Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Corporate policy says "Gun-Free Zone", yet local unit allows sidearms

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    263

    Corporate policy says "Gun-Free Zone", yet local unit allows sidearms

    Has anyone ever encountered a business where the Corporate Office has put out a nationwide "Gun-Free/Weapon-Free Zone" policy, but the local unit has no problems/issues with firearms being allowed?

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    Has anyone ever encountered a business where the Corporate Office has put out a nationwide "Gun-Free/Weapon-Free Zone" policy, but the local unit has no problems/issues with firearms being allowed?
    Yep and they will remained unnamed.

    I don't ask permission.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Why out someone - especially as it's more likely than not that the local unit head could/would be fired?

    You know the rules. You take your chances circumventing/violating them.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    263
    I was not gonna start naming businesses. I was just curious if anyone has encountered a business where the corporate office says "Gun-Free/Weapon-Free" but the local unit has no signage posting such & the staff seem not to care.

    I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that even though there's no signage indicating that a business is a GFZ, that they can ask you to leave for lawfully carrying.

    I see it as if there's no signage, it is allowed. But the law says otherwise.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    I was not gonna start naming businesses. I was just curious if anyone has encountered a business where the corporate office says "Gun-Free/Weapon-Free" but the local unit has no signage posting such & the staff seem not to care.

    I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that even though there's no signage indicating that a business is a GFZ, that they can ask you to leave for lawfully carrying.

    I see it as if there's no signage, it is allowed. But the law says otherwise.
    It's simple, because it's a private business, they can ask you to leave. They don't have to give you a reason at all for asking you to leave either. Refusal to leave is treated as trespassing.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    [ ... ]I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that even though there's no signage indicating that a business is a GFZ, that they can ask you to leave for lawfully carrying. [ ... ]
    The manager is the owner's agent.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    1. That manager is risking his job and corporate liability.

    2. My employer is a large health care system with multiple hospital campuses (campi?) We have a strict no-guns policy for other than the one cop that is assigned to one of the emergency departments. We are not posted but if someone brings a visible gun on the property, security will ask you to put it in your car. Oddly, one (and only one) of our properties has signage on the door asking you to go to security and store your gun for the duration of your visit. So you are allowed to go in and out while armed, contrary to the otherwise strict policy. Each property seems to be able to 'do their own thing' to some degree or another depending on their policies before becoming 'part of the family.' As an employee, I risk immediate termination if I carry on the property even while off the clock. Our violence policy requires that we call (the unarmed) security if we are threatened, and security is trained to 'observe & report.' No word on how to call if we are being actively attacked.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    It's simple, because it's a private business, they can ask you to leave. They don't have to give you a reason at all for asking you to leave either. Refusal to leave is treated as trespassing.
    A business open to the public cannot deny services due to their personal beliefs (see all the rulings concerning LGBT). A person's civil rights can not be infringed upon unless they are making themselves to be a nuisance (just the presence of a holstered sidearm, does not classify as being a nuisance).

    I can see places which have membership terms & conditions (Costco, Sam's Club, BJ's Wholesale, etc.) having policies in place as technically those establishments are not open for the general public.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    A business open to the public cannot deny services due to their personal beliefs (see all the rulings concerning LGBT). A person's civil rights can not be infringed upon unless they are making themselves to be a nuisance (just the presence of a holstered sidearm, does not classify as being a nuisance).

    I can see places which have membership terms & conditions (Costco, Sam's Club, BJ's Wholesale, etc.) having policies in place as technically those establishments are not open for the general public.
    a) 2A has not actually been declared a civil right. It's a conundrum that costs lawyers to explain.

    b) Private businesses are utterly unable to infringe on any civil right - only a government agency can do that. Words do actually have meaning - and the word you are probably searching for is "violate".

    c) When push comes to shove in the courtroom the private business will deny asking you to leave "just because" you had a firearm. They will weasel-word about staff and/or patrons being "uncomfortable" or "fearful" or just "distracting".

    This discussion has been had umpteen times - the general outcome never changes. I want to thank you for stepping up and volunteering to be the test case to change things.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    They don't have to post a sign stating every possible thing that could cause them to ask you to leave their property. No building would be large enough to hold such a sign. They can ask you to leave for being left handed, if they want to or the way you smell or your hair cut or your clothes or no reason at all, just for being you.
    Actually with the Anti-Discrimination policies written how they are, a business cannot technically ask a person to leave based on: race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability. So say a Gay African American Baptist with Spina Bifida confined in a wheelchair wanted to have a bite to eat at Joe Blow's, the personnel may have personal beliefs that disallow them from serving him as a customer. However due to those Anti-Discrimination laws, they must serve him.

    As was the case for Arlene's Flowers in Richland or that bakery in Oregon, both refused to provide services for a Gay Marriage Ceremony as the LGBT lifestyle was against the business owner's personal beliefs. Both businesses are open to the general public. In both court cases it was found that the personal beliefs of the owners did not matter, as they provide those services that they were trying to deny to the general public. The ability to marry whomever you like is classified as a Civil Right/Civil Liberty, the Right to Keep & Bear Arms is also classified as a Civil Right/Civil Liberty.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Findlay, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    89
    Personally, I see no need for those laws, and actually find them rather wrong. Perhaps it's my belief in the free market. I feel if Store C doesn't wish to cater to group A they should not be forced to do so. Group A will go elsewhere, as will any other groups who support group A or don't agree with Store C's decision not to cater to group A. If group A, their supporters, or Store C's critics, or any combination thereof is large enough, store c will go out of business or change their mind. Each is their own decision to make, and I feel it is their right to make such decisions. Having .gov force you to do something you're against smell awful of tyranny to me.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by JustJack View Post
    [ ... ] Having .gov force you to do something you're against smell awful of tyranny to me.
    +1 Just SHUN ICKY.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by JustJack View Post
    Personally, I see no need for those laws, and actually find them rather wrong. Perhaps it's my belief in the free market. I feel if Store C doesn't wish to cater to group A they should not be forced to do so. Group A will go elsewhere, as will any other groups who support group A or don't agree with Store C's decision not to cater to group A. If group A, their supporters, or Store C's critics, or any combination thereof is large enough, store c will go out of business or change their mind. Each is their own decision to make, and I feel it is their right to make such decisions. Having .gov force you to do something you're against smell awful of tyranny to me.

    Yep some just don't get it they want the government to force private individuals to associate with other individuals.

    These same supporters of this tyranny will then claim to be for liberty.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The right of forced inclusion/participation.

    It is a byproduct of the "entitlement culture" that has blossomed over the past several years.

    The "I have a right to...screw you" crowd.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    Actually with the Anti-Discrimination policies written how they are, a business cannot technically ask a person to leave based on: race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability. So say a Gay African American Baptist with Spina Bifida confined in a wheelchair wanted to have a bite to eat at Joe Blow's, the personnel may have personal beliefs that disallow them from serving him as a customer. However due to those Anti-Discrimination laws, they must serve him.

    As was the case for Arlene's Flowers in Richland or that bakery in Oregon, both refused to provide services for a Gay Marriage Ceremony as the LGBT lifestyle was against the business owner's personal beliefs. Both businesses are open to the general public. In both court cases it was found that the personal beliefs of the owners did not matter, as they provide those services that they were trying to deny to the general public. The ability to marry whomever you like is classified as a Civil Right/Civil Liberty, the Right to Keep & Bear Arms is also classified as a Civil Right/Civil Liberty.
    Can I have a citation supporting that?

    It may be a Constitutional right which the government is constrained from infringing, but beyond that I have never seen it ruled a civil right in the same way that race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin have been classified as civil rights.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    ...I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that even though there's no signage indicating that a business is a GFZ, that they can ask you to leave for lawfully carrying...
    This thread is not state specific, so this law is going to vary. While some states give weight of law to signage, most still do not require a sign for denial of service or being trespassed for any reason that does not violate a civil right. As mentioned, while the RKBA is a Constitutional and natural right, it is not legally recognized as a civil right.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  17. #17
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    Has anyone ever encountered a business where the Corporate Office has put out a nationwide "Gun-Free/Weapon-Free Zone" policy, but the local unit has no problems/issues with firearms being allowed?
    IMO I think you are thinking to hard on this.

    Assuming you are not an employee of said company, do you know all the corporate policies and procedures when relate to the operation of remote offices, is there a corporate policy that allows local units to not enforce or require adherence to particular policies? Perhaps the local unit is operating under a franchise contract or partnership agreement with clauses that you don't know about

    I for one don't care what a company policy is as I am not an employee of the company, if they do not have the required signage I will go about my business
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix David View Post
    IMO I think you are thinking to hard on this.

    Assuming you are not an employee of said company, do you know all the corporate policies and procedures when relate to the operation of remote offices, is there a corporate policy that allows local units to not enforce or require adherence to particular policies? Perhaps the local unit is operating under a franchise contract or partnership agreement with clauses that you don't know about

    I for one don't care what a company policy is as I am not an employee of the company, if they do not have the required signage I will go about my business
    The businesses I am talking about have been mentioned in the national media as being "gun-free". It would be so much easier, if all companies would follow the lead of Target which states they will adhere to local rules/regulations concerning the carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The right of forced inclusion/participation.

    It is a byproduct of the "entitlement culture" that has blossomed over the past several years.
    The past several years? You mean since 1964?

    How old does someone have to be consider more than half a century merely "the past several years?"

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yep some just don't get it they want the government to force private individuals to associate with other individuals.
    If by "some" you mean the vast majority of your fellow citizens, sure. This article points out that in 1963, some 73% of whites in this nation supported anti-discrimination laws. According to this 2013 memo 68% of registered voters supported federal anti-discrimination legislation to protect against private employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    There are some fine questions about freedom and social responsibility when it comes to discrimination on the part of private employers.

    But to diminish public sentiment on this matter by claiming only "some" support these laws is either dishonest or ignorant of the actual facts.

    The public clearly supports anti-discrimination laws of various types.

    I expect support for workplace safety laws is even higher.

    Legal protections for carrying a gun into private businesses could be justified under either anti-discrimination or workplace safety laws, IMO.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by JustJack View Post
    ....
    Having .gov force you to do something you're against smell awful of tyranny to me.
    I can understand this sentiment.

    Do you feel the same way about laws mandating fire exits and other safe building codes? Or laws mandating minimum levels of safety in mining operations?

    Does your view shift at all if we view firearms as a workplace safety issue rather than an anti-discrimination issue?

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Tyranny of the majority.

    When the legality of something is the judgment of right and wrong..............
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •