Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Suggestion: Do Not Patronize...

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Finally got a response (sort of) to my request for corporate policy in response to Flintlock Tom's recent incident at Food-4-Less.
    Subject: Case id: 6589904

    Thank you for your email concerns regarding an incident that happened with your friend.

    Unfortunately, we won't discuss events that happened with a third party, so you will not be getting a response regarding your friends' incident.

    Again, thank you for taking you valuable time to express your opinion.

    Contact #6589904
    This message was not addressed to me, nor did the sender state their name or title. However, judging by the e-mail address, it appears to have come from Sharon Marinas at Ralphs.


    From Flintlock Tom's thread:
    A follow-up to my brief detention last Sunday.

    Today I spoke with the local manager and the district manager for the Food-4-Less store in Mission Valley, near highway 163 and Friars Rd.
    First they apologized to me for the police being called. The district manager said that it should have been handled one-on-one.
    When I asked what the company policy was concerning firearms, the local manager said that "the company will stand firm on it's no firearms rule".

    I asked if they were going to include firearms on the sign by the door which prohibits pets and roller-blades, the district manager said he "would look into it".

    So, apparently the official company rule is "no firearms in the store".
    I'm not sure how productive any attempt would be to get the policy changed, but feel free to write letters or e-mails to higher-ups.
    And here is my e-mail response to the corporate reply:
    Sharon,

    I'm sorry to hear that the company is not willing to state it's position. My friend has relayed a discussion he had with the district manager, so I can only assume that manager's view represents the company. Regrettably, this means that the company stands behind the ideal that it's customers' rights end at the store entrance.

    The customer will have to weigh the value of entering your stores against the value of their safety. Since anti-firearm policies only disarm the honest citizens, and since criminals will ignore your policy, I feel that your stores are less safe due to this policy. It is an advertisement to criminals that their job is less dangerous in your stores. It disarms victims of the tools they need to defend themselves.

    Therefore, in the interest of keeping myself and my family safe, I will avoid shopping at any store where I am disarmed. I will share your disregard for the customer with my friends and family, in the hopes they won't be a victim of your careless policy.

    While I stand on principle and the free market, you may also want to consider the legal ramifications of your decision to discriminate against lawful firearm possession. Recently, the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is a solemn individual right (Heller v District of Columbia, 2008). Even more recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that this rule of law is incorporated into the individual states via the 14th Amendment (Nordyke v King, 2009). As a right protected by the US Constitution and the California Constitution, your company may be creating liabilities by discriminating against the lawful bearing of arms. While I would prefer to allow the free market to show you the errors of your ways, others prefer to litigate. I hope you take this into consideration.

    Regards,

    ~David Tapley
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    For my safety, I will no longer patronize any of the Kroger Company facilities. I encourage each of you to consider the balance between your safety and shopping needs.

    For your reference, the Kroger Company owns/operates the following:

    Markets, Department Stores, & Warehouse Stores:
    • Kroger
    • Ralphs
    • King Soopers
    • CityMarket
    • Dillons
    • Smith's Food & Drug
    • Fry's
    • QFC Quality Food Centers
    • Baker's
    • Owen's Market
    • JayC Food Stores
    • Hilander
    • Gerbes
    • Pay Less
    • Scott's Food & Pharmacy
    • Food-4-Less
    • Foods Co
    • Fred Meyer
    Convenience Stores:
    • TurkeyHill
    • KwikShop
    • Loaf 'n Jug
    • QuikStop
    • TomThumb
    Jewelry Stores:
    • Fred Meyer Jewelers
    • Littman Jewelers
    • Barclay Jewelers
    • Fox's Jewelers
    Financial Services:
    • Kroger Personal Finance
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  3. #3
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    You can also remind them that Albertson's and Stater Brothers grocery stores do not forbid lawful possession of firearms in their stores, so they may be next on your list.

    Besides, if that truly was their policy, then LEOs (unless responding to an emergency) and armed money transporters would not be allowed within their stores.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    You can also remind them that Albertson's and Stater Brothers grocery stores do not forbid lawful possession of firearms in their stores, so they may be next on your list.
    I'm not sure I follow... why would they be next on my list if they do NOT forbid firearms?
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Next on the list TO patronize.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    CA_Lib,
    Can you give me the e-dress you sent your question to? I would like to try again. I sent a request for information through their "Contact Us" link on their web page, but have not heard back.
    Even if they're not willing to comment on a specific incident, they should be willing to state their official policy. Maybe it's all in how we word the question.

    Thanks.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:

    Sharon,

    I'm sorry to hear that the company is not willing to state it's position.... Regrettably, this means that the company stands behind the ideal that it's customers' rights end at the store entrance.
    You should be using "its", not "it's". "It's" is a contraction meaning "it is" (or "it has"). "Its" is the possesive word. Yes, it's counterintuitive, but that's just the way it is.

