• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Showing papers (receipts) at stores as a requirement for exiting

youngck

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
65
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia, USA
Why should we not want to be free of meddling and interference in our lives? We are free people, citizens not subjects in our public and private lives.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Sam’s Club reserves the right to inspect any container, backpack, briefcase and so forth upon entering or leaving the Club and to refuse entry to anyone at our discretion.

Does this include your pockets? Your children's pockets? Your underwear? Your rectum?
 

The Trickster

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
216
Location
Arizona
Sam’s Club reserves the right to inspect any container, backpack, briefcase and so forth upon entering or leaving the Club and to refuse entry to anyone at our discretion.

Does this include your pockets? Your children's pockets? Your underwear? Your rectum?

I would like to know how exactly they believe they have a "right" to do any of those things - simply because they say they do? I'll let them check my receipt because I agreed to that upon signing the contract, but if they demand to inspect my wife's purse or my pockets, it's not happening. Fortunately, in the many years I have shopped at Sam's Club I have never seen anything like this occur. In fact, most of the folks checking receipts don't even read it; rather, they just mark it with their Sharpie and wish you well, all while daydreaming.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I would like to know how exactly they believe they have a "right" to do any of those things - simply because they say they do? I'll let them check my receipt because I agreed to that upon signing the contract, but if they demand to inspect my wife's purse or my pockets, it's not happening. Fortunately, in the many years I have shopped at Sam's Club I have never seen anything like this occur. In fact, most of the folks checking receipts don't even read it; rather, they just mark it with their Sharpie and wish you well, all while daydreaming.

Unfortunately, yes they can claim that they have your permission because one gives it to them to be a member.

Employers search employees (some do) as a condition of employment .. courts have not said no.

My point is that the only recourse is for them not to allow one entry into the store ... but I don't think that this would apply when going out.

I think that one can refuse when leaving w/o any negative repercussions. Sam's Club wrote the contract, they are more strongly bound by its conditions that you and it is to be interpreted to the favor of the customer.

The refusal of a search is reasonably read to mean that if one refuses when trying to enter to a search then they can turn you away...that's it. They cannot cancel the membership. It re-sets every time. And refusal upon exiting has no consequences at all.
 

Castleninja

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
44
Location
Nevada
You don't have to stop, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of you actually stealing they can not legally detain you for not showing a receipt.
 

RK3369

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
92
Location
South Carolina
well...........

Why wouldn't you want to show your ID at an "immigration checkpoint"? Why wouldn't you want to take a quick breath test at a "DUI checkpoint"? Why wouldn't you want to just show your ID when stopped by a LEO on the sidewalk for open carry? Why wouldn't you..... Because for any intervention to your activity or travel or general free-ness there should be probable cause or reasonable suspicion that you've committed a (real) crime.

we don't have open carry here. In point of fact, if approached and identified as such, we are required to inform an LEO of our concealed carry status(whether or not we are carrying) and show permit. I would also show my id at an immigration checkpoint if asked. I have no problem with that. Also would take a breath test at dui check point as I don't drink. Personally, I think that those that drink and drive, or text and drive are a huge problem for the safety of the rest of us.

You can't have complete freedom from the intervention of authority if you want any security other than what you can provide on your own. If you don't want government intervention in society trying to make your life safer, then don't complain when government fails to get drunk or texting drivers off the road and they run into you. And don't complain when all the illegals in this country obtain welfare benefits for themselves and their anchor babies and YOU are paying your taxes to support it. You've got to give the system some tools to weed them out, and if you object to any intervention, then there is no hope to ever fix any of these problems.
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Thanks to everyone for the responses. And to davidmcbeth: I also made out the difference between the "request" and "required" in the agreement. It's too bad the three employees I dealt with before the manager took it as hostile.:(

Just to clarify a few things:

I was prevented from leaving with my newly-purchased belongings. The doorman physically blocked my exit with my cart, and one lady employee actually latched onto the front of the cart I was using and (quite forcefully) moved it off to the side, away from the exit. The latter was done despite my vocalization of my intent to pull off to the side and speak with a supervisor.

