Walmart Wouldn't Let Me In

imported post

cscitney87 wrote:

I agree that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms pertains to having guns (not just handguns) on one's person.

Where we diverge-1. is the fundamental right the be all end all? Or 2. This right needs regulation and guidance- possibly including outright bans in some locations. Private Property rights always withstanding in full right.

Click to expand...

I firmly believe in position 1.

imported post

cscitney87 wrote:

I agree that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms pertains to having guns (not just handguns) on one's person.

Where we diverge-1. is the fundamental right the be all end all? Or 2. This right needs regulation and guidance- possibly including outright bans in some locations. Private Property rights always withstanding in full right.

Click to expand...

I firmly believe in position 1.

imported post

John B wrote:

cscitney87 wrote:

I agree that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms pertains to having guns (not just handguns) on one's person.

Where we diverge-1. is the fundamental right the be all end all? Or 2. This right needs regulation and guidance- possibly including outright bans in some locations. Private Property rights always withstanding in full right.

Click to expand...

I firmly believe in position 1.

Click to expand...

Not I. I believe in the right of any business, property owner, or tenet to refuse the right of entry if they so desire.

With one exception: Communal areas and businesses. That is, if it's an area or business normally open to the public (i.e. Wal Mart, Outback Steakhouse, and public lands and parks, but not a private club), then I believe the right to bear arms should remain intact.

If some coffee shop or bookstore doesn't want to support my Constitutional Rights, then they should have the right to relocate to another country and restart their business there.

I also believe there's a need to prohibit firearms in situations where both emotions are tense, people are often unstable, and their use is likely to be high i.e. courtrooms. That's just common sense and in the best interests of public safety.

imported post

ooghost1oo wrote:

opencarrybilly wrote:

I believe that private properties that are open to the public ought to be required to honor the Constitutional rights of all the People. Maybe folks would like to talk to their legislators about this.

Click to expand...

Nope. That's what liberals do, Billy. Freedom's freedom, no matter what.

Private properties have the right to not allow weapons, if they want to be stupid enough to refuse business based on such a silly premise.

(Of course, I'm talking in general. I know Wal-Mart abides by state law.)

Click to expand...

I agree, removing one persons right to insure another persons right is not productive. Private property rights are protected. At the same time, private businessesare asking people to support them by shopping there and try to make an environment that will bring people in to shop. If they choose to prohibit personal protection while there, we have the right to shop elsewhere. Their loss.

Doc

imported post

A thought on the Wal-Mart reply posted above:

I see this as Wal-Mart riding the fence on the issue. They are telling us on one hand that they SUPPORT our right to carry in their stores, if otherwise legal in the area, then they add that the individual stores have the right to ask you to leave if someone complains or feels threatened by you. Thisis like the politician saying he supports an issue but not showing up to vote for it at roll call. This leaves it open for ALL Wal-Marts to prohibit carry if they choose. If a store manager (Mr. Brady, Jr.) personally dislikes the practice, he can simply "claim" that employees and customers were complaining and ask you to leave, when in fact, only he had issue with it.

While I agree that a business has the right to ask a person to leave if they are intentionally disrupting business,to say that a person who is quietly shopping, while exercising their legal right to carry, is wrong. This is like telling a person to leave because their leather jacket and beard make them look like a Hells Angle and it scares people; or that their baggy pants and shirt looks like a gang member and it scares people. What next? Can aperson who was mugged by a person of a different race complain that they are frightened by these people and have them removed? While legitimate and reasonable dress codes should be enforced, a person should not be singled out unless their actions are threatening or disruptive to business, and I do not mean that some Chicken Little claims that the sight of the person scares them.

In recent years, when hearing disorderly conduct cases, the courts have ruled thatan individualsactions must actually bethreateningin nature and not simply perceived by someone as threatening. In other words, a persons unrealistic fears are not grounds for showing violation. Now, I understand that we are not talking about a disorderly charge here and that private businesses can make whatever policy they choose, my point is that Wal-Mart claims to have a local law policy but allows local managers to usurp that policy without proper reason, thereby making Wal-Mart corporate a hypocrite.

I feel that Wal-Mart needs to have a clear corporate policy that theirstoresfollow state and local law and do not make policies that supersede such laws and that stores can only ask people to leave if they are breaking a law or actively disrupting business or loitering on the premises. If someone is threatened by a customers appearance, the management should simply explain to the patron that they are not doing anything wrong.

If one Wal-Mart chooses to deny our right to carry, then you can go to another that won,t, but this means that Wal-Mart wins both ways. I say if One Wal-Mart denies you to carry, shop at another chain, because Wal-Mart clearly does not care aboutcustomer rights, it only cares about getting as many customers in as possible.

Last week, customers of a Texas Wal-Mart were protected by an armed patron afterpolice were unable tostop the gunman outside (despite having him at gunpoint)or prevent him from entering the store. If this patron had not been allowed to enter the store, there would have likely been a mass killing ofstore shoppers and employees.

Lets send Wal-Mart a message that allowing local stores to restrict legal carry at the managers whim, while claiming a corporate policy to the contrary, is not acceptable. Lets ask that they make policy clear that only those actively disrupting business can be removed.

Doc

imported post

Buckskinner15 wrote:

So, today between 9 and 9:30 a.m. I went to Walmart (the one north of Loveland on 287), to pick up some groceries for tonights OC picnic at lake Loveland (and maybe some ammo, if they had any).I walked through the entrance and then heard:

"Sir, sir," from behind.

I turn around, anda guy (I think the greeter) asks me to step aside for a minute so he can ask someone else if it's ok for me to carry my gun in here. I agree, and he asks me ifI have a permit. I say no, you don't need one to OC.He says they had an incident in the last week where someone brought a cased long gun (the horrors!) into the store on his watch and he got in trouble for it.

So along comes another employee. He asks me if I have a permit. I say you don't need one to OC. He doesn't seem to know much more than the first guy, so he calls an assistant manager over.

She tells me that Walmart's policy is no firearms in the store unless you're law enforcement. I ask ifI can talk to her boss, butshe doesn't seem too willing (and maybe I wasn't too insistent).So I get her name and leave. Then I go to King Soopers and give them the business instead.

I'm pretty sure I've read about similar instances on the forum which were rectified, so I'm wondering: who do I contact to get this fixed? I've OC'd in Walmart before, with no problems. My understanding was that Walmart's policy was guided bystate law, unless they changed it recently. Thanks for any info!

Click to expand...

I OC into WalMart all the time. I think you just ran into some IGNORANT employees who wished to give you a hard time. Bet they were LIBS!

imported post

since9 wrote:

John B wrote:

cscitney87 wrote:

I agree that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms pertains to having guns (not just handguns) on one's person.

Where we diverge-1. is the fundamental right the be all end all? Or 2. This right needs regulation and guidance- possibly including outright bans in some locations. Private Property rights always withstanding in full right.

Click to expand...

I firmly believe in position 1.

Click to expand...

Not I. I believe in the right of any business, property owner, or tenet to refuse the right of entry if they so desire.

With one exception: Communal areas and businesses. That is, if it's an area or business normally open to the public (i.e. Wal Mart, Outback Steakhouse, and public lands and parks, but not a private club), then I believe the right to bear arms should remain intact.

If some coffee shop or bookstore doesn't want to support my Constitutional Rights, then they should have the right to relocate to another country and restart their business there.

I also believe there's a need to prohibit firearms in situations where both emotions are tense, people are often unstable, and their use is likely to be high i.e. courtrooms. That's just common sense and in the best interests of public safety.

Click to expand...

I personally believe that one should be allowed to carry OPEN or CONCEALED (w/o a permit) anywhere, anytime. EVEN in ALL Federal, State, and Local government buildings, including Libraries, Court Houses and Police stations.

FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT FEARS YOUR GUNS!

This world would be a much safer place if this where so, IMHO!

imported post

I actually went to Walmart today at 6th and Wadsworth. I was getting some money orders printed up. I had an overwhelming feeling that I would be "talked to" and I was in a rush so I locked the pistol in the glove box.

