understand that Target, etc. have issued a clarification. As I understand it, they asked "please, no guns in our stores". In my state and many across the nation, that means, if we spot a gun on you, you will be asked to leave. It essentially means, NO open carry within, regardless of state law. If I misunderstood anything, please point me in the right direction.

Regarding your point on 'no political movements' policy, good point. They probably could have removed all disruptive customers without any new policy. And who cares if they complain? The store gets to decide if they are seeing a political message or not. Customers can decide if they agree or not.

I agree that they are private property. I am discussing this from the stance that private property rights are held very highly, more highly than an individual's right to carry. Considering that (for those who thinks it is fine to just OC and violate the policy), if a friend of the family requested that "no guns" be brought into their home, would you just shrug and CC anyways? I won't.
 
ShooterMcG and all - the fact is that Target issued a critical clarification, to quote:


source: http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/jul/02/target-asks-customers-not-to-bring-guns-to-its-sto/

I also want to quote from the link that you provided:

"This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create," John Mulligan, the company's acting CEO, said in a statement.

In essence, what they are saying is, whether you are OC or CC, whether a shopper or police officer performing business, Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create. They continue to state, implicitly, that firearms, whether OC or CC will not be allowed.

John Mulligan, the company's acting CEO, is clearly NOT saying that the carrying of large, menacing, inappropriate long-arms within the stores for a political movement "is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create". No. Instead, any carrying, of any firearm, of any size, whether visible or not, "is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create".

I have started this thread to make light of the ideology amongst those making policy at Target (pushed by Moms Demand Action), and many of the members here, that the belief that "guns are the problem" is a strongly held concept. Supporting the "no guns" policy means that the bearer is neither good nor bad, the actions are neither right nor wrong, but the presence of the gun is the problem. Even here, I see so much support from members saying "good for Target, declaring no guns", rather than "kick the idiots out of the store and move on".
 
In my state and many across the nation, that means, if we spot a gun on you, you will be asked to leave.
I don't think that has been determined yet. They can ask that folks not bring guns, and yet still not direct their managers to actively evict anyone for doing so.

I am discussing this from the stance that private property rights are held very highly, more highly than an individual's right to carry.
Wow! That's quite a stance to take! I'm certain not everyone here would agree that a 'right' to make a property rules policy like that trumps a right to bear arms (at least concealed) but everyone has to make their own decision about that sort of thing.

We've beaten the poor old nag to death and beyond several times, but a question arises about whether it is possible to violate the 'rights' of a property owner by breaking a policy they've made, if breaking that policy causes them no harm and they remain unaware of it. Everyone has to decide how they feel about that for themselves.

[Full disclosure: Here in PA a property owner's "no guns" declaration carries no legal weight, and I personally do not heed such declarations. I understand and accept that many folks feel that means I'm not very nice.]

Considering that (for those who thinks it is fine to just OC and violate the policy), if a friend of the family requested that "no guns" be brought into their home, would you just shrug and CC anyways? I won't.
Some do, some won't. For most of us, such a request has never arisen in any conversation so the matter remains moot. I've never asked any family member, or anyone else, ever, how they felt about my concealed sidearm and don't expect to do so in the foreseeable future. If one did ask me that, we would have a conversation about why the request was made and several things might be decided based on that conversation. If I had some reason to continue to spend time with that person I would make sure not to give them any reason to bring the matter up again. Which I think is the essence of gentlemanly behavior.

However, that's a bit different from "OC and violate the policy" in that OC-ing in violation of the policy forces a confrontation whereas CC does not.
 
Last edited:
I am discussing this from the stance that private property rights are held very highly, more highly than an individual's right to carry.

Wow! That's quite a stance to take! I'm certain not everyone here would agree that a 'right' to make a property rules policy like that trumps a right to bear arms (at least concealed) but everyone has to make their own decision about that sort of thing.

Please don't mistake what I meant by my statement. I was only declaring the stance I am using in discussing this matter. As far as a public business goes, that is not my true belief and I do not always behave in a manner to protect a public business' request.
 