    I know correcting spelling/grammaris frowned upon on the web, but if we are writing letters/emails to corporations, I feel it's best to be as professional as possible.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    My Ralphs is gun friendly (so far). The dozens of times I have carried there is met with.....nothing. In fact, I got into a nice conversation about legal carry with another customer and the checker lady.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Diego, , USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    You can also remind them that Albertson's and Stater Brothers grocery stores do not forbid lawful possession of firearms in their stores, so they may be next on your list.

    Besides, if that truly was their policy, then LEOs (unless responding to an emergency) and armed money transporters would not be allowed within their stores.
    Most Alberstons are gone here so that is not an option. I don't think we have a Stater bros close by either.

  10. #10
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    On an individual basis, I think being principled in where you spend your money is important. I am a label reader an make purchases base on some criteria like where its made and what politics the manufacturer chooses to subscribe to.

    A boycott however isnt effective without numbers significant enough to influence their bottom line. I think we are quite a ways from seeing repentance from a retailer asserting a no guns policy.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    flintlock tom wrote:
    CA_Lib,
    Can you give me the e-dress you sent your question to? I would like to try again. I sent a request for information through their "Contact Us" link on their web page, but have not heard back.
    Even if they're not willing to comment on a specific incident, they should be willing to state their official policy. Maybe it's all in how we word the question.

    Thanks.
    I used their corporate "contact us" online form. It took a couple days for the first response, which just said, "I'm forwarding your question to someone else." Then another week or so for the official "no comment" response.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    SpeedRacer wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Sharon,

    I'm sorry to hear that the company is not willing to state it's position.... Regrettably, this means that the company stands behind the ideal that it's customers' rights end at the store entrance.
    You should be using "its", not "it's". "It's" is a contraction meaning "it is" (or "it has"). "Its" is the possesive word. Yes, it's counterintuitive, but that's just the way it is.

    I know correcting spelling/grammaris frowned upon on the web, but if we are writing letters/emails to corporations, I feel it's best to be as professional as possible.
    Yeah, I know... I'm all too reliant on computerized grammar/spelling checkers. Its/it's is one of my most common errors.

    And I agree appearing professionally matters. It peeved me a bit when the response was not addressed to me, and not "signed" by the sender. I suppose they're just far too busy to take my request seriously.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    On an individual basis, I think being principled in where you spend your money is important. I am a label reader an make purchases base on some criteria like where its made and what politics the manufacturer chooses to subscribe to.

    A boycott however isnt effective without numbers significant enough to influence their bottom line. I think we are quite a ways from seeing repentance from a retailer asserting a no guns policy.
    I agree. That's why I don't call this a boycott. I'm sure they won't miss a drop in their bucket, but it makes me feel better to know I'm not contributing to their politics.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915

    Post imported post

    There must be a disconnect somewhere between the West Coast and East. On the East Coast, Kroger is a Corporate Sponsor for Georgia Carry.Org. Not a Huge sponsor, but a sponsor nevertheless.


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Woodland, California, USA
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    well im back:celebrate

    anyways. not all Food 4 Less stores are owned by them. There are 3 or 4 of them which are owned by Nugget Markets in the bay area and in Woodland. Just a heads up on that one.

    but yeah i have been booted out of fry's before.
    now i see that the company just feels like discriminating against law abiding citizens for the fun of it.

    so take this for example, since "the company will stand firm on it's no firearms rule", do they want every LEO who steps foot in their store to take off his or her belt before coming in? i mean if they are going to stand firm on that policy, why should they make exceptions? i just dont get people nowaday and I will not give money to stores, ESPECIALLY to ones who are not "equal oppurtunity discriminators"

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    oilfieldtrash11 wrote:
    well im back:celebrate

    anyways. not all Food 4 Less stores are owned by them. There are 3 or 4 of them which are owned by Nugget Markets in the bay area and in Woodland. Just a heads up on that one.

    but yeah i have been booted out of fry's before.
    now i see that the company just feels like discriminating against law abiding citizens for the fun of it.

    so take this for example, since "the company will stand firm on it's no firearms rule", do they want every LEO who steps foot in their store to take off his or her belt before coming in? i mean if they are going to stand firm on that policy, why should they make exceptions? i just dont get people nowaday and I will not give money to stores, ESPECIALLY to ones who are not "equal oppurtunity discriminators"
    They booted you out of Fry's? Really? Wow. I've open carried in the one off of Aero in San Diego a couple of times, and no-one's said squat to me. Also went into the Von's across the street from them, and aside from some odd looks by some of the employees, no-one said anything. Funny how one store of a chain doesn't say anything, but another one does. So much for being consistent in regards to "corporate policy".


Posting Permissions

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