Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 107

Thread: Opinions about "Private Business"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Heber, Utah, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    I know this has been discussed a lot on this forum and the threads usually get hyjacked, however, I am very interesed to hear other peoples perspectives.

    I am a very strong 2A supporter and also a very strong supporter of the rights of individuals. With that being said what is the logic behind trying to make "private business" allow OC in their stores?

    Please note I am not try to start a war here, I am just trying to see things from the other side of the fence!

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    I don't believe we are trying to make businesses allow OC. We do (as does WA law) differentiate between a clerk saying "no" and the owner/corp. saying "no".

    Certainly there is no law or moral injuntion I'm aware of that once an establishment does say "no" we are proscribed from emails or letter trying to sway their decision.

    Where do you get "force"?

  3. #3
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    I am absolutely in favor of property rights. If I owned a business, and did not want you to wear your pants hanging halfway off your @$$, then I would post a sign.

    The only reason I press the issue with WalMart, is because I want the corporate offices to tell me once and for all if they want my money or not.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    268

    Post imported post


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    S L C, ,
    Posts
    72

    Post imported post

    I'm the owner of a private buisness on private prop. and hmmmmmm ..... my feelings on guns on my prop. should be quite clear!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    268

    Post imported post


  7. #7
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    33itmefs wrote:
    Ya know boss, if they dont want it, Id be more than happy to unload that burden from you. I take checks or cash.
    Sure. Just tell me the name of the business you work for, and I would be glad to help you out. :P
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    268

    Post imported post


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Heber, Utah, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    I don't believe we are trying to make businesses allow OC. We do (as does WA law) differentiate between a clerk saying "no" and the owner/corp. saying "no".

    Certainly there is no law or moral injuntion I'm aware of that once an establishment does say "no" we are proscribed from emails or letter trying to sway their decision.

    Where do you get "force"?
    The example that comes to mind is Walmart. There offical corporate response is no guns period as was posted on here in another topic, after that post was made a lot of members this site wanted to "protest walmart" invarious ways. ie. picketing, knowingly OCing into stroesagainst the Corp Policy looking for a confrontation from store employees or management.

    I think it reasonable to write letters or emails to voice your opinions to the corporation. The part I have issue with is the fact that people are blatantly trying to force OC into "private property" when they are fully aware of the policy that is in place. To put it quite bluntly, the issue was forced at several walmart stores before the policy was issued and causedwalmart to write a policy to ban all guns. It seemscounter productive to me.

    Think of it in this reguard. For instance you don't want guns in you home and the neighborhood knows it, but instead of respecting your wishes evertime one of them comes over they have a gun strspped to their hipand "force" you to tell them that they are not welcome here with their gun. IMO - It just gives a person more reasons to hate guns.

    Don't get me wrong I fully support OCing on public property and where private property owner wish to allow it. I think the main issue here is where is the line between OCing friendly and OCing to "bend" the rights of citizens.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    ainokea wrote:
    Jim675 wrote:
    I don't believe we are trying to make businesses allow OC. We do (as does WA law) differentiate between a clerk saying "no" and the owner/corp. saying "no".

    Certainly there is no law or moral injuntion I'm aware of that once an establishment does say "no" we are proscribed from emails or letter trying to sway their decision.

    Where do you get "force"?
    The example that comes to mind is Walmart. There offical corporate response is no guns period as was posted on here in another topic, after that post was made a lot of members this site wanted to "protest walmart" invarious ways. ie. picketing, knowingly OCing into stroesagainst the Corp Policy looking for a confrontation from store employees or management.

    I think it reasonable to write letters or emails to voice your opinions to the corporation. The part I have issue with is the fact that people are blatantly trying to force OC into "private property" when they are fully aware of the policy that is in place. To put it quite bluntly, the issue was forced at several walmart stores before the policy was issued and causedwalmart to write a policy to ban all guns. It seemscounter productive to me.

    Think of it in this reguard. For instance you don't want guns in you home and the neighborhood knows it, but instead of respecting your wishes evertime one of them comes over they have a gun strspped to their hipand "force" you to tell them that they are not welcome here with their gun. IMO - It just gives a person more reasons to hate guns.

    Don't get me wrong I fully support OCing on public property and where private property owner wish to allow it. I think the main issue here is where is the line between OCing friendly and OCing to "bend" the rights of citizens.
    I certainly may be out of date, but as of July, WalMart's policy was to follow state laws. Please see:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...walmart+policy

    If a store does not want to have people armed they are certainly free to post that policy so they can avoid having each individual question them. I could "post" my front lawn as well of course.

    I do not OC where the actual owner/Corp. HQ says no.

    Any policy posted by a store certainly makes it fair game for individuals or groups who wish to lobby them to change their policy.
    Is it wrong for a consumer to say "I won't shop at your store unless you change policy X?" Of course not, the economic freedom to make that choice is what drives businesses to change and grow. Company A says no and Company B says yes to a policy I'm concerned with - I'm buying at B and telling A why. As it should be.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    268

    Post imported post


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Heber, Utah, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    I certainly may be out of date, but as of July, WalMart's policy was to follow state laws. Please see:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...walmart+policy

    If a store does not want to have people armed they are certainly free to post that policy so they can avoid having each individual question them. I could "post" my front lawn as well of course.

    I do not OC where the actual owner/Corp. HQ says no.

    Any policy posted by a store certainly makes it fair game for individuals or groups who wish to lobby them to change their policy.
    Is it wrong for a consumer to say "I won't shop at your store unless you change policy X?" Of course not, the economic freedom to make that choice is what drives businesses to change and grow. Company A says no and Company B says yes to a policy I'm concerned with - I'm buying at B and telling A why. As it should be.

    I would suggest you read this topic: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum52/14339.html

    I am not saying that people should roll over an agree with the policy, just be careful how you voiceyour opinion. IMO -By OCing where you know it is not"welcomed" is not going to accomplish anything positive for the OC movent. If anything it may cause laws to be passed that allow no firearm signs to have "weight" behind themin the way of tresspassing charges with out verbal notification first. In Utah these laws currently have no legal weight as I found out a short time ago. I always obeyed the request and left my firearm secured elsewhere if I chose to enter.

  13. #13
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    ainokea wrote:
    I would suggest you read this topic: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum52/14339.html
    This letter was not from corporate WalMart. The first letter was from a legal guru from WalMart to a market manager. Nothing in that first letter directed anyone to disallow firearm carry.

    The second letter was from that market manager, to his 15 or so stores in Utah. This market manager has a bug up his @$$, and the guy from the legal department did not give him a clear answer.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  14. #14
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    ainokea wrote:
    I know this has been discussed a lot on this forum and the threads usually get hyjacked, however, I am very interesed to hear other peoples perspectives.

    I am a very strong 2A supporter and also a very strong supporter of the rights of individuals. With that being said what is the logic behind trying to make "private business" allow OC in their stores?

    Please note I am not try to start a war here, I am just trying to see things from the other side of the fence!
    My view is because there is money in the store. Bad guys like money. I have go to stores to buy stuff for me to live, so I have to go where the bad guys like to go. The choice for me is, shop for goods and live the american dream, or not shop and live in a cardboard box and starve to death. I choose to go the the store. Since I have to go to the store, It is only fair that if the bad guys get to bring their guns and knives into the store to steal and hurt people, then I should be albe to take my gun tooso I can protect myself and my family. It's only fair, aye? If a business wants to ban guns and the bad guys hurt me or my family, then the business should at least be liable for the damages, don't you think? They, afterall, took away my means to protect myself on their property, so they should be held responsible. That is just my opinion. To me the "store" or place of "business" where there is cold hard cash that is "open to the public" and enguaged in "commerce" should not be able to deprive me of my right to protect myself as long as they are bait for bad guys.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Heber, Utah, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    ainokea wrote:
    I know this has been discussed a lot on this forum and the threads usually get hyjacked, however, I am very interesed to hear other peoples perspectives.

    I am a very strong 2A supporter and also a very strong supporter of the rights of individuals. With that being said what is the logic behind trying to make "private business" allow OC in their stores?

    Please note I am not try to start a war here, I am just trying to see things from the other side of the fence!
    My view is because there is money in the store. Bad guys like money. I have go to stores to buy stuff for me to live, so I have to go where the bad guys like to go. The choice for me is, shop for goods and live the american dream, or not shop and live in a cardboard box and starve to death. I choose to go the the store. Since I have to go to the store, It is only fair that if the bad guys get to bring their guns and knives into the store to steal and hurt people, then I should be albe to take my gun tooso I can protect myself and my family. It's only fair, aye? If a business wants to ban guns and the bad guys hurt me or my family, then the business should at least be liable for the damages, don't you think? They, afterall, took away my means to protect myself on their property, so they should be held responsible. That is just my opinion. To me the "store" or place of "business" where there is cold hard cash that is "open to the public" and enguaged in "commerce" should not be able to deprive me of my right to protect myself as long as they are bait for bad guys.

    Kevin
    Thank you!!

    That is aviewpoint I can totally understand.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    268

    Post imported post


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    33itmefs wrote:
    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    ainokea wrote:
    I know this has been discussed a lot on this forum and the threads usually get hyjacked, however, I am very interesed to hear other peoples perspectives.

    I am a very strong 2A supporter and also a very strong supporter of the rights of individuals. With that being said what is the logic behind trying to make "private business" allow OC in their stores?

    Please note I am not try to start a war here, I am just trying to see things from the other side of the fence!
    My view is because there is money in the store. Bad guys like money. I have go to stores to buy stuff for me to live, so I have to go where the bad guys like to go. The choice for me is, shop for goods and live the american dream, or not shop and live in a cardboard box and starve to death. I choose to go the the store. Since I have to go to the store, It is only fair that if the bad guys get to bring their guns and knives into the store to steal and hurt people, then I should be albe to take my gun tooso I can protect myself and my family. It's only fair, aye? If a business wants to ban guns and the bad guys hurt me or my family, then the business should at least be liable for the damages, don't you think? They, afterall, took away my means to protect myself on their property, so they should be held responsible. That is just my opinion. To me the "store" or place of "business" where there is cold hard cash that is "open to the public" and enguaged in "commerce" should not be able to deprive me of my right to protect myself as long as they are bait for bad guys.

    Kevin
    Wow, I dont think there is one thing in there I can argue. Makes sense, I completely understand where you are coming from.
    ......................... <---Thats me 'speechless'.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    268

    Post imported post


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    33itmefs wrote:
    ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
    .
    ......................... <---Thats me 'speechless'.
    Well look who decided to get over his hangover and wake up this fine afternoon, nice to see you in regular form today!
    This was just very well said:

    "The choice for me is, shop for goods and live the american dream, or not shop and live in a cardboard box and starve to death. I choose to go the the store. Since I have to go to the store, It is only fair that if the bad guys get to bring their guns and knives into the store to steal and hurt people, then I should be albe to take my gun tooso I can protect myself and my family."

  20. #20
    Regular Member Utah_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kearns, Utah, USA
    Posts
    717

    Post imported post

    Here is my feelings about Wal-Mart

    I have tried several times to get the policy in writing It's Corprate that will not give me any policy on firearms at Wal-Mart I have spent 2 Months total trying to get a response from Rolando Rodrigez The regional VP. He will not take the time to respond back to me about my question spent several hours a week trying to get a clear answer nothing from Corprate.

    My other concern is Wal-Mart Accepts federal and state assistance from the goverment. Ie Food Stamps WIC and other forurm of assistance from the goverment. Also Wal-Mart Has no membership or entry requirements to enter not a secured area by any means. They have never posted any sign to prohibit firearms.

    Wal-Mart sells Rifle's, Federal and state fishing and hunting license's. They are subject to all state and federal laws where a private residence does not have Like OSHA State Fire Marshalls and building code.

    So how is this definded as private property when it is open 24 Hrs a day to everyone who wants to enter through the doors of Wal-Mart Maybe some of these issues need to be brought up to the State Legislature.

    I would be happy to comply to Wal-Marts Written Policy on firearms from a coperate level which has never been done before so anyone who would like to comment feel free again these are just my thoughts and feelings


    Zach
    8014487574
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

  21. #21
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    gunsfreak4791 wrote:
    Here is my feelings about Wal-Mart

    I have tried several times to get the policy in writing It's Corprate that will not give me any policy on firearms at Wal-Mart I have spent 2 Months total trying to get a response from Rolando Rodrigez The regional VP. He will not take the time to respond back to me about my question spent several hours a week trying to get a clear answer nothing from Corprate.

    My other concern is Wal-Mart Accepts federal and state assistance from the goverment. Ie Food Stamps WIC and other forurm of assistance from the goverment. Also Wal-Mart Has no membership or entry requirements to enter not a secured area by any means. They have never posted any sign to prohibit firearms.

    Wal-Mart sells Rifle's, Federal and state fishing and hunting license's. They are subject to all state and federal laws where a private residence does not have Like OSHA State Fire Marshalls and building code.

    So how is this definded as private property when it is open 24 Hrs a day to everyone who wants to enter through the doors of Wal-Mart Maybe some of these issues need to be brought up to the State Legislature.

    I would be happy to comply to Wal-Marts Written Policy on firearms from a coperate level which has never been done before so anyone who would like to comment feel free again these are just my thoughts and feelings

    Those are some very good points. I personally believe Wal-Mart is being very evasive on this issue because of Public Relations concerns. They are probably afraid that if they adopt an OC and/or CC policy in favor of guns there, that the sheeple might get upset and start problems. The last thing they want to do is disrupt their customer base. Let's face it, the sheeple outnumber us. Wal-Mart will probably play by the numbers.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Here's a question for you in regards to property rights:

    Who really owns corporate property? If I am a stockholder in a public corporation, should I not have more rights than the wage earner greeting me at the door? Chances are the wage earner owns very little stock, if any, yet he supposedly has the right to tell me to check my rights at the door of a business that is open to the general public?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    268

    Post imported post


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    ne1 wrote:
    Here's a question for you in regards to property rights:

    Who really owns corporate property? If I am a stockholder in a public corporation, should I not have more rights than the wage earner greeting me at the door? Chances are the wage earner owns very little stock, if any, yet he supposedly has the right to tell me to check my rights at the door of a business that is open to the general public?
    now THERES a point.

    Consider that it is $60.00 (ish) a share right now. if everyone just bought 1 share, you would REALLY have an interesting argument when it came down to getting thrown out of a location.

  25. #25
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    ne1 wrote:
    Here's a question for you in regards to property rights:

    Who really owns corporate property? If I am a stockholder in a public corporation, should I not have more rights than the wage earner greeting me at the door? Chances are the wage earner owns very little stock, if any, yet he supposedly has the right to tell me to check my rights at the door of a business that is open to the general public?
    That is also a very good question that has a lot of merit. As a stockholder, it would be a good thing to bring up at the next stockholders' convention or meeting for that particular corporation. Contacting the board of directors about such a matter would also be a good idea to get their input on the subject.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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