Opinions about "Private Business"

Ya know boss, if they dont want it, Id be more than happy to unload that burden from you. I take checks or cash.

Click to expand...

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"?

Click to expand...

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"?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I certainly may be out of date, but as of July, WalMart's policy was to follow state laws.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_topic.php?id=13955&forum_id=55&highlight=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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Wow, I dont think there is one thing in there I can argue. Makes sense, I completely understand where you are coming from.

Click to expand...

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

.

Click to expand...

......................... <---Thats me 'speechless'.

Click to expand...

Well look who decided to get over his hangover and wake up this fine afternoon, nice to see you in regular form today!

Click to expand...

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