The Wal-Mart Problem

imported post

The recent thread on the ejection of cdunlop fromthe Battlefield Wal-Mart store raises the issue yet again of the Wal-Mart problem. I'll use Hawk's most recent post over there to launch this thread in the hopes of generating some discussion and ideas to solve the WMP. I am assuming that, at least at some point, it would be in the interests of the OC (and CC) communities to deal wit da problem.



Hawkflyer wrote:

It is amazing how such a simple concept can elude so many people. The fact that state law prevails at Walmarts, does NOT mean you get to OC or even CC in those stores. IT IS UP TO THE MANAGER OF THE LOCAL STORE!

That IS what the state law says.

If you get tossed from one store go to another and let both store know you have moved your money.

When you run out of Walmarts, stop going there, and tell them that too.

Or we could send HankT to corporate and have a full blown gun ban at all of the stores if people really want consistency. In order to be consistent ALL stores would have to meet the requirements of the strictest jurisdiction in which they have a store.

Guess what the code might be there. Can you say Bloomberg?

Click to expand...

It's amazing how many fraidy cats there are when a communication problem comes up. Looks like that ole "de facto corporate policy" that many herewere relying on is getting de flexible.

But, we really don't know. And nobody wants to check it out. They're afraid of Susan, afraid of Joe McQueen. Afraid of talking to people.

Stuck. Stuck (exactly half-way) between claiming a fait accompli of unimpeded OCing in Wally Worlds throughout Virginia/U.S. and having to decry increasingly numerous instances of denials of same to OCDC members. With no relief in sight.

So, the best advice is "go out there and OC in Wal-Mart. If you get hassled, fight it and they will back down!" Or some such. Yeah, and so we get case after case after case of Wal-Mart hasslings.


And all we can get from Hawkflyer is a "Don't rock the boat, don't do nothing--it could be worse." bleat with a dash of FUDwhich he tries to pass offas sage advice. How very progressive. :uhoh:


On the Wal-Mart problem, Mike seems limited to the exhortation to just go OC and everything will be alright because "WalMart managers not up to speed on the applicable state law...will eventually "get it" and back down."

In the meantime, OCDCers and other OCerscontinually get busted. How many are getting tagged? Are the OC busts increasing? Who nows? "Stay the course," is Mike's strategy. And don't call Joe McQueen, whatever you do. That would show "weakness." So, if you get kicked at your local W-M, just duke it out with the local security, cops, local management and corporate--every single time it happens.

If you lose, just go to another Wal-Mart, Hawk suggests. Which isn't such a totally bad strategy (as avoidance strategies go) since there are thousands of Wally-Worlds. At a rate of gettingbanned from, say, two W-M's per week, it would take you 28.8 years to get shut out of allthe "Lower Prices--Always" afforded by Sam's great accomplishment. Presumably, after you get kicked from all the domestic Wally Worlds, you can start on the Canadian list.


What is the Wal-Mart problem anyway?



Most capable analysts are aware that any study/inquiry/research/analysis must begin with the crucial step ofdefining the problem. This step is not optional. Any analysis is (should be) constrained by the definition and parameters of the problem. Befuddlement, inertia, indecisiveness, inertia, lethargyand chaos follow when the problem is not defined adequately. Nothing gets solved and lots of resources are wasted. Pissing and moan about the non-solving of the problem always follows. It's a fascinating thing to watch--if you like seeing train wrecks.



I think the WMP begins with this "de facto corporate policy" that many people tout, a telephone message from a staffer (someone is afraid to mention here name) in Bentonville:

This is Susan [garbled], I'm Joe McQueen's assistant with the Wal-Mart's Market office. Uh, we are in receipt of a letter, uh, dated 10-2, or call, I would say,uh, concerning a manager in a Chesapeake store. Uh, leading a charge to ban in store carrying of firearms [garbled]district [garbled].

Number 1, you are absolutely 100% correct. You are, especially in the state of Virginia and every other state that I know of, legally entitled to carry a firearm.

