• 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.

Target Addresses Firearms

wittmeba

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
143
Location
New Castle, Va
I still think anyone asked to leave due to a gun should ask "Can I spend some money first?". << Just see how they might respond to that.
 

audiophile

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
21
Location
Midwest City
I know this is an older thread but I stumbled across it. Just a couple of thoughts on this link and other posts. I have OC'd in my local Target with never even a blink. The headline states Target's "ban" which is not a ban just a request as stated in other posts and three of the four examples happened in the parking lot not in the stores. It also does not mention whether or not those victims where licensed carriers and that they had to unarm to go shopping further making them a victim.
I can tell you that most times policy has nothing to do with the criminal mentality. I work for Wal-Mart and my store has been robbed at gun point four times since I have been there (almost three years). Our sister store just a couple of miles away has been robbed three times and the Neighborhood Market has been robbed twice and had a guy grab a small child and hold her at knife point until a detective fatally shot him. Just two days ago our Moore store was robbed also at gun point.
My belief is that the right to carry does deter to a point and obviously gives the carrier at least a level playing field when dealing with criminals but whether a retailer allows or bans firearms the criminals will come anyways.
Carry always and carry safe my friends.

Just my two cents. [emoji4]
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
You are quite correct in your views on this, but I have to point out here that most people ("carriers") miss the point when considering this issue:

Why carry in ANY fashion (OC or CC) to a business that is AGAINST what you do/stand for?

It reminds me of CCers who think they're so smart/clever, saying "Well, I just CC there, and they don't have a clue. Ha-Ha, the joke is on them."

No, simple-minded chump CCer, the joke is on YOU (meaning the "generic you" CCer, not audiophile), and YOU don't have a clue! Can you get any MORE myopic? Try seeing the Big Picture, please: Don't go there AT ALL anymore!

[CCers don't go very deep on these issues as OCers do]

So when a business says (like what, 7-8 of them so far in the news now?) -- as CEO Howard Shultz of Starbucks did back then when he "outed" himself when this kind of thing first started -- "We'll serve you but we'd rather not" -- what does that tell you?

Then why GO there ever again?

I know *I* stopped going to Starbucks back then, and then later to Target...and to ANY of these businesses who come out of the closet as the anti-gun/anti-freedom liberals they are, in essence saying they're against the 2nd Amendment, RKBA and State Law which makes OCing a completely LEGAL activity (and don't care if we -- or their own employees -- are put in danger being unarmed in a GFZ, where ALL the shootings are taking place...the business owners won't provide armed security, but at the same time won't allow employees/customers to defend themselves, either).

That's fine, as it's THEIR business so they can do what they want (not really: Christian bakery/business owners can't refuse to serve/make wedding cakes for gays...what a hypocritical double-standard -- but that's another topic). And I think businesses/schools should be held criminally liable for that sorry policy when employees/customers/students DO get harmed/maimed/killed because of it (but that's another topic also)!

Well...so can *I* do what I want: Not shop there ever again, either in-person or online...and thank them for outing themselves as the enemy they are, so I now KNOW where they stand, instead of the closet cowards they've been by hiding all this time. :)

Of course, carriers (OC/CC) are free to do what they want, I'm just saying I'm not going to support a business and make their liberal/anti-gun/anti-freedom (and anti-American even) owners richer that don't AT ALL mind prostituting their "liberal values" (an oxymoron, BTW, as they HAVE no "values") and gladly take my "conservative $$" but are against what I DO and stand for (being armed, one of America's freedoms). Further, these same business owners/corporations also vote for/donate (with "YOUR" money?) to anti-gun politicians and support anti-gun legislation -- why support THOSE people...directly or indirectly?

So whether they SEE a gun on a carrier in their stores or not, THAT's the Big Picture of the issue...


Now someone tell me: What's the "up side" of doing business with a company that "hates" you?

Simple answer: There isn't any.
 
Last edited:

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
TJ,

I didn't know that! WHY would a business be against sharing their customer traffic in a traditional American activity of Christmas Giving via the Salvation Army Red Kettles? And nowadays, as greed prompts many stores to set up for "Christmas" even before Halloween (as this year!!), don't these stores (and suits who own them) make ENOUGH money for their greedy selves? Probably not...where greed/profits are concerned, "enough" doesn't exist, as there's always MORE $$ to make...


As for the "pro-gun cause" (to make this gun-related) -- OCing especially -- and as per your avatar:

"The Quest is the Quest."

(Underworld, 1978)
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
"This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create."

