-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Best Buy's Corporate Policy
- Thread starter UtahJarhead
- Start date
zoom6zoom
Regular Member
imported post
No Best Buy stores are posted and there is no corporate policy regarding it. The only mention is in the employee handbook, which refers to the carrying of weapons by employees as "inappropriate behavior which may result in action up to and including termination of employment."
The corporate headquarters are posted and have metal detectors.
No Best Buy stores are posted and there is no corporate policy regarding it. The only mention is in the employee handbook, which refers to the carrying of weapons by employees as "inappropriate behavior which may result in action up to and including termination of employment."
The corporate headquarters are posted and have metal detectors.
Thoreau
Regular Member
imported post
tekshogun wrote:
I FULLY support the right to open carry, conceal carry, make a hat out of the gun, whatever, but (and this isn't directed at the guy who I quoted) I am getting sick of seeing people on forums like this acting like it's their right to carry on private property. It is NOT. If you do not like their rules, you should not be there. (This means that the 'concealed means concealed' theory is, in fact, bs in case anyone was wondering.) People need to stop acting like their 'right to carry' applies EVERYWHERE and trumps a property owners' rights. It does not. </Rant>
Back on topic, I am glad the OP contacted Best Buy. I already won't shop there for other reasons, so it won't affect me either way, but it is nice to see that a big box retailer is willing to mirror policies that most people only ever experience at their local Wal-Mart.
Had they come back as being anti, I don't care what 'prompted' them to make that choice (their own opinions, the fact that someone questioned the policy, etc.) All that matters at that point is that they have made their stance known, and do not deserve our business as a result. Like others have said, it's quite uncommon that a product or service can't be had elsewhere. In the end, it helps us all decide where to spend our dollars, and support places who do actively (or even passively) support the cause.
tekshogun wrote:
<Rant>Just a minor detail here, but since we are dealing with private property, permission, be it implied, explicit, or assumed, *IS* required in order to carry on private property that isn't ours.
I FULLY support the right to open carry, conceal carry, make a hat out of the gun, whatever, but (and this isn't directed at the guy who I quoted) I am getting sick of seeing people on forums like this acting like it's their right to carry on private property. It is NOT. If you do not like their rules, you should not be there. (This means that the 'concealed means concealed' theory is, in fact, bs in case anyone was wondering.) People need to stop acting like their 'right to carry' applies EVERYWHERE and trumps a property owners' rights. It does not. </Rant>
Back on topic, I am glad the OP contacted Best Buy. I already won't shop there for other reasons, so it won't affect me either way, but it is nice to see that a big box retailer is willing to mirror policies that most people only ever experience at their local Wal-Mart.
Had they come back as being anti, I don't care what 'prompted' them to make that choice (their own opinions, the fact that someone questioned the policy, etc.) All that matters at that point is that they have made their stance known, and do not deserve our business as a result. Like others have said, it's quite uncommon that a product or service can't be had elsewhere. In the end, it helps us all decide where to spend our dollars, and support places who do actively (or even passively) support the cause.
stainless1911
Banned
imported post
Im not asking anyone if I can use my rights. If they wish to assert theirs, they may. I will go somewhere else if they do. This is MY "official policy".
I was in the Auburn Hills MI store (across from Great Lakes Crossing), And was OC, I was met with an Auburn Hills Police officer, who, BTW, was very respectful, very professional, and didn't even disarm me during our interveiw.
Anyways, the manager asked me to leave the gun in the car whether OC, or CC. I will respect his wishes by doing my buisiness elsewhere.
Im not asking anyone if I can use my rights. If they wish to assert theirs, they may. I will go somewhere else if they do. This is MY "official policy".
I was in the Auburn Hills MI store (across from Great Lakes Crossing), And was OC, I was met with an Auburn Hills Police officer, who, BTW, was very respectful, very professional, and didn't even disarm me during our interveiw.
Anyways, the manager asked me to leave the gun in the car whether OC, or CC. I will respect his wishes by doing my buisiness elsewhere.tekshogun
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Thoreau wrote:
Well, this is why I said, "in the eyes of some." But I fully agree with your statements.
Thoreau wrote:
Well, this is why I said, "in the eyes of some." But I fully agree with your statements.
Dreamer
Regular Member
imported post
Thoreau,
You're a little off-base with the private property issue...
Retail businesses ARE private property, but they are a different kind of private property than your personal land or dwelling. They exist for the reason of dong business with the public, and as such have a reasonable expectation that people of all sorts will wander through their doors. They are actively courting people to come to their property via advertising.
Laws are in place to tell us what we CAN'T do, not what we can. Nowhere, in any state of federal statute, does it explicitly say that is legal to OC, because the way our legal system is set up is as a Code of Prohibitions.
If a business doesn't want you to carry, and it is otherwise legal to carry there in that state, then they have to notify you of their prohibitive policies via signage.