Uh, as long as you are within the law, that's your business. We have no right to stop you, we might be able to stop and ask about it, because they would like to know who's got one and who doesn't, especially if they see one. But, uh, as far as telling you cannot enter the store, you would have to leave, uh, won't happen. If police were called, the police will tell you, we have, they have no car...no way can they remove someone just because they carry a firearm. This is not, you talk about a ban, uh, this is nothing that we are aware of at the Market office nor at the home office.


Uh, we will certainly, I'd love to talk to you about it. Uh, if you'd like to call the Market office, 471-1651, area code 757. Uh, but, this is, this is a new one we've heard.
Uh, so, if you don't mind I'll try to call you tomorrow or if you want to give me a call back.

Thank you and have a wonderful, wonderful day.

[reflects aural emphasis from telecon]

If, and only if, someone wants to accept this as a "corporate policy, then the Wal-Mart problem is:

The recurring failure of local Wal-Mart stores in Virginia and other states to properly know and apply the actual corporate policy/and or statelawsthat prohibit the stopping and/or removal of"someone just because they [open or concealed]carry a firearm."


This problemdefinition could be tweaked a bit,and anyone is free toalter it to improve it to suit their tastes. But it contains the essential factors that are presumably responsible for the difficulties that certain OCers are currently experiencing: Wal-Mart corporate policy, localstate statutory provisions, local store/area culture, local store managment jurisdiction and lattitude, police involvement, etc.

Time to solve theWMP.

Do we use the ostrich head-in-the-groundcum FUD approach advocated byHawkflyer results in your having to make a long list of Wal-Mart stores, crossing each store off the list asyou get thrown out of them over 28 years? OrMike's approach of "don't show weakness, just OC" means that each OC community will die the death of a thousand cuts, each slice being yet another OCDCer getting stopped/hassled/ejectedby the W-M militia and local LEOs?

The common denominator of the solutions and direction offered by Hawk and Mike is:

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

but they (kind of) solve a problem in a comprehensible way. So, pick Hawk's solution or Mike's solution. Everything will be al-right.

Or is there another solution to the WMP?

imported post

I've already cited my solution: if you are offended by ***Mart'spolicies (or China's policies because most of the junk ***mart sells comes from China), simply do not spend your money there. Unfortunately, those who purport to be adamant about 'standing up for their rights'usually cannot find it in themselves to be inconvenienced by not having immediate access to the latest widget from China.

Is it any wonder that it is so difficult to find products "made in the USA" these days?

imported post

HankT wrote:

The recent thread on the ejection of cdunlop fromthe Battlefield Wal-Mart store raises the issue yet again of the Wal-Mart problem. I'll use Hawk's most recent post over there to launch this thread in the hopes of generating some discussion and ideas to solve the WMP. I am assuming that, at least at some point, it would be in the interests of the OC (and CC) communities to deal wit da problem.



Hawkflyer wrote:

It is amazing how such a simple concept can elude so many people. The fact that state law prevails at Walmarts, does NOT mean you get to OC or even CC in those stores. IT IS UP TO THE MANAGER OF THE LOCAL STORE!

That IS what the state law says.

If you get tossed from one store go to another and let both store know you have moved your money.

When you run out of Walmarts, stop going there, and tell them that too.

Or we could send HankT to corporate and have a full blown gun ban at all of the stores if people really want consistency. In order to be consistent ALL stores would have to meet the requirements of the strictest jurisdiction in which they have a store.

Guess what the code might be there. Can you say Bloomberg?

Click to expand...

It's amazing how many fraidy cats there are when a communication problem comes up. Looks like that ole "de facto corporate policy" that many herewere relying on is getting de flexible.

But, we really don't know. And nobody wants to check it out. They're afraid of Susan, afraid of Joe McQueen. Afraid of talking to people.

Stuck. Stuck (exactly half-way) between claiming a fait accompli of unimpeded OCing in Wally Worlds throughout Virginia/U.S. and having to decry increasingly numerous instances of denials of same to OCDC members. With no relief in sight.

So, the best advice is "go out there and OC in Wal-Mart. If you get hassled, fight it and they will back down!" Or some such. Yeah, and so we get case after case after case of Wal-Mart hasslings.


