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

[SigP229R]

The problem with these jerks is; they have no clue to the damage they have done to the legal CC community. What's more they could probably care less.

 

[TennJed]

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.

But this does endanger the business' prosperity because of the TABC license issue. This has been repeatedly stated

 

[hso]

Jed,

That's strictly true, but in this case it was the in your face display of long guns that forced the issue to the extent TABC themselves posted a plea to the public to stop these antics. I don't think concealed carry or even normal open carry is on TABC's radar nor do I think the discrete open carry of a handgun was of ever of interest to them. It was the posturing of the OC extremist fringe that was at issue. That's just my opinion and that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.

The real issue is being smart about 2A activism and our obligation to fully inform ourselves about all the pitfalls of any action on our part before we act.

 

[General Geoff]

Just wanted to share this.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/07/media-campaign-against-chipotles-open.html

In the Chipotle case, the open carriers had asked permission from the establishment to open carry there before they entered. This was and has been standard practice for the group for a long time. The establishment was glad to have their business. No one showed any sign of being "terrified" or complained to the management about the open carriers. Flyers were passed out promoting open carry legislation. This was not the first time they had been in the establishment.

If the linked information is true, then the OCT folks aren't doing anything wrong at all; it's just media spin.

 

[Sam1911]

That article does seem to have a lot of rose-colored opinion in it. Unfortunately, a very VERY great deal of the image problem OCT has right now cannot be truthfully blamed on super-savvy spin doctors on the enemy side twisting and distorting the facts. Sometimes folks hand their enemies way more ammo to use than they'd have ever come up with on their own.

Yeah, some of the stuff out there is taken out of context. Some isn't really OCT at all but actually some of their copycats (http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/in...en-you-thought-it-could-not-get-any-stupider/).

In the end, "just media spin" IS reality. If you don't control your image, it will be controlled for you buy others -- most likely others who don't like you.

 

[General Geoff]

Some isn't really OCT at all but actually some of their copycats

Now THAT is monumentally stupid. I really feel for the OCT folks, who have to deal with people like that who ARE making the rest of us look bad.

It doesn't matter if your organization is doing everything by the book, if you get 'me-too' people who ruin your image.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes. Yes, that's true. (And a clear violation of TX law, as well.)

Unfortunately OCT isn't exactly blameless. I saw a copied facebook photo of the OCT president in front of one of the TX county courthouses posing with a drawn pistol, right in front of the capitol steps.

When challenged, he claimed that since it was a C&B revolver, it wasn't really a firearm, and so -- and this is mind-blowing -- drawing it in a public place, in violation of the universal "four rules," was perfectly fine.

You can't argue that these guys don't have a real love of the 2A, and that they aren't dedicated. But they are certainly so amateur and irresponsible and even thoughtless at times that they really don't have anyone to blame but themselves when the nation's gun owners cringe at being represented by them in the public eye.

 

[MachIVshooter]

But this does endanger the business' prosperity because of the TABC license issue. This has been repeatedly stated

I'm not debating that. You need to remember that Texas has a different set of rules than other states, some of which are more restrictive, others less. Here in CO, there is no liquor license issue or any other type of penalty a business can face for a patron carrying a weapon.

I am not speaking to Texas specifically in my statements unless I say exactly that. It's very general. If you live in a state where the signs carry weight of law or certain businesses are legally off limits, it had better enter into your thinking.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

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.

Yes! Thank You! That is exactly my point.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

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...

I don't think most people are missing the point at all. Certainly not myself nor the majority of people here. I am simply dismayed at the support Target is getting from members of this site for requesting that the CC of firearms stop.

Regarding the part I bolded above... According to the statement here:

Target spokesman Molly Snyder told the Wire that they are “requesting that people do not carry any firearms in our stores, including concealed carry."

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

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.

First let me address the TABC law, which I only have read of briefly and of which I do not know the full details. Correct me if I am wrong... I believe the law states that a distributor of alcohol (of whatever percent of their business or whatever - doesn't matter) will be held responsible if a customer is found carrying a firearm within their store. If that is the gist of it, it is crazy! Basically, if your business door is open and someone carrying a firearm jumps through the door without your knowledge, the liquor board then has the ability to pull the liquor license from the establishment?!? Well, that is absurd, unless these liquor establishments have guarded, gated, check-points at their doors, similar to an airport.