I would like to continue to shop at Sam's Club, seeing as it follows state law regarding carry, and the other wholesale store (whose name must not be mentioned:lol:) is anti through and through.

Given that Sam's is a membership club, I can see that the receipt-checking could be considered a make-or-break deal: I don't HAVE to show it, and they CAN'T force me to show it, but they CAN revoke my membership if I don't. In this case, I agree to present my receipt for scrutiny, but that alone. Any checking of my person or my carried belongings will require a formal suspicion of theft.

As to Walmart and other, non-membership stores, I'll continue on my way unless they'd like to involve the police.
 
Last edited:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
SNIP...You can't have complete freedom from the intervention of authority if you want any security other than what you can provide on your own. If you don't want government intervention in society trying to make your life safer, then don't complain when government fails to get drunk or texting drivers off the road and they run into you.

ALERT! INFECTION DETECTED! ALERT! INFECTION DETECTED!

RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION:
1) LOCATE AND CONTAIN THE SOURCE OF THE INFECTION (usually TV or other digital "media")
2) ANALYZE NATURE AND DEGREE OF INFECTION (can be quickly determined; inversely proportional to the degree with which you agree the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are Rights instead of privileges)
3) PURGE INFECTION FROM SYSTEM TO RESET (reading of Freedom-minded material)

In all seriousness though, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Not attacking you, just trying to point out the double-standard that has rubbed off on you from all the statist propaganda that citizens are bombarded with. I can say that for myself, at least, not too long ago, Citizen (or was it WalkingWolf?:confused:) pointed out something I posted that REALLY stopped me and got me thinking. I'd been tainted by the statist Dark Side, and am glad he pointed it out so I could purge it from my system.:lol:
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
I would like to know how exactly they believe they have a "right" to do any of those things - simply because they say they do? I'll let them check my receipt because I agreed to that upon signing the contract, but if they demand to inspect my wife's purse or my pockets, it's not happening. Fortunately, in the many years I have shopped at Sam's Club I have never seen anything like this occur. In fact, most of the folks checking receipts don't even read it; rather, they just mark it with their Sharpie and wish you well, all while daydreaming.

They do have the right... under threat of revoking your membership if you don't agree with the terms and refuse. It's also put in there for intimidation purposes I think. So when they 'request' to sesrch your stuff they can pull the contract and say you already agreed... even if it's not actually enforceable by threat of force like with LEO's.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Why wouldn't you want to show your ID at an "immigration checkpoint"? Why wouldn't you want to take a quick breath test at a "DUI checkpoint"? Why wouldn't you want to just show your ID when stopped by a LEO on the sidewalk for open carry? Why wouldn't you..... Because for any intervention to your activity or travel or general free-ness there should be probable cause or reasonable suspicion that you've committed a (real) crime.

we don't have open carry here. In point of fact, if approached and identified as such, we are required to inform an LEO of our concealed carry status(whether or not we are carrying) and show permit. I would also show my id at an immigration checkpoint if asked. I have no problem with that. Also would take a breath test at dui check point as I don't drink. Personally, I think that those that drink and drive, or text and drive are a huge problem for the safety of the rest of us.

You can't have complete freedom from the intervention of authority if you want any security other than what you can provide on your own. If you don't want government intervention in society trying to make your life safer, then don't complain when government fails to get drunk or texting drivers off the road and they run into you. And don't complain when all the illegals in this country obtain welfare benefits for themselves and their anchor babies and YOU are paying your taxes to support it. You've got to give the system some tools to weed them out, and if you object to any intervention, then there is no hope to ever fix any of these problems.

Of your entire post, the bolded portion is what I have the biggest problem with. I doesn't really matter who is able to sign up for welfare, the entire damn program is wrong. You're telling me that the problem is illegal immigrants being on welfare, the problem is welfare itself, sir. And to tell me not to complain? What the ****? You think you have the right to come and take my money, and then give it to someone who has a reported income under a certain arbitrary number, and then tell me not to complain because that person is an "illegal immigrant" and I didn't want to comply at an "immigration checkpoint"? And that's not even hardly a good example because under our current system I have no obligation to ID at any such roadblock!

