wojownik just made a great point. With these returns and letters include a copy of the receipt when you point out that discrimination against us is costly to TRU/BRU.
Toys 'R' Us: Boycott.
- Thread starter thx997303
- Start date
- Status
ATBackPackin
Member
How about something like this...........
Lets make this a collective effort. Everyone post a copy of their receipt of items that could have been bought at TRU and have an appointed person keep a rolling tally. Then either monthly or quarterly send a letter to the fine folks at TRU showing them the money they have lost on just this one forum by alienating law abiding citizens. Also let them know that we are just a small percentage of people that firmly believe in the 2nd amendment.
Shawn
Lets make this a collective effort. Everyone post a copy of their receipt of items that could have been bought at TRU and have an appointed person keep a rolling tally. Then either monthly or quarterly send a letter to the fine folks at TRU showing them the money they have lost on just this one forum by alienating law abiding citizens. Also let them know that we are just a small percentage of people that firmly believe in the 2nd amendment.
Shawn
Guillermo
member
I quit shopping at TRU when they quit selling toy guns. It was many years ago and they had the typical lame excuse about how they were somehow unsafe.
My letter will be more general in nature but will be sent today.
Interesting that they, as a corporation, are so anti-gun yet do not have a 30.06 sign, banning concealed carry in Texas. (as I do not shop there I only know this from a website that tracks such, texas3006.com)
My letter will be more general in nature but will be sent today.
Interesting that they, as a corporation, are so anti-gun yet do not have a 30.06 sign, banning concealed carry in Texas. (as I do not shop there I only know this from a website that tracks such, texas3006.com)
Ridgerunner665
Member
I received a response...it was the same canned message as before...
We need an email that goes "higher up".
We need an email that goes "higher up".
Here we go. According to Linked in, Jennifer Albano is the "Senior Manager, Corporate Communications at Toys"R"Us, Inc."
And here is Ms. Albano's contact information.
Toys"R"Us, Inc.
Jennifer Albano
973-617-5632
[email protected]
And here is Ms. Albano's contact information.
Toys"R"Us, Inc.
Jennifer Albano
973-617-5632
[email protected]
Ridgerunner665
Member
Copy that...fire for effect.
Guillermo
member
a suggestion for letters such as these
mention that many attorneys feel that banning firearms raises liability for the establishment
mention that many attorneys feel that banning firearms raises liability for the establishment
Bullnettles
Member
Although reading this thread has me dis-heartened after reading one of the responses. I was hoping mine might actually reach reasonable ears.
I don't advise getting into the liability issue, either theirs motivating them to ban gunowners or theirs for denying us the ability to protect ourselves.
Stick to the discriminating against legal gunowners who obey the law and are not a danger to anyone and acting in a prejudiced manner against us as if we were criminals. If their discrimination was based on the bigoted assumption that people of a specific color or ethnicity were untrustworthy and a threat no one would stand for it and their Board of Directors would be looking to replace senior managers for such discrimination. As permit holders and law abiding citizens we've had to prove to the state and to the federal government that we are very trustworthy. Trustworthy enough to pass the federally mandated background check to purchase a firearm. Trustworthy enough to take a course to carry a handgun. Trustworthy enough to pass a background check that we had to pay for. No other group exercising their constitutional rights has to prove through several and repeated steps that they are trustworthy. And YET Toys R' Us decides that even though we've proven over and over again that we're trustworthy to exercise that constitutional right they want to set a corporate policy discriminating against us and posting signs discriminating against us. As long as they continue this discriminatory policy and post these discriminatory signs we will work to get all law abiding citizens to take their money to Toys R' Us competitors that don't treat us like second class citizens.
