Walmart gearing up against OC's

imported post

sorry this is a lil late but i had some major stuff to take care of at my house...... Anyways, i was at the Walmart at 106th south and 5th west on thurs July 3rd around 8:30 PM when i was asked to leave ..... i was not even in there for 10 min. as 2 Ass. Mngs came up to me and asked me to put my sidearm in the car befor i continue doingmy shopping .... i told him that coprate stated ....bla bla bla ....bla bla ...... and i asked to talk to the district Mng. .... he told me he wasn't avalible and when i said that i was not going anywhere until he got ahold of him someone on the walky talky said to call the police..... that was my cue, lolol. so on the way to the door the 2nd Ass. Mng went to get me a supposed E-Mail that the legal department sent to all the stores. So as i passed the door greeter i asked her to give me a paper and a pen so i can write down the names of both Ass. Mng. As luck would have it i saw a LEO patroling the parking lot and i asked the male Ass. Mng. to go talk to her and clear some things up ....... to make a long story short she asked them why they didn't post sighns against Weapons to avoid this all the time ..... they said that since it was Private property they didn't have to :shock:..... so about that time the 2nd ass. Mng came out and handed me the 2 E-Mails......... i'm gonna paste these on here and u guys argue it out. I just think that Walmart is using its power as a corp. Giant to do as it pleases and silly enough gets away with it! I'm thinking that they have a lawsuit waiting to happen just to proove a point ...... maybe get a $10,000 Gift card out of it lol. well guys all jokes aside i think this prob shoud be addressed!

imported post

2nd E-Mail

imported post

I haven't been able to find it via search, but didn't somebody on here post a part of the state constitution that prevents corporations from infringing on it's citizens rights?

imported post

Thanks for the information it has been I am working on this issue as we speak. This E-Mail was a missing link. Also this E-mail was in coraspondance with my encounter on june 13th. (lol) Still working the angles to resolve this issue with rolando rodriguez. On a higher level. So hold in their I am working on this issue

imported post

In this letter he seems to be warning the stores about a specific OCer. i think that funny that he thinks there is only 1 guy in Utah that is trying to exercise his rights.

imported post

If you want the full story stopped by WVCPD Finest was my orignal post but this letter was in reguards to me. This is why I find it funny. I orignaly spoke with Don schultize and he researched it and this was the result. I feel almost famous all this work for little old me

imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:

If you want the full story stopped by WVCPD Finest was my orignal post but this letter was in reguards to me. This is why I find it funny. I orignaly spoke with Don schultize and he researched it and this was the result. I feel almost famous all this work for little old me

Click to expand...

lol.

imported post

schwarzi88 wrote:

sorry this is a lil late but i had some major stuff to take care of at my house...... Anyways, i was at the Walmart at 106th south and 5th west on thurs July 3rd around 8:30 PM when i was asked to leave ..... i was not even in there for 10 min. as 2 Ass. Mngs came up to me and asked me to put my sidearm in the car befor i continue doingmy shopping .... i told him that coprate stated ....bla bla bla ....bla bla ...... and i asked to talk to the district Mng. .... he told me he wasn't avalible and when i said that i was not going anywhere until he got ahold of him someone on the walky talky said to call the police..... that was my cue, lolol. so on the way to the door the 2nd Ass. Mng went to get me a supposed E-Mail that the legal department sent to all the stores. So as i passed the door greeter i asked her to give me a paper and a pen so i can write down the names of both Ass. Mng. As luck would have it i saw a LEO patroling the parking lot and i asked the male Ass. Mng. to go talk to her and clear some things up ....... to make a long story short she asked them why they didn't post sighns against Weapons to avoid this all the time ..... they said that since it was Private property they didn't have to :shock:..... so about that time the 2nd ass. Mng came out and handed me the 2 E-Mails......... i'm gonna paste these on here and u guys argue it out. I just think that Walmart is using its power as a corp. Giant to do as it pleases and silly enough gets away with it! I'm thinking that they have a lawsuit waiting to happen just to proove a point ...... maybe get a $10,000 Gift card out of it lol. well guys all jokes aside i think this prob shoud be addressed!