I don't have to give "the system" "some tools" to weed them out. That is so incredibly unimaginative. As if there is NO EARTHLY WAY to deal with a problem other than to fork over some form of liberty to the government and let them take whatever % of our income they say they need to fix the issue. Your statement that there is no hope for security outside of forfeiture of rights is asinine.
 
Last edited:

Bernymac

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
415
Location
Las Vegas
"My receipt is in the trash can over there by the rest room. You are free to look for it. I'll wait here!"
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Why wouldn't you want to show your ID at an "immigration checkpoint"? Why wouldn't you want to take a quick breath test at a "DUI checkpoint"? Why wouldn't you want to just show your ID when stopped by a LEO on the sidewalk for open carry? Why wouldn't you..... Because for any intervention to your activity or travel or general free-ness there should be probable cause or reasonable suspicion that you've committed a (real) crime.

we don't have open carry here. In point of fact, if approached and identified as such, we are required to inform an LEO of our concealed carry status(whether or not we are carrying) and show permit. I would also show my id at an immigration checkpoint if asked. I have no problem with that. Also would take a breath test at dui check point as I don't drink. Personally, I think that those that drink and drive, or text and drive are a huge problem for the safety of the rest of us.

You can't have complete freedom from the intervention of authority if you want any security other than what you can provide on your own. If you don't want government intervention in society trying to make your life safer, then don't complain when government fails to get drunk or texting drivers off the road and they run into you. And don't complain when all the illegals in this country obtain welfare benefits for themselves and their anchor babies and YOU are paying your taxes to support it. You've got to give the system some tools to weed them out, and if you object to any intervention, then there is no hope to ever fix any of these problems.

As someone else pointed out, how does you showing your receipt stop theft from occurring, exactly?

This is not security; it's security theatre, and I refuse to endorse it.

As Patrick Henry famously said, "Give me liberty, or..."
 

RK3369

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
92
Location
South Carolina
well............

Of your entire post, the bolded portion is what I have the biggest problem with. I doesn't really matter who is able to sign up for welfare, the entire damn program is wrong. You're telling me that the problem is illegal immigrants being on welfare, the problem is welfare itself, sir. And to tell me not to complain? What the ****? You think you have the right to come and take my money, and then give it to someone who has a reported income under a certain arbitrary number, and then tell me not to complain because that person is an "illegal immigrant" and I didn't want to comply at an "immigration checkpoint"? And that's not even hardly a good example because under our current system I have no obligation to ID at any such roadblock!

I don't have to give "the system" "some tools" to weed them out. That is so incredibly unimaginative. As if there is NO EARTHLY WAY to deal with a problem other than to fork over some form of liberty to the government and let them take whatever % of our income they say they need to fix the issue. Your statement that there is no hope for security outside of forfeiture of rights is asinine.

Do you pay your Federal taxes? If you do, you are contributing to welfare whether you like it or not. Medicaid and Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) are FEDERAL programs which are mandated on the states, and although the states have to pay some of the costs, much of the cost comes from the Federal Government. So you are forking over "some tools". And if it's asinine to think that you can not expect security without some forfeiture of rights, how do you propose to solve these problems? How would you get all the illegal benefit grabbers off welfare? Would you just go around and decide for yourself who was legitimate and who was not, and then just deny their benefits? Ever hear of "due process"? Well, it kinda exists in the benefit entitlement world also, in case you hadn't noticed. I don't like it either but you can't expect to weed out those who are not playing by the rules if you don't give someone the ability and authority to figure out whether everyone is playing by the rules. In so doing, you give up a little liberty. I don't like it either but I like to see people scamming the system even less.
 
Last edited:

RK3369

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
92
Location
South Carolina
broken quotes

Oh my goodness. What is up with these broken quotes???? :p

it's people trying to make other people look like bigger idiots than they are. Some of the crap before this I didn't originally post either, but someone on here likes to try to stir the pot and make things boil. Trolls are on every board.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Do you pay your Federal taxes? If you do, you are contributing to welfare whether you like it or not. Medicaid and Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) are FEDERAL programs which are mandated on the states, and although the states have to pay some of the costs, much of the cost comes from the Federal Government. So you are forking over "some tools". And if it's asinine to think that you can not expect security without some forfeiture of rights, how do you propose to solve these problems? How would you get all the illegal benefit grabbers off welfare? Would you just go around and decide for yourself who was legitimate and who was not, and then just deny their benefits? Ever hear of "due process"? Well, it kinda exists in the benefit entitlement world also, in case you hadn't noticed. I don't like it either but you can't expect to weed out those who are not playing by the rules if you don't give someone the ability and authority to figure out whether everyone is playing by the rules. In so doing, you give up a little liberty. I don't like it either but I like to see people scamming the system even less.

But again -- it isn't illegals scamming the welfare system that is the problem. The underlying problem is that there is a welfare system. If the system were impenetrable to scammers, we'd still have a problem in that welfare would still exist. If the welfare program (which is not legitimate) did not exist, illegal immigrants could not scam the system. I would also not have to forfeit my rights for this problem to be solved in this manner. For what it's worth, I'm sorry if I was insulting in my previous post.

I'm afraid we've drifted off topic a bit. Maybe we should try to reel it back in.

All things considered, leaving Sam's club, if the doorman/woman wants to count the items in my card and make sure the number of items on the receipt matches, I think I'll humor them. Walking out of some other place, though, if it isn't expected that they'll want to review my receipt and purchased items, I'll probably object...
 
Last edited:

The Trickster

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
216
Location
Arizona
They do have the right... under threat of revoking your membership if you don't agree with the terms and refuse. It's also put in there for intimidation purposes I think. So when they 'request' to sesrch your stuff they can pull the contract and say you already agreed... even if it's not actually enforceable by threat of force like with LEO's.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

If they try to do something as absurd as check my wife's purse of pat me down simply because they think they can and subsequently threaten to revoke our membership if we don't comply, I will gladly walk over to the customer service counter and cancel my membership. Afterwards, I will contact (in no specific order) an attorney, the media, and their corporate office. With all that in mind, I'm fairly confident that I'll win the war. I wouldn't want to do business with a company that employs such ridiculous tactics.
 
Last edited:

RK3369

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
92
Location
South Carolina
I completely agree with that one.........

But again -- it isn't illegals scamming the welfare system that is the problem. The underlying problem is that there is a welfare system. If the system were impenetrable to scammers, we'd still have a problem in that welfare would still exist. If the welfare program (which is not legitimate) did not exist, illegal immigrants could not scam the system. I would also not have to forfeit my rights for this problem to be solved in this manner. For what it's worth, I'm sorry if I was insulting in my previous post.

I completely agree with you. I, unfortunately, work in part of the system that deals with entitlements. It makes me sick to see what the courts and legal system do to those committing fraud when we catch them at it. I also absolutely object to having to pay taxes to go to this process unfortunately, it is so institutionalized in our country now I am at a loss to try to see how it can or will ever change without a complete breakdown of the system. That is also why I fervently believe in the right to keep and bear arms, because I do feel that eventually I will need to be able to defend myself, my family and my property. I'd also like to see the welfare system completely abolished but what are we going to do with those who can't or won't help themselves, just shoot them??? (as much as we all might like to at times). And I don't like giving up any of my rights to support the system either but I just can't see how to change it without us descending into complete anarchy. For every fraudster we catch, the courts sentence them to minor penalties such as 5 yrs probation, and partial restitution of the amounts they've scammed. I fear it is a losing battle so my advice is to fight to keep the rights we all have, especially the 2A, and stay loaded up with ammo. Eventually the system will breakdown, it's just a matter of time, despite what the politicians tell us.
 
Top