I see. So, disarming honest, law-abiding citizens, thereby making them ripe targets for criminals is somehow commensurate with a "family-friendly shopping and work experience?"

Let's see...

Major retail corporation stupid enough to store customers' credit card information without their consent...

Major retail corporation stupid enough not to properly protect the data from hackers...

Major retail corporation stupid enough to disarm law-abiding citizens, thereby significantly increasing the likelihood of criminal activity...

Sorry, Target, but you're missing the target. Three strikes and you're out. I will NEVER shop at Target again. EVER.
 

audiophile

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
21
Location
Midwest City
In addition to all these points, we need to remember esp. with the Christmas season approaching, that some Target stores (not sure if all do or is "corp. policy") prohibit both the Salvation Army kettle bell-ringers AND the "Toys For Tots" people from setting up in front of their stores.

They are not only against our Constitutional rights, they are grinches.

Treat them accordingly.
Just FYI they do not allow the ringers or the TFT boxes but instead give a lump sum donation to these organizations. This has to do with an issue that happened years ago with another donation group causing an issue at a store.

BTW I did work for Target for two years and this was discussed in depth with team members.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Just FYI they do not allow the ringers or the TFT boxes but instead give a lump sum donation to these organizations. This has to do with an issue that happened years ago with another donation group causing an issue at a store.

BTW I did work for Target for two years and this was discussed in depth with team members.

Last year they collected about $9 million outside the 1300+ Target stores.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/charity/target.asp#p3WwH9SlbEd7HazT.99

How much did Target give them? Not $9MM.

$1MM ... so says this report below
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/1...salvation-army-but-bell-ringers-still-banned/

Have problems like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTigAAeCRIo

Competition between 2 groups
 

M&P carrier

Newbie
Joined
Nov 4, 2014
Messages
4
Location
Montana
I continue to carry in the Target stores, I have many times, I have never had an encounter with a store member asking me to leave or to not carry in the store, however I have gotten a weird look from one of the cashiers as she made eye contact with my firearm, but she never said anything.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
M&P carrier,

Please...you still don't get it (like so many others, especially people who CC, but OCers are supposed to know better).

Yes, if you insist, you can go on spending your $$ supporting (and making richer) liberals who hate what you do/stand for -- "We'll serve you but we'd rather not" -- yet perfectly willing to take your money. You know, "prostitute" their liberal "values" (as if they have any) just to make more $$. And IIRC, Target stock/sales have been slipping (mostly for OTHER reasons, like their security failures) and you'd just be helping them recover -- but why?

As for the REST of us, once we became "enlightened" (when these CEOs came out of their collective anti-gun/anti-2nd Amendment/anti-State Law/anti-RKBA closets), we stopped going to such businesses anymore, and even though we're few in numbers (OCers are few and far between) and probably don't hit their bottom line much, if at all, it DOESN'T MATTER -- it's a principle thing. Yet principle should not be an unknown/un-owned concept to CCers, either. And if ALL "pro-gun people" boycotted anti-gun businesses, then there sure WOULD be an impact. Most gun owners/carriers won't stop shopping at anti-gun stores, of course, especially CCers who think they're so clever "fooling" businesses by CCing, so "no one knows" they're armed -- yet they still go shopping there.

Sadly though, the "joke" is on the carriers, isn't it.

And yeah, I USED to OC @ Target, too...and @ Starbucks. No more. You should have become aware of this at least back when Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz started it all -- what, a year or so ago? He said the very same thing others businesse have since quoted -- "We'll serve you (and won't ask you to leave) but we'd rather you weren't here at all."

But it's not too late, Dear Sir: Expand your mind a bit and get The Big Picture on this issue...then get your OC and CC buddies up to speed on it, also. And pass it on...

Thanks for your consideration. :)
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I am torn on this. In the past I would not give any business my money that did not allow guns. BUT Target still allows guns, they made a waffling statement. Caving to that statement gives more power to the Mad Women. I did not shop in Target in the past, don't look to now, but if I did I would still open carry in spite of mad moms. If Target did not want the OC business they would have banned guns, and posted signs, they straddled a fence instead. I would not cut a business off for straddling the fence.
 

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
696
Location
Utah
A few years back I personally witnessed a Target GM kick a Salvation Army bell ringer off of a public sidewalk in the name of company policy (Grand Junction Colorado/Mesa Mall about '99 or so). After that I will not return. My money spends just as well elsewhere, and I can get the very same stuff (if not cheaper).
 