Second, I would argue that the stores CAN in fact make a policy that pertains to only one state, such at TX, with those crazy TABC laws. One reason I suspect this is very simple. With such a wild law as the one described above, I would venture to guess that there is a law which also outlaws people from carrying firearms within certain liquor stores, putting the burden on the individual. If that is the case, then requiring that all customers abide by the law of the state in which the store resides would solve the problem. If my supposition isn't the case, I still believe there are ways to create a store policy for a single state. There are probably warranty and return policy differences depending upon location. I don't have the time to research this right now

 

[Agsalaska]

I don't think most people are missing the point at all. Certainly not myself nor the majority of people here. I am simply dismayed at the support Target is getting from members of this site for requesting that the CC of firearms stop.

Regarding the part I bolded above... According to the statement here:

Yea. I see that. But I am going to stick with the position stated on their website by the CEO, not some spokesperson. My guess is their was a mixed message. He is clearly referring to open carry. It says it in the title of the CEOs message to his employees.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen 'spokesperson' directly contradict upper management. I am guessing she got caught off guard by a question. If they wanted to stop CCW they would jump thru the necessary legal hoops to do so. They specifically said they are not doing that.

They could ask me to die my hair green too. They can also ask me to donate money to their charity, or fill out a customer survey, or shop on Sunday, etc etc.

Again, and I promise I mean no offense by this, but the message succeeded with 99.something% of their customer base. They know there are people who cannot get over it, but they are not worried about that. They have moved on.

 

[barnbwt]

So... apparently all of us have had these provOCateur guys all wrong, and they were really the victims in all this;
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/dean-weingarten/media-campaign-against-open-carry-doomed-to-fail/

It seems their scary pictures are really family-friendly moments selectively cropped and covertly filmed at odd angles in order to frame them as irresponsible wierdos.

You see, they didn't ask to have their group shot filmed from behind, which made them appear to be menacing some out of frame target with the weapons in their hands. Who knew?

The real culprits are those ne'er do well MDA'ers, with their underhanded tactics and media savvy. They're the reason the off-angle, suggestive images were not widely debuked, why the OCT folks carried guns in their hands, and looked to any passers-by (who can't see the happy faces) besides the square-on cameraman exactly as they do in the photo. Apparently some smiling cops, happy family onlookers, and happy family OCTC'ers were just off frame in that infamous Chipotle photo; that changes everything about what that image should mean to all of us.

Sarcasm off. It's downplayed in the quoted OCT statement in the article, I'm guessing out of foolish pride, but they do seem embarrassed or at least unpleasantly surprised by the results of their actions and are sort of trying to clear the muddy and distorted waters (weeks after the fact). "Never attribute to malicious intent that which can be adequately explained by stupidity and/or incompetence." The story here now plainly looks to be what we thought it was initially; a group of highly motivated folks went off on a highly-sensitive mission, completely unprepared and out of their depth. The exact situation you have to have disciplined leaders with carrots & sticks for.

The correct solution, if the OCT guys can swallow their pride and get over themselves, is to hook up with a group that does know what they are doing, and to follow its orders in the furtherance of each other's mutual goals. Maybe they don't have to make amends with their old bosses, but they need someone who can do this better than they can calling the shots. If these guys hadn't splintered off of more 'moderate' open-carry advocacy groups out of frustration in the first place, they would have better funding, better legal resources and knowledge, more experience leaders and planners, and we'd all have the benefit of a more focused and coherent message.

TCB

 

[MachIVshooter]

^^^^^^^^^

Agreed 100%

 

[basicblur]

Tom Gresham had the (I think) head of Texas OCT on a few weeks ago.

He was doing some heavy back peddling - sounds like he realized they had screwed up, "but that was a few months ago - we don't do X,Y, & Z any longer".

Tom congratulated him on his back peddling, then proceeded to beat him over the head for what they were doing a few months ago (you still did it, and the pictures are still out there).