Stick to the discriminating against legal gunowners who obey the law and are not a danger to anyone and acting in a prejudiced manner against us as if we were criminals. If their discrimination was based on the bigoted assumption that people of a specific color or ethnicity were untrustworthy and a threat no one would stand for it and their Board of Directors would be looking to replace senior managers for such discrimination. As permit holders and law abiding citizens we've had to prove to the state and to the federal government that we are very trustworthy. Trustworthy enough to pass the federally mandated background check to purchase a firearm. Trustworthy enough to take a course to carry a handgun. Trustworthy enough to pass a background check that we had to pay for. No other group exercising their constitutional rights has to prove through several and repeated steps that they are trustworthy. And YET Toys R' Us decides that even though we've proven over and over again that we're trustworthy to exercise that constitutional right they want to set a corporate policy discriminating against us and posting signs discriminating against us. As long as they continue this discriminatory policy and post these discriminatory signs we will work to get all law abiding citizens to take their money to Toys R' Us competitors that don't treat us like second class citizens.
Guillermo
member
HSO
While your response was well written and well reasoned I still respectfully disagree.
The reason is that many companies rely upon lawyers to make these types of decisions. That you put who is ultimately the person they are allowing to make the decision directly in question you can sometimes make a change. IF you do not address their main concern it cannot be influenced.
Understand that I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one on tv. I do, however, come from a family of lawyers that were so litigious that they sued one another (Thanksgiving was great as a kid when the adult food fight started) but I also, unfortunately, have a fair amount of contact with them presently.
This contact includes an employment law attorney that NEVER suggests that anyone ban guns for liability purposes. They advise to let "sleeping dogs lie" because taking a position is dangerous.
Hopefully the readers of this threat will enjoy the opposing views on this issue.
While your response was well written and well reasoned I still respectfully disagree.
The reason is that many companies rely upon lawyers to make these types of decisions. That you put who is ultimately the person they are allowing to make the decision directly in question you can sometimes make a change. IF you do not address their main concern it cannot be influenced.
Understand that I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one on tv. I do, however, come from a family of lawyers that were so litigious that they sued one another (Thanksgiving was great as a kid when the adult food fight started) but I also, unfortunately, have a fair amount of contact with them presently.
This contact includes an employment law attorney that NEVER suggests that anyone ban guns for liability purposes. They advise to let "sleeping dogs lie" because taking a position is dangerous.
Hopefully the readers of this threat will enjoy the opposing views on this issue.
Guillermo,
My concern with addressing the liability issue is that it can be difficult to do so clearly so that the target of the letter sees it as a legal liability for them to have the policy stand.
Do you have some example text that would help push that button well?
My concern with addressing the liability issue is that it can be difficult to do so clearly so that the target of the letter sees it as a legal liability for them to have the policy stand.
Do you have some example text that would help push that button well?
jhallrv4
Member
Well, after not ever entering T.R.U. as far as I can remember, I read this thread Sunday morning. Weird, that very morning, my wife sez "let's go to Toys R Us and get a gift for that party tonight". So, I went there, carried my DW Commander Bobtail 1911 in a nice holster with FBI cant, under an excellent cover shirt. Eat that, TRU! I figured I could not go there at all, or flip them the long one and just carry there anyway. I chose the latter. They wouldn't know either way, and this way, I got to feel superior to their little petty B.S. and win the battle and the war.
Jeff
Jeff
Gouranga
Member
Also not a lawyer...but is seems to me a policy like Starbucks, neither for not against is the best way to go. If I go into the store unarmed, and I get shot by someone in the store, I could see suing for them creating an unsafe store by banning ME from carrying protection while at the same time (ironically) creating an unsafe environment banning my protection, failing to provide armed security of their own, and in fact advertising to armed criminals that no law abiding citizen will be carrying a firearm inside.
Once again not a lawyer but really, if i was a business owner, I would be neither for or against but I would defer to the laws in place in the state in which my store resides. Seems MUCH safer liability wise to not stand for anything, lol.
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
A few more corporate contacts at Toys R US (unfortunately, for snail mail at Toys R Us, One Geoffrey Way, Wayne, NJ 07470)
Gerald L. Storch, Chairman and CEO
Clay Creasey, Chief Financial Officer
Joel Wiest, Senior Vice President, Finance
Eleanor Hong, Vice President of Marketing -- U.S
The opposition here may be David J. Schwartz, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary. He leads the company’s Safety and Quality Assurance program and serves as Chairman of the Toys“R”Us, Inc. Safety Council.
Gerald L. Storch, Chairman and CEO
Clay Creasey, Chief Financial Officer
Joel Wiest, Senior Vice President, Finance
Eleanor Hong, Vice President of Marketing -- U.S
The opposition here may be David J. Schwartz, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary. He leads the company’s Safety and Quality Assurance program and serves as Chairman of the Toys“R”Us, Inc. Safety Council.
Guillermo
member
HSO asked for an example of how I bring up the liability issue. This is from a letter where I was discussing a company's policy concerning concealed handguns and the banning thereof.
[Here in Texas, the sign banning concealed guns is called a "30.06", the reference number of the law and has the added advantage of being funny to gun guys]
[Here in Texas, the sign banning concealed guns is called a "30.06", the reference number of the law and has the added advantage of being funny to gun guys]
Except that now they have your money.
Doh!
I make it a point to respect a landowner's right to deny my access for any reason. It's his property, it's his right, and as a law abiding human, I respect that.
But keep in mind that I have discovered myself on property where I was not welcome because I was legally concealing a gun and it was too late to do anything about it. In this case, I appreciate that the signs carry no legal weight in my state, so I can finish my business with no fear of spending the night in jail.
I do not wish to continue to push it, as business owners may decide to lobby for legal backing on their signs if they feel that citizens are ignoring their requests. I do not want this to happen for the above mentioned scenario. So I feel it is counterproductive to point out to these business owners that their signs mean nothing. No good can come from that.
Meanwhile, my money always goes to businesses that are fair, well run, and allow me to make my own choices in regards to personal defense.
Az
Guillermo
member
Churches are not allowed in that state by law not by choice. If they made the choice not to allow guns, yes, I would boycott them.
If writing a letter to a church I would quote scripture (Luke 22:36) and point out the many places of worship that have had shootings.
All this said, I suggest that you swerve back to Toys R Us as the moderators in this area are more stringent than others in other parts of THR.
Harley Quinn
Member
New location opened in my area in CA, I will not go to it, even though the laws in CA are quite tough about open carry...
I do carry concealed though, might have to find out if that would be ok, but will not shop there...
I am going to go in and ask about the rules, if they have any...
Regards
I do carry concealed though, might have to find out if that would be ok,
but will not shop there... I am going to go in and ask about the rules, if they have any...
Regards
Look for postings at the entrances.
A company policy has no real meaning to the public if they don't post the building.
You may want to include some inflammatory imagery. Ask them if they realize their signs are as offensive to us as this is to others and is equally misguided in much the same way.
A company policy has no real meaning to the public if they don't post the building.
You may want to include some inflammatory imagery. Ask them if they realize their signs are as offensive to us as this is to others and is equally misguided in much the same way.
Last edited:
jahwarrior
Member
i don't think the comparison to "Whites Only" signs is a good one. i can't help being born darker skinned than some people, but i can disarm before entering somewhere. it would be different if some people were born with guns attached to them, but i haven't met those people yet.
people and corporate entities have the right to bar people from carrying an inanimate object onto their private property if they wish, just as the people carrying those items have the right to boycott these places, in a civil manner, and to encourage others to follow suit.
if people start throwing out things like Rosa Parks and racial discrimination when alluding to 2A rights, we lose all credibility, especially to people like me, who actually do face discrimination based on what they look like.
people and corporate entities have the right to bar people from carrying an inanimate object onto their private property if they wish, just as the people carrying those items have the right to boycott these places, in a civil manner, and to encourage others to follow suit.
if people start throwing out things like Rosa Parks and racial discrimination when alluding to 2A rights, we lose all credibility, especially to people like me, who actually do face discrimination based on what they look like.
- Status