I will stand corrected on the supposed clarification offered by Target. Here is what the very same Target spokesperson said to another media outlet:

" Target spokesman Molly Snyder*told the Wire*that they are “requesting that people do not carry any firearms in our stores, including concealed carry.*"" source: http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/mo...03/target-announces-but-wont-enforce-gun-ban/

Personally, I had thought they were just targeting the open carry issue. But that is not the case.

But again she waffles that this is just a request, not a ban.

Their corporate communications are pretty fubar.
 
In essence, what they are saying is, whether you are OC or CC, whether a shopper or police officer performing business, Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.
You clearly desire to read this statement in the very strictest, most absolute way possible. Considering the other current thread on the police chief up in MD, I think your assertion that this would be even considered for application against uniformed cops is stretching so far as to rob you of some credibility.

They continue to state, implicitly, that firearms, whether OC or CC will not be allowed.
That doesn't square with the statements, “It is not a ban,” and “There is no prohibition.” I believe you're stretching this to make it seem as bad as it can be, as strict and literal as it could possibly be, in order to make a point. But you're mistaken and that makes your point suspect.

John Mulligan, the company's acting CEO, is clearly NOT saying that the carrying of large, menacing, inappropriate long-arms within the stores for a political movement "is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create". No. Instead, any carrying, of any firearm, of any size, whether visible or not, "is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create".
Again, read it however you like, of course, but that's putting words in his mouth that he actually did not say. If you want to pretend that language is without nuance, and that corporate statements are delivered without subtlety, go ahead, but I don't agree with how you're saying that you interpret it.

I have started this thread to make light of the ideology amongst those making policy at Target (pushed by Moms Demand Action), and many of the members here, that the belief that "guns are the problem" is a strongly held concept.
But that's an overstatement of the situation by half. Why is this issue even coming up? Because of some pretty alarming grandstanding behavior -- WITH BIG SCARY GUNS. What's the response? Please don't bring your guns here. Why? Because then the problem is solved, with the least lawyer speak, caveats, and dependant clauses, in phrasing that even the Moms can understand. What's the clarification? We aren't banning or prohibiting anything, but hey good neighbor, would you please not bring your guns here?

What's the subtext? Well, for one thing, we AREN'T banning your guns from our stores, but we want this showboating to stop. Hence, if you've got a concealed gun we won't know and won't care. MAYBE even, if you've got an open-carried pistol but don't grab any attention, we don't care -- but we'll just have to see how that plays out.

Supporting the "no guns" policy means that the bearer is neither good nor bad, the actions are neither right nor wrong, but the presence of the gun is the problem.
That's pretty over-sensitive. And I think you're so chaffed about gun rights infringements that you're tilting at windmills.

But you know what? Target DIDN'T come out and say the OCT boys are BAD. Or even that they're WRONG. Or that they're endangering anyone or that they're stupid or badly shaved neanderthals abominably representing their political faction. Instead they just said, "please don't bring your guns here...but we aren't banning them, just asking."

Would you have rather that Target came out with a statement CONDEMNING OCT and it's members, actions, and goals? You want a political enemy? Or a company that's going to stay as neutral as it can but make a "pretty please with a cherry on top" request that you don't bring guns (visible, scary guns like with the guys in the pictures who started this whole crap storm?) into the store.

Even here, I see so much support from members saying "good for Target, declaring no guns", rather than "kick the idiots out of the store and move on".
Yeah, I've seen both responses, but most of the "good for Target" responses seem to be those taking in the totality of the situation.

When you realize that they AREN'T banning guns, and that they AREN'T posting the stores, and that they aren't even taking a stance against OCT... I really don't have a problem with this.
 
I don't think that has been determined yet. They can ask that folks not bring guns, and yet still not direct their managers to actively evict anyone for doing so.

True. At this point, I am not willing to violate their policy and maybe cause a disturbance in order to find out. Often, I am carrying openly, so I would not enter a business with a policy like that.

...a question arises about whether it is possible to violate the 'rights' of a property owner by breaking a policy they've made, if breaking that policy causes them no harm and they remain unaware of it. Everyone has to decide how they feel about that for themselves.