I have OC'd in Best Buys all over NC--in Raleigh, Fayetteville, Grenville--and I intend on doing so at Best Buys in VA and WV this week if I get the chance, as long as they are not posted. I have never had a problem in the NC stores--the only comment anyone made was one of the salesmen in Raleigh asked me what I was carrying, and then we had a nice conversation about 1911's vs Glocks...
If I come to your house for a visit, I would leave my gun off my hip unless I'd cleared it with you first. When I visit my friend in VA, I always carry on her property--but I cleared it with her first. When I visit my family in WV, I carry, but that's because they don't have a problem with it, and I checked first. When I visit my friends and family in MD, I don't have that option, because I can't carry in MD.
So as far as individual's private property, I agree with you. It's only common courtesy to ask before you step into someone's house. That is part of what being a friendly and cordial visitor is all about.
But in retail businesses, it's a whole different situation. They are actively asking me (and anyone else who is interested in their products) to come into their property. If they have a problem with people exercising their constitutional rights, then it sucks, but it is their right as private property owners to have policies against carrying. And if a business posts, I will leave my firearm in the car, and then go straight to their business office and hand them one of my "no guns=no money" cards, explain to them that although I respect their rights as private property owners, I also believe strongly in my Constitutionally protected rights (and my rights as a CHP holder) and therefore I will be taking my business, and the business of my family with me elsewhere.
Nobody is saying that we should be able to carry ANYWHERE regardless of what a private owner might think. The argument here is that businesses, although they technically ARE private property, have a reasonable expectation of public traffic as a matter of course, and therefore need to post if they don't want us exercising our 2A rights.
Thoreau,
You're a little off-base with the private property issue...
Retail businesses ARE private property, but they are a different kind of private property than your personal land or dwelling. They exist for the reason of dong business with the public, and as such have a reasonable expectation that people of all sorts will wander through their doors. They are actively courting people to come to their property via advertising.
Laws are in place to tell us what we CAN'T do, not what we can. Nowhere, in any state of federal statute, does it explicitly say that is legal to OC, because the way our legal system is set up is as a Code of Prohibitions.
If a business doesn't want you to carry, and it is otherwise legal to carry there in that state, then they have to notify you of their prohibitive policies via signage.
I have OC'd in Best Buys all over NC--in Raleigh, Fayetteville, Grenville--and I intend on doing so at Best Buys in VA and WV this week if I get the chance, as long as they are not posted. I have never had a problem in the NC stores--the only comment anyone made was one of the salesmen in Raleigh asked me what I was carrying, and then we had a nice conversation about 1911's vs Glocks...
If I come to your house for a visit, I would leave my gun off my hip unless I'd cleared it with you first. When I visit my friend in VA, I always carry on her property--but I cleared it with her first. When I visit my family in WV, I carry, but that's because they don't have a problem with it, and I checked first. When I visit my friends and family in MD, I don't have that option, because I can't carry in MD.
So as far as individual's private property, I agree with you. It's only common courtesy to ask before you step into someone's house. That is part of what being a friendly and cordial visitor is all about.
But in retail businesses, it's a whole different situation. They are actively asking me (and anyone else who is interested in their products) to come into their property. If they have a problem with people exercising their constitutional rights, then it sucks, but it is their right as private property owners to have policies against carrying. And if a business posts, I will leave my firearm in the car, and then go straight to their business office and hand them one of my "no guns=no money" cards, explain to them that although I respect their rights as private property owners, I also believe strongly in my Constitutionally protected rights (and my rights as a CHP holder) and therefore I will be taking my business, and the business of my family with me elsewhere.
Nobody is saying that we should be able to carry ANYWHERE regardless of what a private owner might think. The argument here is that businesses, although they technically ARE private property, have a reasonable expectation of public traffic as a matter of course, and therefore need to post if they don't want us exercising our 2A rights.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Dreamer wrote:
Exactly
Dreamer wrote:
+1
Exactly
redhawk44
Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
+2
stainless1911
Banned
imported post
--actually, I would like to disagree, I believe that our A2 rights should supercede property rights. No ones paranoia is > my safety. Shal not be infringed, isnt a location based right, it is an affirmation of a pre existing right to self preservation, that is not o be squandered by some who may be nervous, or biased, or who happen to be wealthy enough to own property.
I would love to see an employer, or property owner, i.e. a public buisiness, sued for tens of millions, if an otherwise armed law abiding citizen is hurt or killed by an armed criminal who disregarded the buisinesses gun free signage or policies. Such an injury or death, could have been prevented by an armed citizen, but due to policy, the person/employee was injured or killed. If McDonalds can be sued for millions because you spill coffee on yourself, this should be pretty straight forward.
