CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
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.
From Flintlock Tom's thread:
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.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
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: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.
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
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