I'm sorry, but it looks like these guys screwed up on multiple levels.
It's one thing to have a demonstration with long guns, but if you're going to do so why not have an organized march, etc?

It's also one thing to simply go somewhere with a long gun slung over your back - it's something entirely different to be walking around / posing in businesses with the long (or any) gun at low ready.

 

[hso]

Shooter,

Absurd or not, businesses have to deal with the laws as written and interpreted. Once you get an Anti group on the issue you can't believe that they won't make the most extreme interpretations and then point that out in the community any more than we'd believe that some in out community won't make a poorly informed extreme interpretation and act on it.

A national corporation can't make policy saying, "In TX we request you not bring firearms on the premises.", as easily as you believe. Unless you know that other states don't have similar requirements, we do, you can't reliably say that the policy doesn't have to be made nationally. What would Texans do if they'd been the only ones Target issued this policy for? What would happen here in TN? Elsewhere? Locals would be in a snit for being singled out (like pro2A Texans are upset for being lumped in with the idiots that caused this whole mess) and then the controversy blows up even further.

Like the decision or not, Target appears to have made the least offensive decision they could and the VAST majority of THR members discussing it agree with them so they probably made the best decision.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Ok. I still don't have to like it! but, ok.

I certainly agree with you that wacky laws have to be taken into account. I still find it hard to believe that the law would be in place penalizing the business for firearms possession inside, but leave zero responsibility for the carrier. Just like other unpopular laws, that would leave the business off the hook, in any state where that law is in place. If the law does exist (one penalizing the carrier of a firearm inside an alcohol distributor), I see no harm in requiring "adherence to the law" as a prerequisite for entering any business. If those two things were in place, problem solved.

 

[tarosean]

If the linked information is true, then the OCT folks aren't doing anything wrong at all; it's just media spin.

Not at all.. Even with permission, the manager violated state law and jeopardized his companies liquor license.

That whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" thing...

 

[Onward Allusion]

You know what chaps my backside? Private gun clubs that state none of their members may CC, have a loaded holstered weapon (OC'ing), or draw from a holster on premises. Now THAT is completely insane!

 

[tarosean]

^ insurance is probably the compelling reason.

 

[basicblur]

If the linked information is true, then the OCT folks aren't doing anything wrong at all; it's just media spin.

Jest curious...wonder if the establishment's management said:
1. Keep 'em unloaded.
2. Keep 'em slung across your back / over your shoulder.
3. NO low ready positions allowed.

Sorry - I'm as open minded as anyone AFA guns, but these guys just flat screwed up / got out maneuvered, or got sucked into a false flag operation.

It also sounded an awful lot like the OCT head was admitting on Gun Talk that they screwed up, but that was a couple of months ago!

I was at the local GUN SHOP a while back, when a "dazzling young urbanite" came in the store with a shotgun tucked close to his side.
I was browsing the gun case and had my back to the door, but I immediately noticed 3 employees and one regular place their hands on their right hip - I knew it was an "uh-oh" moment, and turned to see the trio coming in the door.

Turns out the fellow supposedly had problems with his shotgun, but after looking at it, the shop sent him on his way, telling him they couldn't help him.

We'll never know if the fellow actually came to the shop to have his gun looked at, or whether they had other things in mind, but quickly changed their mind when they saw 4 individuals with hands on right hip (make that 5 after I turned around and eased behind an aisle counter).

There is open carrying and then there's open carrying...

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

...I was at the local GUN SHOP a while back, when a "dazzling young urbanite" came in the store with a shotgun tucked close to his side...

That doesn't sound like simple "open carrying". More like "open presenting" :banghead:

 

[hso]

penalizing the business for firearms possession inside, but leave zero responsibility for the carrier.

Yeah, I agree, but in the case where the law is in the arena of alcohol beverage sales controls they only focus on the business since revocation of their license is the legal control so they can't focus on anyone not working for or owning the business. I'm sure it isn't the first time that laws in one section of state code conflicted with laws in another.

 

[basicblur]

That doesn't sound like simple "open carrying". More like "open presenting"

Kinda like carrying at low ready...

 

[Sauer Grapes]

I can't fault retailers for their response to people disrupting their place of business.