I have considered this many times. If it is a business, I don't very highly regard their request when they are aiming to step on my right to self defense. I will usually avoid the business, or enter it if I am accompanying a friend.

[Full disclosure: Here in PA a property owner's "no guns" declaration carries no legal weight, and I personally do not heed such declarations. I understand and accept that many folks feel that means I'm not very nice.]

Some do, some won't. For most of us, such a request has never arisen in any conversation so the matter remains moot. I've never asked any family member, or anyone else, ever, how they felt about my concealed sidearm and don't expect to do so in the foreseeable future. If one did ask me that, we would have a conversation about why the request was made and several things might be decided based on that conversation. If I had some reason to continue to spend time with that person I would make sure not to give them any reason to bring the matter up again. Which I think is the essence of gentlemanly behavior.

However, that's a bit different from "OC and violate the policy" in that OC-ing in violation of the policy forces a confrontation whereas CC does not.

On personal private property, that depends on a lot of things. If I have been directly asked not to carry, I won't carry there and may not return. If I have been made directly aware of the owner's "no guns" policy, I typically won't enter and maybe won't return. If the topic has never been brought up, I continue along as my usual self, firearm and all, and I don't mention it.
 
You clearly desire to read this statement in the very strictest, most absolute way possible. Considering the other current thread on the police chief up in MD, I think your assertion that this would be even considered for application against uniformed cops is stretching so far as to rob you of some credibility.

Your point is fair. You are right, I am reading their request as an ultimate statement. My point about police entering the business is not reasonable. I concede and retract it :)
 
:) I just thought that one was funny, because we're having this debate about whether, how, and when a store could legitimately tell an off-duty cop, "Nope, you can't wear your sidearm in our store." Which some employee of IKEA in MD did to a local Police Chief who was out shopping for his daughter's apartment furniture.

IKEA backed off and apologized, but of course the Chief was very angry to be so affronted.
 
I thought that one was funny too. I brought it up because, well, it apparently does (or did) happen :)

Not to get too far off topic. I, personally, believe that citizens who are officers should be treated like citizens who are not officers, in situations regarding laws.

To keep this on topic... I agree with you, that I am reading their request as a strict all-encompassing statement, but I am doing that to raise the question... was their request really necessary? It seems that they have appeased Moms Demand, and generally told me that I am not welcome in their store on those days when I am OC (and technically, even when I am CC). The door is open for management to either ignore me or ask me to leave - and sometimes, a store's management does not understand or interpret the corporate policy properly. In my state, I must comply or face trespassing charges. So, I won't risk carrying there any more.
 
And, I really don't disagree with you that it was not necessary. I've no doubt that they said what they said for a mix of reasons, ranging from it sounding like exactly what the Moms wanted to hear (playing to their sales base), to it reflecting what I've no doubt are the personal opinions of more than a few in the upper management of Target (to the effect of, "Wow, look at those nuts with those big scary guns!!!"). They took an easy path that didn't require hundreds of hours of their lawyers' time to craft and seemed to speak to the problem. They could have done a better job. If they were gun folks, they probably WOULD have done a better job.

I'm just still a little tickled that they DIDN'T fly off the handle and come out like a cross between Josh Sugarman and an outraged mother hen. And I'm still convinced the mildness of their response speaks volumes about how far WE have come since the '90s. The '90s, when some pop singer could make a half-baked statement about gun sales and a nationwide chain department store would close down their gun counters. Long, long road betwixt here and there.
 
Shooter,

With all due respect, people are completely missing the point. Target is trying, quite successfully I might add, to limit damage control on a subject that they did not want to address. Target is not Pro 2a or Anti 2a. They are pro employees, pro profit, and pro selling stock. They are faced with a situation they have to publicly deal with because they have no desire to be in the path of such a battle. There first priority, rightfully so, is to their employees and their shareholders. And their collective best interest is to pull Target out of this mess. In doing so they have to take the path that will alienate the fewest amount of people. They chose this path understanding that a very small fraction of a percentage of the population would get hung up in the details while the vast majority of the buying public will forget about it a day after reading it, including the CCW folks that they are, in fact, not banning. In doing so they made damn sure that the direction they took would keep the OCT guys out of their shops and give them, and this is THE most important point of this narrative, control of their message again. This is something that they lost in the OCT stuff, and, on a side note, a concept that the OCT guys have no appreciation for.

A Target exec would read this sight, which I bet happens, and realize they made the absolute best choice for their interested parties given the situation understanding there would always be a few.

I will continue to applaud the leadership team at Target. They are a very strong group leading a very successful organization.
 
Unfortunately these days if someone enters a business (particularly a retailer that is not associated with firearms) with a slung rifle with a long magazine; those who are present have no way of knowing if they represent a peaceful demonstration or about to open fire and kill as many people as they can. :eek:

Under such circumstances most individuals would depart as quickly as they could, and his sense of situational awareness would likely cause the Old Fuff to do likewise. Understandably most business owners/operators/managers would not greet the self-appointed gun-carrier with open arms.

They're is a time and place for responsible demonstrations, and they should be organized and conducted in a manner that will attract support for their cause rather then start a public panic followed by a demand for additional legislation to undercut or prohibit whatever the demonstrators are trying to accomplish.

In this instance the unannounced open carrying of firearms under conditions where they would not be expected is clearly nonproductive in expanding or supporting the RKBA. I fully understand while many if not most business would solidly object.

I have been actively involved in the up and down battle to advance firearms rights since about 1963, and frankly I wish that this small sub-set of open carry advocates would go and jump off a high cliff. :banghead:
10-4
 
Shooter,

These guys were obligated to understand all the implications of their actions and that means knowing that TABC could pull the licenses of these businesses to sell alcohol. Their coming into the businesses and displaying firearms put the businesses at risk with TABC. The businesses had no other choice but to put a stop to it and the fact that they didn't post against carry and instead requested publically that it stop was the very best compromise they could come up with. Since they can't set policy just for TX they had to do so as a corporation. They deserve our praise for not posting and the folks posting their pics online of them displaying firearms in the businesses deserve all our contempt for not having known these "little" details.
 
Last edited:
a question arises about whether it is possible to violate the 'rights' of a property owner by breaking a policy they've made, if breaking that policy causes them no harm and they remain unaware of it. Everyone has to decide how they feel about that for themselves.

This is the crux of the point I've made myriad times over several years and dozens of posts here, and often find myself at odds with others on the matter. I generally avoid patronizing places that have anti-gun sentiments, but on the occasion that I do for whatever reason, I disregard no weapons signs, and I sleep just fine. They'll never know about it unless I'm forced to use it, and as such it can do no economic harm to their business, which is the only legitimate reason for banning weapons in an open-to-the-public, for-profit business (personal views of ownership are irrelevant when you welcome the general public in asking for their money).

Likewise, I don't believe a profit seeking, open-to-the-public business has the right to regulate any type of possession, attire or other such things unless it negatively affects the safety of employees & patrons or the economic prosperity of the business. Basically, unless it endangers people or drives customers away, it's none of their concern.

Different story with truly private property, though (as in one's home). There, they can say no gays, no (insert race), no guns, no (whatever they dislike), and that is their right, distasteful as it may be.
 
I don't generally shop at Target as I just don't really care for their stores or how they are laid out. There are plenty of other choices where I live. Given the way they've handled the mess that OCT stirred up I am much more likely to shop there in the future than I ever have been in the past. By issuing a statement *asking* people not to bring guns into their stores rather than making a blanket NO GUNS policy nationwide they may have gained at least one customer: Me. I believe, given the position they were forced into, they did the closest thing to being pro-gun they could. If they'd issued a statement saying "Bring all the legal guns you want to our stores!" the board of director's heads would have all rolled. If they'd said "We're going with whatever local laws say" Mothers Demand Workplace Safety for Rapists would still be holding demonstrations outside their stores... something they *really* can't afford to have happen. They made a calculated move (and you better believe they consulted plenty of their lawyers!) to shut up the anti groups without stopping anyone from carrying legally in any of their stores. I say bravo Target!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top