And all we can get from Hawkflyer is a "Don't rock the boat, don't do nothing--it could be worse." bleat with a dash of FUDwhich he tries to pass offas sage advice. How very progressive. :uhoh:


On the Wal-Mart problem, Mike seems limited to the exhortation to just go OC and everything will be alright because "WalMart managers not up to speed on the applicable state law...will eventually "get it" and back down."

In the meantime, OCDCers and other OCerscontinually get busted. How many are getting tagged? Are the OC busts increasing? Who nows? "Stay the course," is Mike's strategy. And don't call Joe McQueen, whatever you do. That would show "weakness." So, if you get kicked at your local W-M, just duke it out with the local security, cops, local management and corporate--every single time it happens.

If you lose, just go to another Wal-Mart, Hawk suggests. Which isn't such a totally bad strategy (as avoidance strategies go) since there are thousands of Wally-Worlds. At a rate of gettingbanned from, say, two W-M's per week, it would take you 28.8 years to get shut out of allthe "Lower Prices--Always" afforded by Sam's great accomplishment. Presumably, after you get kicked from all the domestic Wally Worlds, you can start on the Canadian list.


What is the Wal-Mart problem anyway?

Most capable analysts are aware that any study/inquiry/research/analysis must begin with the crucial step ofdefining the problem. This step is not optional. Any analysis is (should be) constrained by the definition and parameters of the problem. Befuddlement, inertia, indecisiveness, inertia, lethargyand chaos follow when the problem is not defined adequately. Nothing gets solved and lots of resources are wasted. Pissing and moan about the non-solving of the problem always follows. It's a fascinating thing to watch--if you like seeing train wrecks.



I think the WMP begins with this "de facto corporate policy" that many people tout, a telephone message from a staffer (someone is afraid to mention here name) in Bentonville:

This is Susan [garbled], I'm Joe McQueen's assistant with the Wal-Mart's Market office. Uh, we are in receipt of a letter, uh, dated 10-2, or call, I would say,uh, concerning a manager in a Chesapeake store. Uh, leading a charge to ban in store carrying of firearms [garbled]district [garbled].

Number 1, you are absolutely 100% correct. You are, especially in the state of Virginia and every other state that I know of, legally entitled to carry a firearm.

Uh, as long as you are within the law, that's your business. We have no right to stop you, we might be able to stop and ask about it, because they would like to know who's got one and who doesn't, especially if they see one. But, uh, as far as telling you cannot enter the store, you would have to leave, uh, won't happen. If police were called, the police will tell you, we have, they have no car...no way can they remove someone just because they carry a firearm. This is not, you talk about a ban, uh, this is nothing that we are aware of at the Market office nor at the home office.


Uh, we will certainly, I'd love to talk to you about it. Uh, if you'd like to call the Market office, 471-1651, area code 757. Uh, but, this is, this is a new one we've heard.
Uh, so, if you don't mind I'll try to call you tomorrow or if you want to give me a call back.

Thank you and have a wonderful, wonderful day.

[reflects aural emphasis from telecon]

If, and only if, someone wants to accept this as a "corporate policy, then the Wal-Mart problem is:

The recurring failure of local Wal-Mart stores in Virginia and other states to properly know and apply the actual corporate policy/and or statelawsthat prohibit the stopping and/or removal of"someone just because they [open or concealed]carry a firearm."


This problemdefinition could be tweaked a bit,and anyone is free toalter it to improve it to suit their tastes. But it contains the essential factors that are presumably responsible for the difficulties that certain OCers are currently experiencing: Wal-Mart corporate policy, localstate statutory provisions, local store/area culture, local store managment jurisdiction and lattitude, police involvement, etc.

Time to solve theWMP.

Do we use the ostrich head-in-the-groundcum FUD approach advocated byHawkflyer results in your having to make a long list of Wal-Mart stores, crossing each store off the list asyou get thrown out of them over 28 years? OrMike's approach of "don't show weakness, just OC" means that each OC community will die the death of a thousand cuts, each slice being yet another OCDCer getting stopped/hassled/ejectedby the W-M militia and local LEOs?

The common denominator of the solutions and direction offered by Hawk and Mike is:

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

but they (kind of) solve a problem in a comprehensible way. So, pick Hawk's solution or Mike's solution. Everything will be al-right.

Or is there another solution to the WMP?

Click to expand...

Great Post.. If everyone pushes to hard walmart can and will ban guns from the locsll stores. I spoke with Joe Mcqueen and also with the managers of Rt.1 massaponax , Rt.3 central park , 610 walmart , and ferry farm, every single person said no OC unless LEO...The store policy is that if you are seen with a firearm management is notified asap...you can be forced to remove the gun or forced to leave...your choice.... I would remove the gun , Who doesnt want to shop at walmart?

imported post

HankT wrote:

The recent thread on the ejection of cdunlop fromthe Battlefield Wal-Mart store raises the issue yet again of the Wal-Mart problem. I'll use Hawk's most recent post over there to launch this thread in the hopes of generating some discussion and ideas to solve the WMP. I am assuming that, at least at some point, it would be in the interests of the OC (and CC) communities to deal wit da problem.

Click to expand...

You raise an excellent point!! And we should not be intimidated from OC'ing because someone's feelings might be hurt at Walmart.

For years, Walmart let their employees 'rough up' suspected shoplifters under the letter of the law, and then they started paying some large out of court settlements and a few "RIDICULOUS LARGE" civil settlements.

Walmart needs to UNDERSTAND CLEARLY that we aren't part of the crime problem of society and we are FOLLOWING THE LETTER OF THE LAW. If Walmart asks me to leave, they have better do it in a CIVIL & PROPER MANNER.

IE: If Walmart calls the police because you are OC'ing and makes a HUGE DEAL OUT OF IT and 20 police cars show up & detain you... Instead of a manager politely approaching you and asking you to leave... Walmart has DONE NOTHING WRONG on the criminal side of the law, but they have civil liability.

Having the police called on Walmart's behalf to detainyou for a lawful activity, whichthey should have handled confidentially IS NO DIFFERENT than a Walmart greeter yelling "STOP -- YOU'RE SHOPLIFTING"to you in a crowd of shoppers.<when in fact they were NOT SHOPLIFTING>

The falsely accused shoplifter got a HEFTY SETTLEMENT.(..don't know the amount that guy got, but it was not a $50 gift card)

Dress well, don't loiter, shop as you normally would and if asked to leave, be polite and expect a high level of courtesy.

If it turns into another "DANBUS", you need hired guns<lawyers>...

Walmart has a HUGE collection of attorneys in Bentonville dedicated to bailing themselves out of "stupid sh*t" the store employees and management do on a daily basis!

It's a really good feeling to sit in a lawyers office, endorsing the back of a "ridiculous large" Walmart "settlement check" and literally laughing all the way to the bank.

Walmart is kinda like the police... They know they can push around, the "poor", the "stupid" and the "minorities" because most of them don't fight back.

Walmart, just like the police, need to be reminded OFTEN that we pay their salaries.

imported post

racingglock35 wrote:

Great Post..

Click to expand...

Thankyooveramuch. Thankyoo.

racingglock35 wrote:

I spoke with Joe Mcqueen ...The store policy is that if you are seen with a firearm management is notified asap...you can be forced to remove the gun or forced to leave...your choice.... I would remove the gun , Who doesnt want to shop at walmart?

Click to expand...

Aha! So, there's been a change in theWal-Maert "de facto corporate policy!"

Well, that means we shouldkeep doingwhat was being doneunder thenow old"de facto corporate policy!":dude:

imported post

HankT,

First, I never said DON'T go for a corporate policy for Walmart. All I did was predict the results if you did. I even suggested that we appoint YOU to do the negotiating.

Second, while you may see this as a problem caused by Walmart corporation, you are wrong. What Walmart is doing is allowing each store to operate under the prevailing laws of the state where the store is located, driven by the standards of the local community. The decisions as to what will occur when someone carries a weapon into the store falls to the manager of each location. If you don't like that then you should have the law changed such that land owners cannot prohibit carry on their property. The code of Virginia has set the stage for this, not Walmart.

In every case, the actual abuses have been carried out by the police, not the manager of the store. Please cite for us a single instance where the Walmart employee asked for identification, frisked anyone, arrested anyone, or tried to detain anyone for carrying a gun.

You repeatedly fail to acknowledge or simply cannot understand that not having a corporate policy, is in fact a corporate policy.

You do seem to like numbers quite a bit so lets look at that. We already know there are nominally 130,000 CHP holders in Virginia. Lets give your side of the argument a boost and say there are 140,000. There are about 3,000 VCDL members, so lets multiply that by 4 and call it 12,000. We can give your argument another boost and ignore overlap in the numbers and throw in another 3,000 from this forum, also multiplied by 4 for an additional 12,000. For the sake of your argument lets just say that ALL of the 164,000 mentioned above are hard core open carry advocates clambering to get into their local Walmart.

Now just to be certain we don't leave any OCers in the parking lot, lets assume there are another say 200,000 who represent the vast silent majority of OCers who OC every day, and just can't wait to go to Walmart. Now lets toss in another say 1,000 from each state that come to Virginia just to open carry and shop at Walmart. So now we have around 414,000 at the local Open carry Walmart tail gate party, all waiting to shop. (Tess can't bring that much BBQ, so bring your own)

The Population of Virginia was estimated at more than 7.5 million people in 2005 (Weldon Cooper Center, UVA). So our vast OC group would represent about 5.5% of the total population. But that number would not be fair to HankT's argument because it includes children. I am not going to waste time digging out the number of children but lets just say it is 1/2 of the 7.5 million. So now we have 11% of the voting, tax paying, money spending, population, all holstered up and rearing to shop.

Now to be fair this does not include a certain number of criminals, and illegal aliens not included in census figures, that might support open carry. But for purposes of our discussion we will assume they are concealed carriers, because they do not want to draw attention to them selves, and they actually do not support open carry by others as a matter of personal safety.

Why is that number relevant? Because that number would represent the percentage of the population that would be driving any community standard favoring open carrying of firearms. Setting aside for a moment that the number is probably WILDLY slanted in favor of HankT's argument, it leaves a whopping 89% of the community available to tell the manager of the store, that they are uncomfortable shopping around an armed citizen.

Now I know a lot of you will jump in about here yelling IT'S MY RIGHT ...., NOBODY CAN TELL ME ....

Hold on a moment! I support open carry where lawfully allowed. None of the above says it is not your right to OC, but their is one thing that does, and it is not all those people. All they are here for is proper context for the discussion. So for now they can continue with the BBQ.

Section 18.2-308 of the Code of Virginia provides that -

O. The granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the owner of private property.

Click to expand...

So having a CHP is no help if a store manager (delegated the authority for such decisions by corporate) decides not to allow Firearms in the store. We already know that landowners or their designated representatives may prohibit carry of firearms on private property if they choose to do so, as a matter of property rights.

Now back to HankT's diatribe.

We have a store manager who has the authority to determine based on some mixture of their personal views, the standards of conduct in the community, business practices, and the laws of Virginia to either allow or prohibit firearms in the store, no matter the method of carry.

Under the law (store policy), they may allow CC and prohibit OC. They could allow OC and proscribe CC. As with any property owner, they may legally allow one person to carry and not allow another for whatever reason so long as they do not violate civil rights laws in doing so. (this of course will be HankT's next quote so we will cover that later)

So here is the nub of the whole thing. With some gray areas in between, Walmart has only a few choices as a matter of corporate policy. They can universally prohibit ALL firearms carry in their stores. They can issue a statement to all their stores that under no circumstances will the carry of firearms be interfered with. OR they can find a position in between that is flexible enough to accommodate the entire range of community standards for each local store and make it the managers call (the current position).

Everyone who has managed to get anything close to an official statement from Walmart, has been told that local laws will prevail at all of their stores. For some reason people refuse to recognize that while local law in Virginia allows the open carry of firearms, IT ALSO allows the property owner or a designee to prohibit carry on any private property in the state. ASKING YOU TO TAKE YOU GUN OUT OF THE STORE IS LAWFUL. It may be objectionable but it IS lawful, and it complies with the standing corporate position on carry of firearms in Walmart stores.

