Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Pistol free zone signs

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    Im new here, this is my first post. I have a michigan cpl, but I routinely open carry. I joined partly because I was asked not to return to my Krogers store because I carry a gun. They have a best bank in the store, and although legal, I was asked not to come back because of their bank. SO, where can I get a pistol free zone sign that I could give to them for their front doors? I want this sign so that fellow gun ownerswill shop somewhere else, and thus cost the store some buisiness. Also I have seen a list of buisinesses that have prohibited gun owners, and I dont remember where the list was. I would like to add this store to that list. It is the Krogers store on dixie highway, and davisburg roads in springfeild twp. michigan.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    hercprsound wrote:
    Im new here, this is my first post. I have a michigan cpl, but I routinely open carry. I joined partly because I was asked not to return to my Krogers store because I carry a gun. They have a best bank in the store, and although legal, I was asked not to come back because of their bank. SO, where can I get a pistol free zone sign that I could give to them for their front doors? I want this sign so that fellow gun ownerswill shop somewhere else, and thus cost the store some buisiness. Also I have seen a list of buisinesses that have prohibited gun owners, and I dont remember where the list was. I would like to add this store to that list. It is the Krogers store on dixie highway, and davisburg roads in springfeild twp. michigan.
    If they do not want people to exercise their 2A rights, Why would you want to help them? it si their responsibility. Not yours!

    The MI thread has a list of business's that are not 2A friendly and has them marked as "Do Not patronize". You may want to check out the MI thread for more info.



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    Im not trying to help them, Im trying to start a mini boycott. I appreciate, and understand the concern.

  4. #4
    Regular Member hp-hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    I'm sure this isn't what you're looking for, but you can usethis siteas a start. Good luck showing them for what they are.

    http://friendorfoe.us/
    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    Good news. When I confronted them about their position, they backed off, they met me halfway, and said I could come in as long as I was carrying concealed! This isnt pure second amendment, but is fairly acceptible. I came to them professionally, in a non confrontational way, armed with strong facts, and let them know where they stood with both myself and the law. This can be considered a small victory in our rights, and at least a step in the right direction.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    I know what site Im on. I carry openly evrywhere. Ive only actually concealed 2 or 3 times.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    hercprsound wrote:
    Good news. When I confronted them about their position, they backed off, they met me halfway, and said I could come in as long as I was carrying concealed! This isnt pure second amendment, but is fairly acceptible. I came to them professionally, in a non confrontational way, armed with strong facts, and let them know where they stood with both myself and the law. This can be considered a small victory in our rights, and at least a step in the right direction.
    Don't comply with their demands. . . Contact management and push the issue with them.

    Typically it is not a corporate policy but some a$$ hat at the local store.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    694

    Post imported post

    Perhaps if you would use a real computer you wouldn't have to apologize for not being able to do so many things on the internet!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    I love that sign:celebrateIts hard to believe that so many people that are general managers with college educations cant wrap their head around such a simple concept. I am 19 and understand that criminals dont abide by laws let alone rules of a business

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    MirkoCrocop wrote:
    I love that sign:celebrateIts hard to believe that so many people that are general managers with college educations cant wrap their head around such a simple concept. I am 19 and understand that criminals dont abide by laws let alone rules of a business
    I almost wonder if they are more affraid of the cost and not the actual criminal act?

    Let me put it this way, a business is not responsible for any liability if a criminal walks in and shoots my family dead and steals their money.

    If, the store hires security and the security guard misses and accidentally hits and kills me and the bad guy, then they would be liable.

    It is cheaper and less trouble it would seem to simply take the risk.

    Now, if we made them liable for protecting us and provided for a certain level of indemnity then I think businesses would not care so much.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    MirkoCrocop wrote:
    I love that sign:celebrateIts hard to believe that so many people that are general managers with college educations cant wrap their head around such a simple concept. I am 19 and understand that criminals dont abide by laws let alone rules of a business
    I almost wonder if they are more affraid of the cost and not the actual criminal act?

    Let me put it this way, a business is not responsible for any liability if a criminal walks in and shoots my family dead and steals their money.

    If, the store hires security and the security guard misses and accidentally hits and kills me and the bad guy, then they would be liable.

    It is cheaper and less trouble it would seem to simply take the risk.

    Now, if we made them liable for protecting us and provided for a certain level of indemnity then I think businesses would not care so much.
    so you're saying they care more about saving legal fees than helping to preventinnocent customers from being slaughtered? What kind of world do we live in?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    694

    Post imported post

    What kind of world do we live in?
    A country with way too many shysters in it.
    Perhaps if you would use a real computer you wouldn't have to apologize for not being able to do so many things on the internet!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    hercprsound,

    Although I can certainly understand your frustration with Kroger, the bottom line is that their store is private property. It is absolutely NO different than if you were to open carry into a house, and the homeowner asks you to leave because they do not alow guns on their property. You cannot force them to accept your opengun toting anymore than they can force you into buying one of their products.

    I just don't get how people can be pissed off at any establishment that does not allow guns on their premises. I'd say that if they allow you to carry concealed then that is indeed a good compromise.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845

    Post imported post

    jeeper1 wrote:
    Has anyone made any of these signs? I would LOVE to buy them somewhere and slap them on a door to an anti's business. They would need to have that really good expensive glue to stick really well (like LEO's have on their "tow this car" orange stickers they slap on broken down cars on the highway) and of course you wouldn't want to get caught applying it.

