Interesting Safeway Encounter

I had the exact same confrontation with a manager at a Safeway in Gresham Oregon. He did however open up a closed register and rang my friend and I up to get us out quickly. Safeway is not opposed to weapons in the stores but the managers are not informed about it enough. It's understandable that he just wants his customers happy. At least he was polite and not opposing you, and even offered to ask around about the policy.

amlevin said:

And YES, they can deny your 2A rights because it's private property and their rules are not a form of Government restriction.

Click to expand...

No, they can't. The reason the constitution does not prohibit private citizens from infringing on the rights of other private citizens is because they legally can't. Any attempt to do so starts at assault and proceeds into more serious crimes from there. Some random guy who demands I cover up or leave it in the car will be refused. I'll match him for politeness, but I will refuse.

My firearm is my private property, and my ownership of it does not change depending on who owns the surface I am standing on, any more than my ownership of my shoes or my wallet changes. A property owner (or agents of the owner) can exercise their private property rights to exclude me from the property. But that has no impact on my own property rights or anyone else's.

I did correct him for improperly using the word "brandishing" -- he apologized for using the wrong terminology. I didn't have time to follow up with him yesterday due to a good OC meet and me working with a new addition to my firearms family -- a sleek Kimber Pro Carry II 1911. Kimber 1911s are probably the nicest guns I have ever fired.

I should hopefully get a response from the manager in a day or two. Somebody posted a policy response ... thank you.

When you dropped off or called in the script, did they inform you that OC was not allowed?

If not, then I would have a big big problem here. Are you supposed to just leave and die on the sidewalk because you could not get your life-requiring drugs?

And I am flip-flopping on rights of business owners on this point.

Look, you, I, and businesses own property. I don't allow people on my land...I do not allow the public to go on my land. Businesses open up their land to the public...and only the government can regulate firearms. Land owned by businesses can be kept gun free by keeping out the public; once you invite and allow the public to go onto the property, then you cannot turn around and begin to regulate. Its still their land and they can prevent CC/OC anytime they want-by closing the access of the public onto their land. I would akin CC/OC to religion -- its something you choose to perform --- and the law should recognize discrimination against those that do. Most discrimination involves stuff you have no control over (age, sex, color, nationality, etc) but their are others too that have been narrowly defined. Religion and CC/OC should be included.

Additionally, once you open your land up to the public, you have opened up your land to all the public, not just people you like.

I used to work for QFC. one day I was bagging and one of the store managers was checking out a customer who was OCing. and I've always been a big gun rights guy so it didn't bother me, but after he left the manager leaned closer to me and said "oh by the way, if someone is carrying a firearm in the store, that's allowed as long as he's not threatening anyone, open carry is legal in WA state" which I already knew but it seems we have a policy of allowing it at QFC

davidmcbeth said:

When you dropped off or called in the script, did they inform you that OC was not allowed?

If not, then I would have a big big problem here. Are you supposed to just leave and die on the sidewalk because you could not get your life-requiring drugs?

And I am flip-flopping on rights of business owners on this point.

Look, you, I, and businesses own property. I don't allow people on my land...I do not allow the public to go on my land. Businesses open up their land to the public...and only the government can regulate firearms. Land owned by businesses can be kept gun free by keeping out the public; once you invite and allow the public to go onto the property, then you cannot turn around and begin to regulate. Its still their land and they can prevent CC/OC anytime they want-by closing the access of the public onto their land. I would akin CC/OC to religion -- its something you choose to perform --- and the law should recognize discrimination against those that do. Most discrimination involves stuff you have no control over (age, sex, color, nationality, etc) but their are others too that have been narrowly defined. Religion and CC/OC should be included.

Additionally, once you open your land up to the public, you have opened up your land to all the public, not just people you like.

Click to expand...

Businesses have a right to refuse to allow guns on their property. Being open to the public doesn't negate that right. Unfortunately for us, gun owners are not a protected class.

Hef said:

Businesses have a right to refuse to allow guns on their property. Being open to the public doesn't negate that right. Unfortunately for us, gun owners are not a protected class.

Click to expand...

No class should be "protected".

Difdi said:

No, they can't. The reason the constitution does not prohibit private citizens from infringing on the rights of other private citizens is because they legally can't. Any attempt to do so starts at assault and proceeds into more serious crimes from there. Some random guy who demands I cover up or leave it in the car will be refused. I'll match him for politeness, but I will refuse.

My firearm is my private property, and my ownership of it does not change depending on who owns the surface I am standing on, any more than my ownership of my shoes or my wallet changes. A property owner (or agents of the owner) can exercise their private property rights to exclude me from the property. But that has no impact on my own property rights or anyone else's.

Click to expand...

Hey, what's your address? I'm going to throw a big party in your living room. Couple hundred people, 4-5 kegs, maybe some strippers.

If you try to stop me, that will be assault. Right?

Did you check the Men's Room? I've been in Safeway restrooms with sharps disposal containers hanging on the wall. IDK if they were for diabetics or they were tired of druggies shooting up in the bathroom and leaving the needles on the floor or what.
(Safeway on MLK and Othello)

trevorthebusdriver said:

Did you check the Men's Room? I've been in Safeway restrooms with sharps disposal containers hanging on the wall. IDK if they were for diabetics or they were tired of druggies shooting up in the bathroom and leaving the needles on the floor or what.
(Safeway on MLK and Othello)

Click to expand...

There's your answer.

KBCraig said:

Hey, what's your address? I'm going to throw a big party in your living room. Couple hundred people, 4-5 kegs, maybe some strippers.

If you try to stop me, that will be assault. Right?

Click to expand...

Wrong. If you have a legal right to be in my home, then I have no business telling you what color shoes to wear. If I object to your shoe color or behavior, I can demand you leave. But I cannot seize your shoes and destroy them. My private property rights don't alter yours. If they did, then it wouldn't be illegal to rob anyone who knocked on your front door.

If you showed up uninvited to my house, you would need to break and enter to get inside. That's a crime. You'd then meet me and my home defense weapon of choice. I've found that a battle-sharp Tai-Chi sword is every bit as intimidating to home intruders as a shotgun, and I'm better with the sword than my carry pistol. Since I'm a reasonable sort, I'd request that you leave. Failure to do so would have consequences (among the likely ones would be a need to replace my carpeting).

But we're not discussing home invasions or burglaries here in this thread, we're discussing grocery stores. A store customer has an implied invitation to enter, and so long as they are quiet and respectful, they have the reasonable expectation that they can select their purchases, pay for them and leave without any trouble. A store manager running up and ordering you not to wear black shoes (to continue the analogy) is being irrational and unreasonable, but it is his store. While he cannot legally seize and destroy shoes, demand they be removed "or else" or beat the shoe malcontent into unconsciousness, he certainly can exercise his private property rights and demand the improperly attired person leave the premises. Failure to leave at that point is trespassing, and will result in an unpleasant encounter with Officer Unfriendly.

This does not interfere with a right to keep and wear shoes. It is the natural interaction of two sets of property rights. The owner of land can determine who is allowed to stand on that land, while the owner of the shoes (or firearm) loses no rights of ownership because they stepped from one surface to another.

Difdi, you have no clue about private property rights. You should get some.

Permission to enter a business is implied by it being open. That is true, you'll be able to enter without any problem and go about your business. The problem with this is that the permission can be revoked at any time. If this were not the case, the business would never be able to expel anyone, even if it were closing time or someone was being a menace. It's all the Property Owner's choice, or Agent acting for the Owner.

I believe that people should respect other's decision to carry, but I also believe that a property owner has final say on their property. In a situation such as this, it's not that the property owner is saying "You cannot Carry", it's them saying "You cannot be ON MY PROPERTY while you carry". They're not taking away or infringing on your right to carry, they're taking away the permission to be on their property.

Difdi said:

No, they can't. The reason the constitution does not prohibit private citizens from infringing on the rights of other private citizens is because they legally can't. Any attempt to do so starts at assault and proceeds into more serious crimes from there. Some random guy who demands I cover up or leave it in the car will be refused. I'll match him for politeness, but I will refuse.

My firearm is my private property, and my ownership of it does not change depending on who owns the surface I am standing on, any more than my ownership of my shoes or my wallet changes. A property owner (or agents of the owner) can exercise their private property rights to exclude me from the property. But that has no impact on my own property rights or anyone else's.

Click to expand...

What LEGAL precedence are you citing?

Pardon me if this has been already addressed above...

But when a store says "We follow state law", aren't they just saying "We don't put any additional restrictions on behavior beyond what state law already says"? That's the way I've always taken it.

KBCraig said:

Difdi, you have no clue about private property rights. You should get some.

Click to expand...

Lovenox said:

What LEGAL precedence are you citing?

Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution, RCW 9A.36.021 and RCW 9A.56.300.

The only means by which one citizen can deny another their rights is by physical force. Learned helplessness aside, words don't amount to physical coercion. Any such use of force starts with assault and proceeds immediately to theft of a firearm. Both of those are felonies.

Why do you believe that standing on someone else's land strips anyone of constitutional or statutory rights?

Difdi said:

Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution, RCW 9A.36.021 and RCW 9A.56.300.

The only means by which one citizen can deny another their rights is by physical force. Learned helplessness aside, words don't amount to physical coercion. Any such use of force starts with assault and proceeds immediately to theft of a firearm. Both of those are felonies.

Why do you believe that standing on someone else's land strips anyone of constitutional or statutory rights?

Click to expand...

Nobody says you can't retain your rights, the owner of the property can just tell you to exercise them OFF his property.

Phssthpok said:

I can't speak for other areas,but I know the waste transfer station (dump) in Clark County will accept 'sharps/bio-hazard' material on their once-a-month 'free' chemical turn in day (for things like old paint, Automotive chemicals, yard chemicals, expired drugs, sharps, etc). Sharps MUST be in a proper sharps container (you leave the container too), properly labeled and 'sealed' as best is feasibly possible, and you need to have an attendant actually 'receive' anything with the bio-hazard label on it unlike other chemicals which you can just drop off in the appropriate area.

For those who don't know:

View attachment 9179

Click to expand...

My mother has had to dispose of sharps and was told by her doctor and the landfill that putting them in an old Gatorade bottle and then in the trash is just fine. The thick plastic bottles are essentially the same as those fancy containers. Easy cheesy.

amlevin said:

Nobody says you can't retain your rights, the owner of the property can just tell you to exercise them OFF his property.

Click to expand...

Which is what I've been saying all along. But that's not what you said in the first place, that I disagreed with:

amlevin said:

And YES, they can deny your 2A rights because it's private property and their rules are not a form of Government restriction.

Click to expand...

tombrewster421 said:

My mother has had to dispose of sharps and was told by her doctor and the landfill that putting them in an old Gatorade bottle and then in the trash is just fine. The thick plastic bottles are essentially the same as those fancy containers. Easy cheesy.

Click to expand...

Add a splash of bleach just to be safe.