Based on the numbers above, a savvy manager looking strictly at ACTUAL loss of sales, is going to opt for annoying 11% of the customers long before they will annoy 89%. Even if you say that every firearms owner in the state will rise up and boycott Walmart, you will still have less than 50% of the population in the boycott, and most of them will not stay the full course of a boycott. First time little Johnny starts yelling from the back seat to go to Walmart, the blinker will start flashing.

In my view this entire issue is more is more about being pissed off at a big box store, than it is about OC. Yes, a few people have been stopped. A few of those stops have been surrounded by additional elements of racism, Hoplophobia, police abuse of authority, and a lot of other aggravating factors. All of those abuses should be dealt with quickly and harshly. But you cannot demonstrate that those same things could not happen at a two store mom and pop chain, and I don't see any outcry about that.

We demand equal treatment at all Walmarts, so why should we not go after every store that stops an open carrier with equal vigor, even if it is just one location? Why am I not hearing about boycotts of some of the Gun stores that do not allow carry of loaded weapons? Being forced to unload your weapon is functionally no different than being told you cannot carry it. Why are we not lobbying to legislature to prevent stores from using property law to stop carry of firearms?

Each Walmart store is treated by Walmart corporate as a stand alone operation under control of the manager of that location. Some guy in Detroit is ill equipped to make a judgement as to what community standards should apply in Virginia. And the community standards in Virginia Beach, may be a lot different than those standards in Warrenton, or Bristol.

If you look at the demographic map in the link provided above, it should surprise nobody that the most restrictive Walmart location are in the most populated locations. Just maybe this is related to community standards.

Frankly, I don't care if Walmart has a corporate policy or not. The current system works for me. I will go there and shop. If asked to leave I will leave and not go back. I may go to a different Walmart or not. Nobody who has the computer required to read this message NEEDS Walmart for anything. If you don't like their policy, tell them so and stop giving them your money.

If you want to have them establish a formal policy, stop sending them e-mails, and calling them on the phone. Send them a registered letter from a lawyer, requesting a WRITTEN explanation of their policy. When you get the answer, publish it, and request that they include it in their management training program. Phone conversations and e-mails are not the way policy gets set or distributed.

In the mean time if you don't like their policy, don't shop there. But whatever you do, don't count on HankT to be first in line at the airport on the way to Walmart corporate headquarters. In fact the jury is still out on weather he is attending the tail gate party with the rest of the 414,000 of us.

Regards

EDIT: to remove inappropriate personal comment.

imported post

HankT wrote:

...SNIP

I spoke with Joe Mcqueen ...The store policy is that if you are seen with a firearm management is notified asap...you can be forced to remove the gun or forced to leave...your choice....  I would remove the gun , Who doesnt want to shop at walmart?

Click to expand...

Aha! So, there's been a change in the Wal-Maert "de facto corporate policy!" 

Well, that means we should  keep doing what was being done under the now old "de facto corporate policy!" :dude:

Click to expand...

WOW!! Now we have a corporate statement of a new policy. WE WIN ... WE WIN!!:celebrate

So anytime they see a firearm they will have it removed from the store.

Oh ... Wait minute, I am not certain that is the result we were looking for. But it sure clears everything up. We will now NEVER have another incident of a firearms carrier being asked to leave, because everyone will know every Walmart is now off limits to people with guns, and nobody will ever take one there again.

Man what a mystery. Sure couldn't have seen that one coming could we HankT.

You should consider running for VCDL president. What else you got in your platform? Maybe we should meet with Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer for a new national policy on Firearms ownership. With your insightful analysis of the issues and equally insightful approach to support us we could get rid of all these pesky guns in no time, so carry issues could be solved all at once.

You did claim to be pro-rights and pro open carry didn't you? I can't seem to find the reference for that.

Regards

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

HankT,

First...[BIG SNIP]... In fact the jury is still out on weather he is attending the tail gate party with the rest of the 414,000 of us.

Regards

EDIT: to remove inappropriate personal comment.

Click to expand...

The ole "not one of us" gambit, eh?





Hey, Hawk. PM me what your IPC was. I'd like to read it. :cuss:

imported post

I would like to participate in this discussion, but I'm too lazy to read all these lenghty posts, andI don't really understand what the OP was all about because I'm not very smart.

I'm just a dumb guy who carries a gun for protection in public, including WalMart. So I will just sit out this one.

EDIT: I also can't spell...

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

...Everyone who has managed to get anything close to an official statement from Walmart, has been told that local laws will prevail at all of their stores. For some reason people refuse to recognize that while local law in Virginia allows the open carry of firearms, IT ALSO allows the property owner or a designee to prohibit carry on any private property in the state...

Click to expand...

Hawk,

Why do you go on beating this (mystical) drum? Gee, local laws will prevail!?

I think most people reading that statement would say "Okay, if it's legal in that locality, I can carry that way!".

However, in your world it means, essentially "Private propertyowners can ask, or through the police, force you to leave" - as if that some special rightnot available to all property owners.

Your definition of"local laws prevail" isa weak usage, and at most,amisleading usage.

So, rather than saying "local laws prevail", why not simply agree that the real WM policy is this: "The known presence of your gun, alone or combined with other circumstances,can be reason enough for a managers to ask you to leave."



On another subject...

Where isMike?? I like what he has said, but the approach seems to be failing miserably. I wish he would drop by to either offer alternatives, or accept the notion that the de facto policy is not what he thought.



BB62

imported post

BB62 wrote:

...SNIP

Hawk,

Why do you go on beating this (mystical) drum?  Gee, local laws will prevail!?

I think most people reading that statement would say "Okay, if it's legal in that locality, I can carry that way!".

However, in your world it means, essentially "Private property owners can ask, or through the police, force you to leave" - as if that some special right not available to all property owners.

Your definition of "local laws prevail" is a weak usage, and at most, a misleading usage.

So, rather than saying "local laws prevail", why not simply agree that the real WM policy is this: "The known presence of your gun, alone or combined with other circumstances, can be reason enough for a managers to ask you to leave."
SNIP...

Click to expand...

Well because people keep saying that being asked to leave is wrong like it was not within the law. Yes you can carry that way, RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE where the opwner does not allow guns. The fact is the land owners RIGHT to ask you to leave is PART of local law, and people here keep acting like it is not. So I have to keep repeating it. It is not MY world, it is STATE LAW.

HankT refuses to mention that in all his rantings, and apparently you are not getting it either.

I would agree with your definition above, but there is still a tone in it that implies that the owner is somehow violating your rights when he asks you to leave, and that is not true.

Frankly, I think we are all just going to have to agree to disagree about all this. But I must be doing something right, I have NEVER been asked to leave anywhere, because I was carrying a firearm.

Regards

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Frankly, I think we are all just going to have to agree to disagree about all this. But I must be doing something right, I have NEVER been asked to leave anywhere, because I was carrying a firearm.

Click to expand...

Specious causal linkage based on a poor sample of one.

:?

imported post

HankT wrote:

...SNIP
Specious causal linkage based on a poor sample of one.

Click to expand...

Gratuitous assumption based on no sample at all.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

HankT wrote:

...SNIP
Specious causal linkage based on a poor sample of one.

Click to expand...

Gratuitous assumption based on no sample at all.

Click to expand...

Indulgently self-serving, too. You forgot that.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

HankT wrote:

...SNIP
Specious causal linkage based on a poor sample of one.

Click to expand...

Gratuitous assumption based on no sample at all.

Click to expand...

Is thisa giant pissing contest? If so we're doing a great job!

Hawkflyer, I have to agree with you.. the "numbers" are on your side, and using ever "poll" available to man, many people are uneasy with firearms.. So, we may end up with the "official policy", and it may be in the form ofa "No Guns" sticker right below the "No Loitering & No Smoking" sticker.

Today I went to Walmart with my son to get 3 boxes of ammo (200 rounds of 9mm & 100 of 38spl), and it took3 employees(1 stocker, 2 assistan managers)to FIND A WORKING KEYat the new Parham Rd walmart..

None of them had an issue with my SIG P239, never mentioned it. This is a more "upscale" Walmart<new "urban/small footprint" store design>, maybe they just don't hire idiots at this one?!

I think you're wrong on the mom & pop chain theory.. I work at a pharmacy data services consultant for "a crapload" of individual to 12-store pharmacies in Virginia & Michigan, and knowing some of my customers<the business owners, not the hired-help> for almost a decade.

There are several questions which wouldcome-up before taking action on an OC'er

1) Is this one of my regular &/or good customers?
2) Is there any problem?
3) Is it offending any of my other customers?

The group that I work for primarily, heck, they throw people out ALL THE TIME<the general public are lemmings, It is scary>

Who knows.. Maybe Bentonville is reading this forum & laughing their asses off as they call the graphics designer to order "NO GUNS/ESPECIALLY YOU A-HOLES IN VIRGINIA" signs..

Everyone already knows I'm sue-happy, it's a shame that major corporations only fear lawyers and don't give a crap about the people funding their giant empires.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Well because people keep saying that being asked to leave is wrong like it was not within the law. Yes you can carry that way, RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE where the opwner does not allow guns. The fact is the land owners RIGHT to ask you to leave is PART of local law, and people here keep acting like it is not. So I have to keep repeating it. It is not MY world, it is STATE LAW.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But, one could argue that the property owner, in exercising his rights under STATE law, is violating the gun carrier's rights under the second ammendment. The 2A does not say 'shall not be infringed except by property owners"...

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Well because people keep saying that being asked to leave is wrong like it was not within the law. Yes you can carry that way, RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE where the opwner does not allow guns. The fact is the land owners RIGHT to ask you to leave is PART of local law, and people here keep acting like it is not. So I have to keep repeating it. It is not MY world, it is STATE LAW.

Click to expand...

Indeed.  But, one could argue that the property owner, in exercising his rights under STATE law, is violating the gun carrier's rights under the second ammendment.  The 2A does not say 'shall not be infringed except by property owners"...

Click to expand...

Not in so many words, but the second amendment only restrains government from passing any laws. It does not restrict the rights of individuals in other areas, so in effect the right of others can overrule TSA. To the founding fathers property rights were of the highest order. So this is just the balancing between two seemingly conflicting rights.

Regards

imported post

psmartin wrote:

...SNIP
Is this a giant pissing contest?  If so we're doing a great job!
SNIP ...

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. It is more of a debate. Both sides are out there, and hopefully it will provide a context for additional discussion.

Regards

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Well because people keep saying that being asked to leave is wrong like it was not within the law. Yes you can carry that way, RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE where the opwner does not allow guns. The fact is the land owners RIGHT to ask you to leave is PART of local law, and people here keep acting like it is not. So I have to keep repeating it. It is not MY world, it is STATE LAW.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But, one could argue that the property owner, in exercising his rights under STATE law, is violating the gun carrier's rights under the second ammendment. The 2A does not say 'shall not be infringed except by property owners"...

Click to expand...

During the revolutionary period, property owners and their rights were the unspoken reigning priority. Thus, the rights of the property owners trumped other rights. Our framing documents were drafted with this priority and hold true today.

The right to keep and bear arms is our right until it impedes on the rights of another. When a property owner wishes one not carry on his/her property, we no longer have the right to keep and bear arms until we exit the land owner's property.

I have never been hassled at a Wal*Mart...it seems a large majority of us have also gone to Wal*Mart and never been hassled. The few incidents we've seen here, based on the number of people that I assume do OC at Wal*Mart, pale in comparison. I am in favor of Wal*Mart's continued policy of allowing local laws to prevail.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

I would agree with your definition above, but there is still a tone in it that implies that the owner is somehow violating your rights when he asks you to leave, and that is not true.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how you got that out of my proposed real WM policy, but there is no "tone" intended. The owner/manager has a right to ask, and expect me to leave.

I disagree with the law as it applies to carry in places open to public activity, but sadly, the law supports the owner.

What I feel about a violation of my human rights was not intended to color my description of the policy I feel WM has, in compliance with the laws as they are.