    On second thought... I don't think I would actually apply it to the business' door. I wouldn't want to face a vandalism charge or put my fellow OCers in a bad light. I would consider giving the sticker to the manager and ask him to kindly post the sticker on his door. We have a good thing going here in Virginia. We still run into a fewuneducated LEO's and some folks that are just mean spirited or brainwashed sheep, but its a movement with momentum.
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Now that would make a good t-shirt to wear to a store that has banned guns
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    This sign would apply to some Cities 'n States as well.

  17. #17
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    MirkoCrocop wrote:
    I love that sign:celebrateIts hard to believe that so many people that are general managers with college educations cant wrap their head around such a simple concept. I am 19 and understand that criminals dont abide by laws let alone rules of a business


    It's because regardless of the costs, they will never cease from offering innocent victims on their alter of submission because to do so would be to admit that their whole premise is in total error.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  18. #18
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    Ironbar wrote:
    hercprsound,

    Although I can certainly understand your frustration with Kroger, the bottom line is that their store is private property. It is absolutely NO different than if you were to open carry into a house, and the homeowner asks you to leave because they do not alow guns on their property.
    I just don't get how people can be pissed off at any establishment that does not allow guns on their premises.
    No different than carrying into someone's house? I beg to differ - it's very different. My house, as well as every other house I know of, is NOT open to the public. Homes are not stocking up shelves and relying on patrons to buy items. To me, open to the public means just that - open to the public. If someone is violating a law on their premises, that's one thing - but not allowing a perfectly legal action such as wearing a holstered weapon is something entirely different. ...And after OC-ing all around town, running various errands, etc. you get to the store and they ask you to leave because you're legally armed? You can't see why that would piss someone off? After going to the hardware store, the local cafe, gas station, book store, bank, etc. without a problem, then Kroger kicks you out... You still can't see why that would be an irritant?
    It's easy, watch... walking into OC friendly store -

    ...walking into non-OC-friendly store and being kicked out -. See?


    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

  19. #19
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    Phoenix David wrote:
    Now that would make a good t-shirt to wear to a store that has banned guns
    That got me thinking... Want a great boycott idea? Print up a half dozen of these signs on shirts and get a few people together to stand at the establishment's driveway (where it's legal and not loitering). I'd think that would at least turn some heads.
    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

  20. #20
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    I almost wonder if they are more affraid of the cost and not the actual criminal act?

    Let me put it this way, a business is not responsible for any liability if a criminal walks in and shoots my family dead and steals their money.

    If, the store hires security and the security guard misses and accidentally hits and kills me and the bad guy, then they would be liable.

    It is cheaper and less trouble it would seem to simply take the risk.

    Now, if we made them liable for protecting us and provided for a certain level of indemnity then I think businesses would not care so much.

    Cost and risk are BIG factors in retail store policies. It's kind of, uhm, business-like to take those things into consideration. Very normal. Management has an imperative to deal with those kinds of things, making the best decisions for the owners of the firm.

    Making the firm liable for our safety is a fine idea--if it could be done. But how?

    And what impact would such a change cause in the way of operations expenses? And, subsequently, to prices?






  21. #21
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Cost and risk are BIG factors in retail store policies. It's kind of, uhm, business-like to take those things into consideration. Very normal. Management has an imperative to deal with those kinds of things, making the best decisions for the owners of the firm.

    Making the firm liable for our safety is a fine idea--if it could be done. But how?

    And what impact would such a change cause in the way of operations expenses? And, subsequently, to prices?
    Very good points, logical and true. However, what about the examples that the vast majority of OC-friendly establishments have made? I can't think of a single issue, ever, anywhere, of an establishment being held liable for anything a legal OC-er has ever done. I don't know of any establishment ever having to pay a dime, either directly or indirectly,for being OC-friendly. Can anyone?
    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Juggernaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Triad, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Just give them one of these next time and go find an OC friendly store to spend your oney in.

    http://equalforce.org/documents/nogu...ey_nostate.pdf

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    hopnpop wrote:
    No different than carrying into someone's house? I beg to differ - it's very different. My house, as well as every other house I know of, is NOT open to the public. Homes are not stocking up shelves and relying on patrons to buy items. To me, open to the public means just that - open to the public. If someone is violating a law on their premises, that's one thing - but not allowing a perfectly legal action such as wearing a holstered weapon is something entirely different.
    It IS private property...and they could therefore kick you out for wearing a blue shirt on a Wednesday if they so desired.
    States donít have rights. People do.

  24. #24
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    mrjam2jab wrote:
    hopnpop wrote:
    No different than carrying into someone's house? I beg to differ - it's very different. My house, as well as every other house I know of, is NOT open to the public. Homes are not stocking up shelves and relying on patrons to buy items. To me, open to the public means just that - open to the public. If someone is violating a law on their premises, that's one thing - but not allowing a perfectly legal action such as wearing a holstered weapon is something entirely different.
    It IS private property...and they could therefore kick you out for wearing a blue shirt on a Wednesday if they so desired.
    You're exactly right. They could kick me out for wearing a blue shirt on Wednesday, sure, but I'd still give 'em crap about it.

    I guess it strikes me as hypocracy and discrimination. Hypocracy because like I said, "open to the public" should be just that - open to the public. Discrimination because I put the belief of being armed right in line with religion. To me, them saying they'll only cater to non-armed people is the equivalent of saying they'll only cater to Catholics. Carrying a gun isn't something I do for kicks - it's a strong belief of mine, just as religion is a strong belief in people. To me, that type of discrimination is intolerable.

    So yes, you'recorrect - it IS their right. ...But I feel I'm correct, too - that it's wrong!
    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Just wonder what would happen if that same business would not allow Christians wearing crosses or Jews wearing yarmulkes on their premises.Is the right to exerciseof religion different from the right to bear arms?

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •