ed2276
Regular Member
I am sorry, WalkingWolf. I can't open the link to the post you reference for some unknown reason. Could you clarify? Are you referring to a post of mine, and accusing me of clinging to a lie?
-
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.
-
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.
Target Speaks: No Guns
- Thread starter The Big Guy
- Start date
I am sorry, WalkingWolf. I can't open the link to the post you reference for some unknown reason. Could you clarify? Are you referring to a post of mine, and accusing me of clinging to a lie?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Try opening it from the link in this post. I just copied it and it may not have the full address. If you are unaware this should clear up a few things for you.
ed2276
Regular Member
I was able to open it. I don't see where my "wondering if" could be characterized as a lie, since I didn't make a declaration that it was, in fact, trespassing, I merely was musing if the CEO's statement could be taken "legally" as a verbal warning, providing probable cause for a trespass case. My post and musings were not a statement of fact, but a question of law and its interpretation.
In the universe of prosecutors and judges, they often employ words of art to twist things into a crime and to obtain a conviction. Who knows but that some prosecutor or judge somewhere might construe the CEO's verbal request that people not OC in Target stores as fulfilling the notice element of trespass if an OCer should enter the store? As I wrote, it is not likely; but, it may not be impossible to make such a case. I don't know. Forgive me if I am over-cautious when it comes to things like this; maybe I am just too paranoid where government is concerned.
Last edited:
ed2276
Regular Member
Not a thing, MAC. My wife has gone there a time or two, and my sister used to work at a Target. There is nothing special about Target. I have never shopped there and never will, after the CEO's statement. What's next, will the CEO ask African American teens who wear hoodies not to enter Target stores because the customers and employees don't feeeeel safe, and are not having a family-friendly experience?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I said "clings to lies"~~any claim there is a ban/prohibition is clearly FALSE. As evidenced by Target reps statement saying it is not a ban.
Bulleteater
Regular Member
Target's decision changes nothing for me. I have not stepped inside one of their stores in many, many years, always got the impression that their corporate policies were liberal, and their sponsorships the same. I consider myself a loyal Walmart customer, they have everything I need, and when it comes to my RKBA they leave me alone and they don't cave in to demanding moms.
As the title says: Target speaks. Well, I speak with my wallet. If I really cared about Target's policy I would Xerox a bunch of Walmart receipts for visual proof of the business they have lost and mail it to Target Corporate.
As the title says: Target speaks. Well, I speak with my wallet. If I really cared about Target's policy I would Xerox a bunch of Walmart receipts for visual proof of the business they have lost and mail it to Target Corporate.
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
Target is very much a wal mart like store. Its most defining feature seems to be the omission of the Sporting goods section. No rifles no ammo, I do not believe they sell BB-guns. The automotive section is missing batteries. That is my take anyway.
Turbod'1
Regular Member
FWIW I actually went to the Target on Green Valley this evening because I needed a carry on bag: Several employees including the Security Guard noticed but not a word was said.
BTW, the bag was marked as $59.99 and ended up being $39.99. It's a nice rolley bag, too.
That said, I'll stick to Wal*Mart.
BTW, the bag was marked as $59.99 and ended up being $39.99. It's a nice rolley bag, too.
That said, I'll stick to Wal*Mart.
They must ask you in person to leave. If you fail to comply then it is trespassing.
garand_guy
Regular Member
I shopped there today, specifically BECAUSE of their stupid statement. I do it to piss Target off (as if it was a living, breathing thing, like Wal-Mart :lol. No employees said anything.
A guy my age (a shopper) saw me, looked down, looked up and said "Good man."
Happy Independence Day everybody!
Also got a mini-US flag on clearance for 79 cents!
. No employees said anything. A guy my age (a shopper) saw me, looked down, looked up and said "Good man."
Happy Independence Day everybody!
Also got a mini-US flag on clearance for 79 cents!
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
I shopped there today, specifically BECAUSE of their stupid statement. I do it to piss Target off (as if it was a living, breathing thing, like Wal-Mart :lol
A guy my age (a shopper) saw me, looked down, looked up and said "Good man."
Happy Independence Day everybody!
Also got a mini-US flag on clearance for 79 cents!
Soo refreshing to see one of us, "Take the Bait" :cuss:
28kfps
Regular Member
I shopped there today, specifically BECAUSE of their stupid statement. I do it to piss Target off (as if it was a living, breathing thing, like Wal-Mart :lol
A guy my age (a shopper) saw me, looked down, looked up and said "Good man."
Happy Independence Day everybody!
Also got a mini-US flag on clearance for 79 cents!
Even better value if it was a made in USA flag.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Sorry, don't mean to be "trespassing" in the Nevada subforum (teehee) but I prefer Target to Walmart because the Target here is smaller, easier to get in and out of, and is almost always less crowded than Walmart. I'll almost always spend a few extra bucks to avoid a crowd.
ed2276
Regular Member
But, WalkingWolf, I didn't claim that there was a ban/prohibition against entering Target with a firearm. I was merely asking a hypothetical question: if an anti-gun manager/employee wanted to claim that by entering the store with a firearm after the CEO verbally requested that we don't OC, could the manager/employee make a trespassing case that OCers had already been verbally requested not to enter? Would a prosecutor construe the CEO's verbal request as fulfilling the notice element of trespass and file a trespass charge? Could a judge construe the CEO's verbal request as an advance notice not to enter the store OC'ing?
I'll just leave it at that.
ed2276
Regular Member
Right. But could the CEO's verbal request that we not enter their stores OCing be legally construed as an "in-person" request in advance?
ed2276
Regular Member
Yep. But, could the presence of the sign, coupled with the CEO's verbal request that we don't enter the stores OCing, make a trespass case if we do enter OCing? Scenario: we see the sign, which has no legal bearing by itself, and enter the store. We are arrested for OCing inside the store for trespass. The prosecutor files because he construes the CEO's verbal request not to enter the store OCing as legal notice in advance. The sign+CEO's advanced verbal request not to enter while OCing= Trespass. That's my question.
If the CEO spoke to you personally and told you to leave the store, yes.
You are not required to know store policies, requests, or signage.
If his business is open to the public, you have the implied invitation to be there unless revoked directly to you.
ed2276
Regular Member
Ok, cool. Thanks for the clarification.