Is it legal to deny someone services..

imported post

Everyone else locally is mreally cool with the fact that I carry.

Case in point... I went into the bank (major national chain, NOT Wachovia) while OCing and no one said a word, until I was getting ready to leave. Now, the fact that I was carrying was extremely obvious, so I expected to be asked to leave or arrested.

The branch manager pulled me aside into his office, closed the door, and very politely asked me to not OC in his bank any more. He said that he had absolutely no problem with me CCing and proceeded to show me the Glock 27 he was carrying concealed. We had a nice little conversation about carrying, .40 cal, and the local laws, compared weapons, shook hands, and went on about or business.

I was extremely impressed by his politeness and professionalism in handling a manner that he could have just as easily handled by publicly asking me to leave or calling the police.

I've had similar experiences at Chick-Fil-A (the franchise owner is a collector who frequently carries at work), Blockbuster, OfficeMax, all of the grocery stores, and Lowes. They're all carry-friendly and on the occasion when someone in management has said something about my carrying it's been positive.

Wal-Mart is the only local place I know of where it is legal to carry (damn GA laws) that is not carry-friendly.

imported post

HankT wrote:

ne1 wrote:

murphyslaw wrote:

Around here they have many things that are unavailable else where. I have other plces to buy firearm stuff, but there are many things that can only be had at the wal-mart. Wish it wasnt the way it is but it is what it is. I walkthrew the sporting goods section everytime I'm there but I never buy anything and if asked for help I always make a point of telling them they can help me after changing there anti gun policys.

Click to expand...

It may be true that Alaska is more remote than other places but I still think this is a matter of convenience vs. necessity. Have you considered shopping online?

Click to expand...

It is almost always a matter of convenience. Alternative sources abound for all the products that Wal-Mart sells.

That is the reason that a self-pronounced boycott of Wal-Mart (over whatever issue) which is really just a partial boycott (i.e., one product category) or a faux boycott (the spouse andkids actually go there to get the stuff) is not very compelling or noteworthy.Better to just state disagreement with or hatred of whatever Wal-Mart policy is of issue.



ne1 wrote:

Maybe it is all about insurance, but insurance can be taken out of the picture when a company doesn't make enough sales to pay the premiums. Again the point is just because walmart is big does not make them immune from consumer pressures.

Click to expand...

True. Because of allthe ongoing boycotts against Wal-mart in FY 2006, it was kept under $350 billion in revenues again! (Only $348.7 B)

This makes I don't know how many years in a row.

Click to expand...

yes I do ALLOT of shopping online. the problem is most of the time the shipping is 3X more then the product in the first place.

Im most of the cases the reason I go to walmart is NOT convenience but plane there the onlyones that have what I want with out driveing the 1.42hrs to a different store to get it(not to mention my main rig gets 10mpg on a good day)If that is not enought for you then so be it. I love it here in alaska but sometimes I miss living in Portland.

imported post

Actually yes, I cannot quote the exact lingo but you can find it someone in this mess -http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/ch2.html

there are also some more chapters, may be in there too.



But I am positively sure I read this yesterday. And it was to this affect: any real property owner can refuse services, or may make you leave their property, even if signage is not present that says firearms not allowed. This would also pertain to any management in the store acting upon the real property owners behalf.

imported post

openryan wrote:

And it was to this affect: any real property owner can refuse services, or may make you leave their property, even if signage is not present that says firearms not allowed. This would also pertain to any management in the store acting upon the real property owners behalf.

Click to expand...

I think the point was he was not refused service, it is that they refused to sell him a specific product.

imported post

So if a female dresses in "ho-ish" clothing, are you not going to sell her that string thong??

imported post

I suppose that depends on weather or not she is going to use it as a deadly weapon, and if my workplace allows women to wear thongs into the store.

imported post

I would only sale the thong if she modeled it and then wore it out of the store with nothing on top of it.

imported post

WalMart has a policy of allowing firearms carry that is legal where the walmart location is located. Open or concealed is fine, as long as you are following the law. The mp3 has been posted multiple times.

imported post

To those who do not think boycotts are effective: Have you seen Imus lately?

imported post

ne1 wrote:

To those who do not think boycotts are effective: Have you seen Imus lately?

Click to expand...

Imus will make more money after his recent blubbering than before.

Boycotts don't work. And partial or faux boycotts really don't work.



BTW, ne1, earlier in this thread, I said:

HankT wrote:

ne1 wrote:

Maybe it is all about insurance, but insurance can be taken out of the picture when a company doesn't make enough sales to pay the premiums. Again the point is just because walmart is big does not make them immune from consumer pressures.

Click to expand...

True. Because of allthe ongoing boycotts against Wal-mart in FY 2006, it was kept under $350 billion in revenues again! (Only $348.7 B)

This makes I don't know how many years in a row.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, ne1, the number I had was wrong. Just yesterday, Igot the Fortune 500 annual issue and read that Wal-Mart came in at $351.1 billion for 2006. So, our boycotts did not keep them under $350 billion after all.

In fact, W-M is No. 1 in revenues again, taking back the title from Exxon-Mobil.

But this year.... :cuss:... we boycott Wal-Mart into submission!

imported post

Bite My Ass wrote:

A private business can refuse service to you because they don't like the way you comb your hair . . . or whatever.

The more I read this forum, and you can flame me here, the more I'm seeing that a lot of open carry is a blatent effort to provoke.

I open carry in rural areas where social convention affords that people are armed, and it's no big deal. Hunters, anglers, people working in the woods with dangerous animals about.

But a suburban Wal-Mart -- and the suburbs are the only places where Wal-Mart sets up shop -- is provoking confrontation when you have an openly carried, loaded gun and request to buy ammo.

These are retail venues which escort you and your newly purchased firearm, stowed in its shipping box, to the door before they hand it over to you.

Stop being surprised and annoyed that they won't sell you ammo when you're standing at the counter with a loaded, openly carried firearm.

Click to expand...

So I guess wal-mart can also refuse to sell a black man a ski-mask because the crime rate around here is higher for those folks????

imported post

Bite My Ass wrote:

A private business can refuse service to you because they don't like the way you comb your hair . . . or whatever.

The more I read this forum, and you can flame me here, the more I'm seeing that a lot of open carry is a blatent effort to provoke.

I open carry in rural areas where social convention affords that people are armed, and it's no big deal. Hunters, anglers, people working in the woods with dangerous animals about.

But a suburban Wal-Mart -- and the suburbs are the only places where Wal-Mart sets up shop -- is provoking confrontation when you have an openly carried, loaded gun and request to buy ammo.

These are retail venues which escort you and your newly purchased firearm, stowed in its shipping box, to the door before they hand it over to you.

Stop being surprised and annoyed that they won't sell you ammo when you're standing at the counter with a loaded, openly carried firearm.

Click to expand...

Because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is a blatant effort to provoke. Do you read minds via internet post's? Some of us live in suburban and urban area's. Should we forsake our rights because some people are not comfortable with it. Well I guess according to you we should. In my America, I won't.

imported post

Because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is a blatant effort to provoke. Do you read minds via internet post's? Some of us live in suburban and urban area's. Should we forsake our rights because some people are not comfortable with it. Well I guess according to you we should. In my America, I won't.

Click to expand...

That too...

imported post

Bitemyass, is crime not the highest in the subURBAN and URBAN locations? Exactly the kind of place that you SHOULD be carrying a gun?

As long as the business allows it, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Why does Law enforcement carry guns? To protect the general population. However, the supreme court ruled that they do NOT have a responsibility to individual citizens. THAT responsibility is in our own hands.

Is there a high percentage of us ever needing to defend ourselves by force? Not likely. But that statistical fact probably doesn't make the people who WERE a victim of violent crime sleep any better at night.

imported post

Cut And Shoot wrote:

Any private business can opt to refuse to provide service to you for any reason whatever, or no reason at all.

Stop being surprised that Wal Mart won't sell you ammo while you're visibly armed. Jeez fuggin' Gawd get a clue!

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're an idiot. Just thought I'd mention that.

imported post

It seems to me that you're just trying to irritate ne1 with your put down. I wouldn't appreciate being backhanded either. I think that he was sincere and was willing to express his opinion.

I expect than any private business has the right to refuse service to anyone they choose. As an FFL, I've refused to sell firearms to potential customers because I didn't like their comments or demeaner. That was my right and I'd close my doors if I didn't have a right to refuse service at times.

I signed up with this forum just to respond to your responses to ne1. I found it to be uncalled for. This was my first posting. Now you can backhand me and expel me from the forum.

imported post

teknoid wrote:

State law takes precedence in KY. The "firearms prohibited" signs can be ignored, unless the type of establishment is on the list of places they aren't allowed by law (banks, courthouses, etc.). Liquor rules would vary widely, especially in KY. The "bourbon capital of the world" has more dry counties than any other state. This one is "moist", meaning no package sales and no bars. Restaraunts can sell if they derive less than half of their profit from it. Ky is also pro freedom. Wal-Mart is anal about gun sales to a degree, in a purely "CYA" sort of way. It's amazing how many people get mad when they're turned down because they have the wrong address on their licensce or something stupid like that, but it's the law.

State law(s) may be the reason the rules vary. Around here, they couldn't ban guns in the store even if they wanted to. Local sentiment would hurt their business badly if they tried, anyway. Maybe they could get by with it in Louisville or Lexington, but not here.

Click to expand...

Property owners have no right to refuse to allow firearms in KY? Does this mean that someone (non LEO) can come onto your property with a firearm without your consent?

imported post

ne1 wrote:

To those who do not think boycotts are effective: Have you seen Imus lately?

Click to expand...

He wasn't boycotted off the air you moron...he was FIRED....big difference.

imported post

It seems to me that you're just trying to irritate ne1 with your put down. I wouldn't appreciate being backhanded either. I think that he was sincere and was willing to express his opinion.

I expect than any private business has the right to refuse service to anyone they choose. As an FFL, I've refused to sell firearms to potential customers because I didn't like their comments or demeaner. That was my right and I'd close my doors if I didn't have a right to refuse service at times.

I signed up with this forum just to respond to your responses to ne1. I found it to be uncalled for. This was my first posting. Now you can backhand me and expel me from the forum.

Click to expand...

Well gee, thanks for the show of support. Don't worry about me being shot down, though- I'm a big boy and can roll with a few punches- if I was slapped I must say that I didn't even feel it. Perhaps I was too busy laughing at the witless wonders pissin' in the wind. It is puzzlinghow they can claim to be fighting for freedom while insisting that they absolutely need to buy the latest technology stolen from America and produced by Chinese slave labor. Must be related to this Robert Hunt fella who likes to play dress-up so the sheeple will thank him for his service but he really doen't have a clue about what American freedoms are. http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=10097

Please don't let this be your last post. Feel free to step in occasionally and say what you will. I still do. People can take it for what it's worth.

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

ne1 wrote:

To those who do not think boycotts are effective: Have you seen Imus lately?

Click to expand...

He wasn't boycotted off the air you moron...he was FIRED....big difference.

Click to expand...

The only reason he was fired was because people threatened to not buy anything advertised on his program. Nothing he said was as consequential as the perceived dollar loss from his sponsors.