• 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.

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

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
374
Location
Kahlotus, WA
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?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
374
Location
Kahlotus, WA
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.
 

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
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.
 

paramedic70002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,440
Location
Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
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.
 

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
374
Location
Kahlotus, WA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
374
Location
Kahlotus, WA
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.
 

JustJack

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
82
Location
Findlay, Ohio, United States
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...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.
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
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
 

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
374
Location
Kahlotus, WA
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.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
....
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
 
Top