Change in this country happens much faster where money and media are used, than it ever will at the voting booths. If we want our rights to be restored, we havethree real options, to sue them back into existence, to shoot them back into existence, or to vote them back into existence.
The last time there was a vote, we wound up[ with socialism.
--actually, I would like to disagree, I believe that our A2 rights should supercede property rights. No ones paranoia is > my safety. Shal not be infringed, isnt a location based right, it is an affirmation of a pre existing right to self preservation, that is not o be squandered by some who may be nervous, or biased, or who happen to be wealthy enough to own property.
I would love to see an employer, or property owner, i.e. a public buisiness, sued for tens of millions, if an otherwise armed law abiding citizen is hurt or killed by an armed criminal who disregarded the buisinesses gun free signage or policies. Such an injury or death, could have been prevented by an armed citizen, but due to policy, the person/employee was injured or killed. If McDonalds can be sued for millions because you spill coffee on yourself, this should be pretty straight forward.
Change in this country happens much faster where money and media are used, than it ever will at the voting booths. If we want our rights to be restored, we havethree real options, to sue them back into existence, to shoot them back into existence, or to vote them back into existence.
The last time there was a vote, we wound up[ with socialism.
Thoreau
Regular Member
imported post
Dreamer wrote:
On the other hand, while I think that businesses SHOULD make their choice known if they are anti (put a sign up and make it easier for us to avoid that establishment), in my state at least, that is not required. As a result, they have no requirement to post and can (and as we've all seen, often do) eject us from their businesses.
Dreamer wrote:
I should probably clarify one aspect of my stance in that I consider lack of any gunbuster signs or other posting to be both the implied and assumed permission that I was referring to. My rant was more directed towards some folks on these forums that I have seen blatantly advocate disregard for property rights and acting as though concealing it is a-ok even if the property has made its anti-gun wishes known. (This thread hadn't already gone that route, and I think I may have jumped the gun, but I thought it looked like it was heading that way.)
On the other hand, while I think that businesses SHOULD make their choice known if they are anti (put a sign up and make it easier for us to avoid that establishment), in my state at least, that is not required. As a result, they have no requirement to post and can (and as we've all seen, often do) eject us from their businesses.
Thoreau
Regular Member
imported post
stainless1911 wrote:
stainless1911 wrote:
Property rights don't really supersede our 2A rights. Your own choice to enter a property under the terms that property owner wishes is your own SURRENDER of your 2A rights. Nobody forces us to agree to those terms.
UtahJarhead
Regular Member
imported post
Thoreau wrote:
Thoreau wrote:
I do advocate disregard for certain property rights. If it's a store open to the public, then each and EVERY TIME I will carry my concealed handgun. As soon as I pick up a smart carry, that's where it will be, until then it will be in an Uncle Mike's size 1 in my front-right pocket. These businesses will not protect me should someone start shooting the place up. They will only say "That felon did not follow our strict signs of no firearms, it's not our fault." I will not be a victim.
Thoreau
Regular Member
imported post
UtahJarhead wrote:
UtahJarhead wrote:
Disregard of one entity's rights is not a good way to go about convincing them not to disregard yours. The fact that the businesses won't protect you doesn't make their rights go away, it simply means it's time for you to pick a new place to shop. In most states, KNOWINGLY violating a gunbuster sign (difficult to prove of course) is trespass. There goes your 'law-abiding citizen' label.
stainless1911
Banned
imported post
Thoreau is correct, in saying that violating their sign will put you in violation of criminal trespass.
This is why I suggested a highly visible,, high dollar lawsuit which would make any business think twice before posting a sign that disregards constitutional rights, puts my life at risk, and allows the criminal to have the advantage. We must abide by the laws, but we must also use every resource available to change certain laws.
There was a time when a business could also post a sign such as "whites only", or"no colored people,and those signs are now illegal. The constitution was used to prohibit signs like this, and similar measures should be used to protect our rights as well.
Thoreau is correct, in saying that violating their sign will put you in violation of criminal trespass.
This is why I suggested a highly visible,, high dollar lawsuit which would make any business think twice before posting a sign that disregards constitutional rights, puts my life at risk, and allows the criminal to have the advantage. We must abide by the laws, but we must also use every resource available to change certain laws.
There was a time when a business could also post a sign such as "whites only", or"no colored people,and those signs are now illegal. The constitution was used to prohibit signs like this, and similar measures should be used to protect our rights as well.
UtahJarhead
Regular Member
imported post
Thoreau wrote:
So in Utah, even though I ignore their wishes to not carry, I am indeed a law abiding citizen.
Thoreau wrote:
You are correct in most cases, but caveat to my statement: I live in Utah where signs hold no weight and just because a business says you can't carry, it doesn't mean you can't. If they ask you to leave with it, you have to, but it's legal to carry despite of their signs.
So in Utah, even though I ignore their wishes to not carry, I am indeed a law abiding citizen.