I was thinking about how embarrassing it could be to have to walk back out through the parking lot, secure my pistol, and walk back in. Most people would say they would never walk back in- and simply not give that Walmart my business. None the less: I needed their services and I did get a weird feeling. I locked up the pistol and went about my business. Nobody got robbed

I feel like I will be Open Carrying 110% more often when I have my conceal permit: because I wouldn't have to walk Back to the car and secure the pistol- I would simply comply with a request to conceal it.

Oh well I guess I shouldn't let embarrassment keep me.. but then again.. I went into Walmart unarmed and came out unscathed.

imported post

I've been in Walmart in NV, AZ, NM, CO.. never "talked to." The only thing is that the older gentleman greeter asked me what I was carrying and called me "Brother." Made me laugh

imported post

I haven't yet either and I usually carry on in. strange day.

imported post

since9 wrote:

Not I. I believe in the right of any business, property owner, or tenet to refuse the right of entry if they so desire.

With one exception: Communal areas and businesses. That is, if it's an area or business normally open to the public (i.e. Wal Mart, Outback Steakhouse, and public lands and parks, but not a private club), then I believe the right to bear arms should remain intact.

If some coffee shop or bookstore doesn't want to support my Constitutional Rights, then they should have the right to relocate to another country and restart their business there.

I also believe there's a need to prohibit firearms in situations where both emotions are tense, people are often unstable, and their use is likely to be high i.e. courtrooms. That's just common sense and in the best interests of public safety.

Click to expand...

Wal-Mart and Outback have every right to refuse business to people carrying firearms. It's their business--their right. It'd be stupid; just as stupid as refusing to do business with Mexicans or people with purple hats, but it is their right.

There is no distinction between the 'any business' you refer to at the top of your post and 'communal businesses'. The people don't own Wal-Mart. It's a bigger business, but it's still private. Be careful, since9, you touched down briefly on Socialism there.

It's their property, big or small. You don't have to allow a stranger in your home with a gun. They have the same right.

And mandating 'common sense' regulation is just more over-regulation that should be left to the discretion of the individual business just the same.

You've got a weird idea of half-freedom.

imported post

I thought that they can refuse entrance if the policy (whatever it is) is plainly posted.

imported post

ooghost1oo wrote:

since9 wrote:

Not I. I believe in the right of any business, property owner, or tenet to refuse the right of entry if they so desire.

With one exception: Communal areas and businesses. That is, if it's an area or business normally open to the public (i.e. Wal Mart, Outback Steakhouse, and public lands and parks, but not a private club), then I believe the right to bear arms should remain intact.

If some coffee shop or bookstore doesn't want to support my Constitutional Rights, then they should have the right to relocate to another country and restart their business there.

I also believe there's a need to prohibit firearms in situations where both emotions are tense, people are often unstable, and their use is likely to be high i.e. courtrooms. That's just common sense and in the best interests of public safety.

Click to expand...

Wal-Mart and Outback have every right to refuse business to people carrying firearms. It's their business--their right. It'd be stupid; just as stupid as refusing to do business with Mexicans or people with purple hats, but it is their right.

There is no distinction between the 'any business' you refer to at the top of your post and 'communal businesses'. The people don't own Wal-Mart. It's a bigger business, but it's still private. Be careful, since9, you touched down briefly on Socialism there.

It's their property, big or small. You don't have to allow a stranger in your home with a gun. They have the same right.

And mandating 'common sense' regulation is just more over-regulation that should be left to the discretion of the individual business just the same.

You've got a weird idea of half-freedom.

Click to expand...

Yes. And no. Despite your attempted dig (jab, slap in the face, so please knock off that s___, it's not welcome here) at socialism, the concept of "communal areas" is well-defined in law (dating back hundreds of years, actually), and is the reason why segregation attempts, refusal of service to various races, failed in the courts.

Businesses have similar, but NOT the same rights as homeowners. If you want to refuse entry to your home of a person on the basis of skin color, creed, etc., you have every right to do so.

Businesses do NOT enjoy this same right, and they have responsibilities to the public at large which homeowners do not. I think the point that was being made earlier is that discrimination is discrimination, whether it be for race, creed, color jacket, OC... The point is that if a law-abiding citizen is engaged in lawful behavior, I would argue that a business denying him access on the basis of OC is engaging a form of discrimination.

Naturally, that hasn't held up in the courts.

Yet...

imported post

Thanks Since9. What I find weird is all the people who protest what has become common law in this country, as is part of our common law tradition.

Using the word "socialism" and stuff is just a red-herring and serves no purpose in modern discourse.

If you ride public transportation, use public schools, use public electricity, you are in theory part of a "socialist" society. Wait..wait.. isn't that the US of A?

Other dude: That being said, you comment on Walmart, that the people don't own Walmart, even applies less. Walmart is actually a PUBLIC COMPANY, the people actually DO OWN IT.

imported post

Pace wrote:

Other dude: That being said, you comment on Walmart, that the people don't own Walmart, even applies less. Walmart is actually a PUBLIC COMPANY, the people actually DO OWN IT.

Click to expand...

I would not say that "the people" own it. I would say it is partially owned by private individuals. There are mutual funds that own shares and there are other corporations that own shares. It by no means would be owned by "the people", unless you are saying that "some of the people" own parts of it.

There is a difference between public property and a publicly traded company.

Not arguing, just an important distinction.

imported post

No, the idea of a PUBLIC company is that the "General Public" owns it. Not everyone owns stock, but the requirement for reporting, openness is based on the idea that they are a semi-public entity. Anyone can buy stock into it...

The idea is somewhat socialist to be honest, anyone under a true enterprise system would be able to sell anyone, or as many or few people as they want ownership of the company without having to go "public."

imported post

Pace wrote:

Thanks Since9. What I find weird is all the people who protest what has become common law in this country, as is part of our common law tradition.

Using the word "socialism" and stuff is just a red-herring and serves no purpose in modern discourse.

If you ride public transportation, use public schools, use public electricity, you are in theory part of a "socialist" society. Wait..wait.. isn't that the US of A?

Other dude: That being said, you comment on Walmart, that the people don't own Walmart, even applies less. Walmart is actually a PUBLIC COMPANY, the people actually DO OWN IT.

Click to expand...

Taken from "OC In The Springs?" thread from moments ago.. Pace, are you being a hypocrite?
"I haven't taken socialist transportation since I was a kid."
Last edited on Wed Mar 24th, 2010 02:45 pm by Pace

imported post

Maybe your too young to understand humor or sarcasm? It's used to open people's mind to think outside the box.

Seriously, the idea was to show that everything is socialized. People attack health care for example, and then say its socialism, but support public transport, public education, public energy, public this and that.

They use "socialism" because most people think that means we are going to be taken over by the hammer and sickle -- not because they actually understand the word. It's used in political context in this country to "scare" people. None of those people who use it would suddenly change their lifestyle to remove socialized programs however, because they are so used to it.

Am I a hypocrite? Yes, all the time! Aren't we all?

cscitney87 wrote:

Pace wrote:

Thanks Since9. What I find weird is all the people who protest what has become common law in this country, as is part of our common law tradition.

Using the word "socialism" and stuff is just a red-herring and serves no purpose in modern discourse.

If you ride public transportation, use public schools, use public electricity, you are in theory part of a "socialist" society. Wait..wait.. isn't that the US of A?

Other dude: That being said, you comment on Walmart, that the people don't own Walmart, even applies less. Walmart is actually a PUBLIC COMPANY, the people actually DO OWN IT.

Click to expand...

Taken from "OC In The Springs?" thread from moments ago.. Pace, are you being a hypocrite?
"I haven't taken socialist transportation since I was a kid."
Last edited on Wed Mar 24th, 2010 02:45 pm by Pace

Click to expand...

imported post

cool story bro

imported post

I see so many uses of the term "common sense".

That applies only to people with thesame definition of "common sense".

Democrats use common sense like a jacka$$ uses common sense. :banghead: