Kicked out of Kroger

flb_78 · Jul 18, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
Such as? In this particular type of instance ... he leaves w/o complaint and comes back later to do business. Nothing more. Leaving the protection of gun rights to someone else, right?

Wow...You do not know **** about what goes on here in Kentucky and how much Gutshot has done.

No, he's probably not worried about some dipstick low level manager at a Krogers that he'll never be in, he's too busy working with KC3, the court system and law makers making sure that our rights are not eroded here, but instead, expanded.

DrakeZ07 · Jul 18, 2013

KRM59 said:
Watch out Gutshot, Drakes on the prowl... :lol:

Meow chicka meow meow ;3 What can I say, I always had a thing for older guys. He can be my 'master and commander' on the far side of my 'world'.

Loved that movie, still don't understand the plot or jist of it.

davidmcbeth · Jul 18, 2013

gutshot said:
This is a situation that I have never before experienced here on OCDO. I have both BB62 and davidmcbeth aligned against me. That being the case, my level of confidence that I am right increases to near 100%.

Or is it more correct to say 200% ?

willy1094 · Jul 18, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
I agree, gutshot wants someone else to defend his rights obviously. "OK, I'll come back later" is the equivalent of saying "I approve". It is this attitude that results in the gun laws that restrict our rights today.

Your "rights" DO NOT supersede the private land/property owner's (you have no firearms rights on private property beyond what the property owner allows). While open to the public, Kroger is private property. If a store has a very clear 'guns are allowed' policy and a manager asks you to put it in your car or leave, you best be on you way. Take it up with someone with more authority. Or stay and be arrested for trespass. Just as policy is not law for us, nor is it in the eyes of the Police. If asked to leave, you leave PERIOD. Again, take it up the chain and fight the good fight.

The rest of your post is just as silly. In the very little time I've been on this forum I could tell you that gutshot has gone above and beyond for carry rights. You will get further by acting professionally than by kicking and screaming like a child that can't have his/her candy.

davidmcbeth · Jul 19, 2013

willy1094 said:
Your "rights" DO NOT supersede the private land/property owner's (you have no firearms rights on private property beyond what the property owner allows). While open to the public, Kroger is private property. If a store has a very clear 'guns are allowed' policy and a manager asks you to put it in your car or leave, you best be on you way. Take it up with someone with more authority. Or stay and be arrested for trespass. Just as policy is not law for us, nor is it in the eyes of the Police. If asked to leave, you leave PERIOD. Again, take it up the chain and fight the good fight.

The rest of your post is just as silly. In the very little time I've been on this forum I could tell you that gutshot has gone above and beyond for carry rights. You will get further by acting professionally than by kicking and screaming like a child that can't have his/her candy.

Kroger INVITES you to their land. Kroger is not a natural person. We have rights that companies do not.

The law will change .... what if they did not want Buddhists in their store? Oh, I guess they cannot do anything they want, right? Whereas, natural persons can keep Buddhists off their land, right?

Soon, all will be de-brainwashed.

I'm all for property rights .... but there is a distinction between a natural person v. non-natural person in this regard.

Think about it ...

Maverick9 · Jul 19, 2013

papa bear said:
WHISTLINGJACK, you just got pacified. you were sent to a flunky that didn't give a rats ass what you thought. he was backing up the manager and probably just giving you their personal opinion

Please, Please pursue this farther. go the the district and/or the regional manager. keep going up the line till you get the company policy that firearms are not allowed in the store (does not exists). if the answer is that they are not allowed then it is up to you weather or not you go back

YES. Please post the audio from your recorder on Youtube and send a copy to Kroger Corporate. We'll all benefit and Kroger will have another email meltdown.

Grapeshot · Jul 19, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
Kroger INVITES you to their land. Kroger is not a natural person. We have rights that companies do not.

The law will change .... what if they did not want Buddhists in their store? Oh, I guess they cannot do anything they want, right? Whereas, natural persons can keep Buddhists off their land, right?

Soon, all will be de-brainwashed.

I'm all for property rights .... but there is a distinction between a natural person v. non-natural person in this regard.

Think about it ...

People that carry guns are not a protected class, so yes they can do anything they want to that regard.

The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated against the states.

Personally, I am not 100% on the side of property rights - I espouse a quasi-public distinction, whereby those private properties inviting/open to the public are subject to some of the limitations/restrictions of public properties. Amongst these would be the RKBA. Don't expect to see this in our lifetimes.

willy1094 · Jul 19, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
Kroger INVITES you to their land. Kroger is not a natural person. We have rights that companies do not.

The law will change .... what if they did not want Buddhists in their store? Oh, I guess they cannot do anything they want, right? Whereas, natural persons can keep Buddhists off their land, right?

Soon, all will be de-brainwashed.

I'm all for property rights .... but there is a distinction between a natural person v. non-natural person in this regard.

Think about it ...

There is nothing brainwashed about it. It is how it is, and just because you don't like it does not make property owner's rights go away. If I owned a business open to the public I would dang well expect that my right to the property that I am paying for and caring for are thrown out the door just for allowing anyone to walk into those doors. If I owned a Christian book store and someone walked in saying they loved the devil and spouted off that Jesus is a monster I should be able to ask that person to leave. That is despite the fact that their actions are protected by the 1A. If it is not a protected class (firearms owners are not) and the property owner does not like it, you're gone. Airlines refuse passengers due to attire. That is a public mode of transportation. You cannot discriminate against a protected class for anything open to the public (race, sex, etc) and to compare firearms owns as such is silly and emotional. If I open my house to an "open house" viewing, do I not have the right to limit what you bring onto my property? Do you not think I could also get into a heap of trouble for refusing to sell to a black family (if it can be proved)? I know the answers to those and think you should learn them also before you wind up in jail. If you do not want to believe that is fine. Let us all know how it goes for you when you refuse to leave. :banghead: You wouldn't be screaming if Kroger or a gun store kicked someone out for protesting the carry of firearms within their store.

I don't like the idea of being singled out just because someone does not feel comfortable with me having a weapon. I do believe that EVERYONE has equal rights to my own, even business owners. Best thing we can do has already been stated. Tell them you will take you money to another business (smaller businesses would be glad to have it and don't expect Kroger or Walmart to really miss you) and complain up the chain as far as you can or are willing to go. There really is no debate beyond that. So step away from your computer and do something (legal and professional) about it.

papa bear · Jul 19, 2013

willy1094 said:
Your "rights" DO NOT supersede the private land/property owner's (you have no firearms rights on private property beyond what the property owner allows). While open to the public, Kroger is private property. If a store has a very clear 'guns are allowed' policy and a manager asks you to put it in your car or leave, you best be on you way. Take it up with someone with more authority. Or stay and be arrested for trespass. Just as policy is not law for us, nor is it in the eyes of the Police. If asked to leave, you leave PERIOD. Again, take it up the chain and fight the good fight.

The rest of your post is just as silly. In the very little time I've been on this forum I could tell you that gutshot has gone above and beyond for carry rights. You will get further by acting professionally than by kicking and screaming like a child that can't have his/her candy.

i will say it again. business do not have the same rights as private individuals. when you apply for an "public invitation" business license you give up a lot of your private rights. the business is subject to the laws of the area they operate in. there is no private property rights in US

davidmcbeth · Jul 19, 2013

papa bear said:
i will say it again. business do not have the same rights as private individuals. when you apply for an "public invitation" business license you give up a lot of your private rights. the business is subject to the laws of the area they operate in. there is no private property rights in US

Thanks for the posting ... people have been brainwashed into thinking non-natural persons have the same rights living beings do.

They don't.

Ex: you, a natural person can represent yourself w/o legal consul .... a company cannot ... what that would violate the 14th amendment according to people who think as noted in this thread.

The right to carry will soon also be seen that way. People used to talk about "militia" in the right to possess too .. many people...now only idiots do.

Here's my shout out to companies: if you don't want Americans in your store, then don't have a store in America.

Flounder · Jul 19, 2013

papa bear said:
i will say it again. business do not have the same rights as private individuals. when you apply for an "public invitation" business license you give up a lot of your private rights. the business is subject to the laws of the area they operate in. there is no private property rights in US

What is a "public invitation" license? Looked up what permits you need to open a grocery in KY. http://onestop.ky.gov/start/Pages/default.aspx
All you need as far as operational permits is the retail grocer, which requires inspection by a plumber and health department. Cant find anywhere that you give up the right to refuse service because of "public invitation".

davidmcbeth · Jul 19, 2013

gutshot said:
Definitely a "birds of a feather" situation. It appears we have some forum members with reading comprehension deficiencies. Nowhere in my post did I ever suggest any course of action for anyone. I certainly didn't ask anyone to fight for anything on my behalf. The only thing I did do is give my opinion of what a business means when they say they "follow state law". I did not say I agree or disagree with that policy. I did not say it was legal or illegal. I did not say it was moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, friendly or unfriendly, right or wrong, good or bad or make any other judgement on that policy. I did not suggest what I would do or what anyone else should do if confronted with this policy. They only thing I did say is that IF I was an employee and had no specific instructions from my employer on a possible situation and I made a judgement on what was the best course of action in that situation. I would expect my employer to back me up (you have to consider this is a very unlikely event since I've been retired for may years and am not seeking employment). Now you remedial readers go back to my post and read slowly and carefully.

You must have a 3" screen or something to use such bold type. Making it bigger does not make it better (in this case anyway).

My opinions in this matter are future supreme court opinions on this subject matter.

You opinions are the opinions of the past...

I understand the position of a manager backing up an employee ... even when the employee is wrong...but this is only applicable in trivial matters IMO...a manager who back up a lower level employee on significant issues is a bad manager.

Grapeshot · Jul 19, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
You must have a 3" screen or something to use such bold type. Making it bigger does not make it better (in this case anyway).

My opinions in this matter are future supreme court opinions on this subject matter.

You opinions are the opinions of the past...

I understand the position of a manager backing up an employee ... even when the employee is wrong...but this is only applicable in trivial matters IMO...a manager who back up a lower level employee on significant issues is a bad manager.

Putting your foot in your mouth again David. He does have special dispensation to post thus - as he does have visual limitations.

It is better to ask a question, than to leap to an erroneous conclusion.

****************************************************

Some businesses in Va. can represent themselves in court = sole proprietorships - I have personally done so.

Donica · Jul 19, 2013

Grapeshot said:
The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated against the states.

McDonald v. Chicago?

Grapeshot · Jul 19, 2013

Grapeshot said:
The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated against the states.

Donica said:
McDonald v. Chicago?

You are right of course. I was overly broad and should have said "not totally incorporated."

The final decision was based on "selective incorporation."

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[SUP][21][/SUP] Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[SUP][22][/SUP] The plurality decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[SUP][23][/SUP] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".[SUP][23][/SUP]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Each positive decision advances our cause.

willy1094 · Jul 20, 2013

papa bear said:
i will say it again. business do not have the same rights as private individuals. when you apply for an "public invitation" business license you give up a lot of your private rights. the business is subject to the laws of the area they operate in. there is no private property rights in US

The lack of the same rights does not equate to them having no rights. Again, refuse to leave when a business asks you to and let me know how that works for you. I don't operate in what I believe is coming in the future. Here and now says that if I have a firearm and the business asks me to leave(or if they ask me to leave or cursing, a 1A protection), I am to leave or will be arrested for trespass. I'm still not being arrested for carrying in the business. Having worked in retail before I have had to ask people to leave (non firearms related) and of course they spouted off about how they didn't have to. The police didn't agree nor did the judges.

davidmcbeth · Jul 20, 2013

Grapeshot said:
You are right of course. I was overly broad and should have said "not totally incorporated."

The final decision was based on "selective incorporation."

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[SUP][21][/SUP] Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[SUP][22][/SUP] The plurality decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[SUP][23][/SUP] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".[SUP][23][/SUP]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Each positive decision advances our cause.

The idea of selective incorporation was a made up idea by the courts. And so it the idea of strict scrutiny, intermediate, etc...is all rubbish made up by courts to create different tiers of lawfulness? A ridiculous made up notion that only could have come out of the minds of mentally challenged lawyers. Recommend a good search on the origins of strict scrutiny ... many scholars also share the opinion that its rubbish law.

The McDonald case IMO was not a great great decision. All the talking about restrictions etc ...

Look at the result ..in Heller II the courts ruled that AR15's can be banned...because they are dangerous (in Scotus case it was "unusual AND dangerous"...but that's how judges will continue to rule for a while...they conveniently forget their 5th grade english lessons.

Instead the McDonald court should have gone back to 1939 Miller opinion and further clarified that arms with any military value are protected. But I'm sure that Scalia (not a great 2nd amendment supporter) leaned them to the decision that they came up with.

People were generally happy with Thomas' concurring opinion.

davidmcbeth · Jul 20, 2013

Grapeshot said:
You are right of course. I was overly broad and should have said "not totally incorporated."

The final decision was based on "selective incorporation."

Selective incorp. is the idea that a select federal amendment is not binding on a state until SCOTUS/courts say it is. Prior to McDonald, the 2nd amend did not apply to the states. So states and state courts, like mine, just ignored its existence.

Maverick9 · Jul 20, 2013

Grapeshot said:
Putting your foot in your mouth again David. He does have special dispensation to post thus - as he does have visual limitations.

It is better to ask a question, than to leap to an erroneous conclusion.

****************************************************

Some businesses in Va. can represent themselves in court = sole proprietorships - I have personally done so.

THEN HE SHOULD PUT THAT IN HIS .SIG FILE. Just a thought, unless he's baiting people - but perish that thought.

09jisaac · Jul 20, 2013

Maverick9 said:
THEN HE SHOULD PUT THAT IN HIS .SIG FILE. Just a thought, unless he's baiting people - but perish that thought.

Why does everybody from out of town get so butthurt over gutshot's increased font size?

It seems nobody can refute what he is saying so they must start on superficial things.

He is also ugly, do we need to bring that up too?

Judge the man by what he does/says, not by what you think he is saying and definitely not by his slightly larger text size.

Kicked out of Kroger

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Legendary Warrior

New member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member