Click to expand...

And on what basis do you think you are gonig to win ANY lawsuit against a private business who chooses to exclude your gun from their store?

Cite a single statute in Utah that prevents a private business from banning your gun?

Not only will you NOT find one, but you might want to check out the AOL decision handed down by the Utah Supreme Court about 4 years back. See <http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/hansen072004.htm>. While you are not an employee of Walmart, this is pretty strong precedence against you.

Keep pushing this and you'll be the one shelling out major bucks to avoid a tresspassing conviction plus whatever else a pissed off cop and DA decide to pile on.

Look, I would certainly support a law that treated the lawful possession of firearms as protected against discrimination from private businesses much like race, religion, or other protected civil rights categories. But I can assure you, no such law currently exists.

Furthermore, by pushing this beyond the limits of good manners and decency, you are probably making it more difficult for others to OC or CCC into Walmart. Most of us have managed to carry into almost every store we visit without incident or question.

Those of you attracting such major attention everytime you go for a walk may want to rethink what it is that is drawing so much negative attention to yourselves.

Charles

imported post

For the most part I have not had any problems. I fully understand Wal-Mart is private property. I belive their is a communcation issue with corprate and Local offices. I want you to understand is all I am doing is getting a clarifaction on the rules withn their corperate office. I am communcating with Rolando Rodrigiez to clarify the rules. I am not trying to cause problem but solve communcation errors between corp and the stores. To the best of my knowledge this has not happened yet. I would like to get off on a right foot with Wal-Mart this is all not sueing anyone or attempting to cause problems. So I will keep everyone updated

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

Look, I would certainly support a law that treated the lawful possession of firearms as protected against discrimination from private businesses much like race, religion, or other protected civil rights categories.

Click to expand...

Would that make the dreaded situation of the OCer being targeted first a "hate crime"?:idea: That should satisfy the anti-OCers, no criminal would want to commit a hate crime.
:lol:

imported post

asforme wrote:

Would that make the dreaded situation of the OCer being targeted first a "hate crime"?:idea: That should satisfy the anti-OCers, no criminal would want to commit a hate crime.
:lol:

Click to expand...

Funny. But no. It would not be the same as a so-called "hate crime."

For the record, I oppose 'hate crimes." I just can't seem to find very many crimes committed out of love.:shock:

Extending EQUAL protections to employess, customers, and patrons by preventing discrimination based on race, religion, politics, or the decision to lawfully possess a gun is NOT the same as extending extra or special protections to them.

Charles

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

For the record, I oppose 'hate crimes." I just can't seem to find very many crimes committed out of love.:shock:

Click to expand...

The opposite of hate is not love, but law. The opposite of love is indifference.

imported post

indifference isn't the opposite. It's just in the middle between the two. The lack of either. If Love is 10 and hate is -10 indifference is 0.

imported post

I agree, we were just arguing the same point!

imported post

I believe that all gun owners need to boycott Wal-mart. This is not the first time that they have taken stances like this, and it seems that they are either lying in that e-mail, or they are lying to others who have been told that their policy is to follow local and state laws.

And to anyone who is going to tell me that a boycott would not be effective, bull.

Look what happened to Blockbuster.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

Extending EQUAL protections to employess, customers, and patrons by preventing discrimination based on race, religion, politics, or the decision to lawfully possess a gun is NOT the same as extending extra or special protections to them.

Click to expand...

I agree that the policy would prevent me from shopping there.

But I disagree with this sentiment. Private property owners are free to place restrictions upon visitors.

You have the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech, but Walmart is certainly free to ask you to leave if you're standing in the store making speeches. 1A also guarantees freedom of the press, but they're sure to deny entry to a news crew trying to film inside the store.

imported post

schwarzi88 wrote:

sorry this is a lil late but i had some major stuff to take care of at my house...... Anyways, i was at the Walmart at 106th south and 5th west on thurs July 3rd around 8:30 PM when i was asked to leave ..... i was not even in there for 10 min. as 2 Ass. Mngs came up to me and asked me to put my sidearm in the car befor i continue doingmy shopping .... i told him that coprate stated ....bla bla bla ....bla bla ...... and i asked to talk to the district Mng. .... he told me he wasn't avalible and when i said that i was not going anywhere until he got ahold of him someone on the walky talky said to call the police..... that was my cue, lolol. so on the way to the door the 2nd Ass. Mng went to get me a supposed E-Mail that the legal department sent to all the stores. So as i passed the door greeter i asked her to give me a paper and a pen so i can write down the names of both Ass. Mng. As luck would have it i saw a LEO patroling the parking lot and i asked the male Ass. Mng. to go talk to her and clear some things up ....... to make a long story short she asked them why they didn't post sighns against Weapons to avoid this all the time ..... they said that since it was Private property they didn't have to :shock:..... so about that time the 2nd ass. Mng came out and handed me the 2 E-Mails......... i'm gonna paste these on here and u guys argue it out. I just think that Walmart is using its power as a corp. Giant to do as it pleases and silly enough gets away with it! I'm thinking that they have a lawsuit waiting to happen just to proove a point ...... maybe get a $10,000 Gift card out of it lol. well guys all jokes aside i think this prob shoud be addressed!

Click to expand...

I see you are a new OCDO member - I have a couple of comments here on your report.

Assuming everything is ture as you state, while your intent may be good, the effort has a couple of rough edges that we need to avoid. Importantly, gun owners need to avoid conflating their rights against state action with private action - this is known as the public-private distinction:

1. NEVER NEVER NEVER suggest private entities post no gun signs. If you suggest it, they will come.

2. There is no law in any state allowing you to generally remainin a private establishment which tells you to leave even iof the establishmentobjects to your lawful gun carry- I would think it shouldgo without saying that you need to beat feet and not argue if you are told to leave.

3. You have no right to demand anything of private entities. Once notified you must leave, let management or whatever agent appears to be ordering you to leave that you are disappointed, that you believe they are not following national corporate policy which does not ban lawful gun carry, & then leave your cart in the isle, and leave nicely.

4. Not that you did this but, NEVER NEVER NEVER comply with a suggestion that you leave your gun in your car - besides violating a primary rule to avoid unnecessary gun handling, if you comply the private entity has won - their behavior will be reinforced. If you politely decline and take you business elsewhere, they have lost.

So bottom line, this report is an example of how NOT to handle an adverse private entity interaction, espectially since WalMart appears to remain strategically ambiguous as to the issue of carry, and may for all we know let state or reguional managers establish theri own policy - we want them to either stay that way, or not fall off the fense on the side of posting their establishments.

On the good side, these emails are interesting- looks like the Utah WalMart bureacrats are trying mainly to maintain and explain the right of stores to eject - not necessarily proffering a "policy" against carry.

I will say it again - open carry in WalMart etc. is not a settled right, but appears to be simply tolerated in many or most stores around the country once managers get used to the iodea that normal people OC and buy merchandise, that it is legal, and that corp. policy does not prohibit it. People should OC in WalMarts if they want to, but do it discreetly - if a greeter always sees your gun as you walk in, your probably not OCing discreetly enough - the right message is when WalMart employees and managers see a happy customer OCing on the way OUT of their store with a smile and a receipt in her hand!

imported post

Put on your 'think like a lawyer' hats folks. No where in the first E-mail do I see their legal department giving them the green light to bar OC'rs from the store. It merely lays out the legal requirements/restrictions in Utah to do so. The way I read this e-mail the legal department answered the question that was asked (can we do this/what are the requirements?) and ONLY the question asked. It would seem that the inquiry did not ask about corporate policy...merely legal requirements.

The second E-mail is an internal memo for THAT STORE (note the opening header...it addresses the 'team'...meaning employee's). This is simply a local store's management ignoring the established CORPORATE policy of mirroring state law and imposing their own rules.

IMHO this si still a 'rogue store' issue, not a 'duplicitous corporation' issue.