3FULLMAGS+1

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
86
Location
far sw corner of stark co. OH.
I am torn on this. In the past I would not give any business my money that did not allow guns. BUT Target still allows guns, they made a waffling statement. Caving to that statement gives more power to the Mad Women. I did not shop in Target in the past, don't look to now, but if I did I would still open carry in spite of mad moms. If Target did not want the OC business they would have banned guns, and posted signs, they straddled a fence instead. I would not cut a business off for straddling the fence.

I think the points WalkingWolf makes here is valid but I can also see where those who have chosen to no longer patronize those business's have a point also, We all would have liked for these companies to handle this issue differently than they did, than by asking those of us who carry to "please" leave our guns outside but not asking us to leave if we don't (ie: straddleing the fence as Wolf put it).

I'm not interested in speculating or arguing why they are choosing to "ride the fence", (although I've got my opinions), but since this ignorant, and "small" MDA group has been pulling this crap and trying to push business's into "making a stand", makes me wonder about some of the other business's, especially other national chains, that allow carry or at the least, have not had to make a public statement from pressure from a group like MDA, regarding the issue. What I'm saying, (or asking) is, how do we know that they really support our rights......do they "really" support our rights because they don't throw up sings? In other words, BEFORE Starbucks was pressured by MDA to make a stand "or statement" I'm sure most of us would have considered "them",(Starbucks), "gun friendly" too!

In reality, they didn't ban carry but "asked" us to leave our guns outside but wouldn't ask us to leave if we didn't. What I'm saying is, we know that there ARE some companies out there that are TRUELLY anti-gun by posting against carry or that have been found donating to the anti-gun cause/agenda, (ie: McDonalds corp.) and these are the things that I look for in determining whether to patronize a business or not, not some pressured statement.

We can all "assume" a companies stand on our gun rights and then spout off about how anti or not a company is by the "public statement" that is made by that company under pressure but I think there are more accurate tell's in judging a company, that's all.

As for patronizing Starbucks and the others that have taken the same stand, it's all personal opinion as far as I'm concerned. Have I patronized Starbucks since their statement, yes, both openly carrying, (and was not asked to leave), and on occasion, I've concealed by default because of the cold weather, (long coat). But I will also admit that I don't patronize them as much as I used too because of their statement. Am I wrong in doing so, I really don't know.

Maybe I'll get flamed for my comment here, maybe not.....I don't really care, but I think we, the pro-gun rights minded, need to be level headed in all of this, lest we make enemies of businesses that REALLY aren't against us.

Just my $.02
 
Last edited:

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
Question.

In some jurisdictions, a request (by appropriate management staff) to exit the premises if carrying is enough - if refused - to be charged with trespassing. Would then such a "public request" justify such a charge against an OC'er in a Target?
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Question.

In some jurisdictions, a request (by appropriate management staff) to exit the premises if carrying is enough - if refused - to be charged with trespassing. Would then such a "public request" justify such a charge against an OC'er in a Target?

IANAL but no. Asking you to leave a gun at home or in your car is different from being asked to leave the store. some of these requests even state that they wont ask you to leave. They also arent updating their policies to ban it so you haven't even broken any of their official policies.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Question.

In some jurisdictions, a request (by appropriate management staff) to exit the premises if carrying is enough - if refused - to be charged with trespassing. Would then such a "public request" justify such a charge against an OC'er in a Target?

No.

Even if Target spent millions on advertising, it doesn't carry the requisite legal weight.

Even if Target had "NO FIREARMS!" signs along with an iconic gun plastered with the red circle and slash, it wouldn't carry the requisite legal weight.

The defense would be easy: "I didn't see it." It's extremely difficult to prove otherwise.

On the other hand, it's quite easy to prove you asked someone to leave. The store manager and a single witness would suffice. Even better if you throw in footage from the store cameras and audio from a recording device.
 

audiophile

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
21
Location
Midwest City
A few years back I personally witnessed a Target GM kick a Salvation Army bell ringer off of a public sidewalk in the name of company policy (Grand Junction Colorado/Mesa Mall about '99 or so). After that I will not return. My money spends just as well elsewhere, and I can get the very same stuff (if not cheaper).
I don't know about this specific incident but Target builds a store they actually buy the property not least like most chain stores. This means any property that is in their boundaries (I.e. sidewalks, parking lots etc.) belongs to them and is not considered public property.

On a side note, being in management here at Wal-Mart, you would be surprised at all the complaints we get about havung the bell ringers out front.
 
Top