Asked to Leave Walmart today

imported post

Here is what I have learned by writing letters. We get corporate to say they abide by state law BUT they still allow store managers to reserve the right to ask us to leave.

imported post

In terms of the law: They can tell us to leave for whatever reason.

In terms of their internal affairs: Policy states xyz. Manager tells customer to leave because of abc, despite xyz. Customer calls people in charge and complains. Higher ups tell store manager that policy is xyz. Repeat. If enough people do it enough, something will change. Either you'll not be bothered any more, or they'll make a well defined policy.


it may very well be that policy says to follow law, but store managers can disallow at individual stores at their discretion. However, from my communications, policy is to simply follow local laws.

imported post

deanf wrote:

The manager can easily tell the complainants that State law allow it and there is nothing he can do.

Click to expand...

But that's not exactly true.

State law may allow open carry, but it certainly doesn't prohibit the manager from setting policy right on the spot and telling you to cover up or leave.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if it's "exactly true." Unless the manager is a zealot, he's taking the path of least resistance. In my work and personal life - and as demonstrated repeatedly on this board - people who quote "State law" or any other law, rarely know what they are talking about.

The facts are that State law DOES allow for open carry so the manager is not lying. If the customer decides to follow up, he can get an education and the manager is off the hook, which is probably all he wants.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

M1Gunr wrote:

Here is what I have learned by writing letters. We get corporate to say they abide by state law BUT they still allow store managers to reserve the right to ask us to leave.

Click to expand...

And let us ASSume, and I know this is a STREEEEETCH.... but let's play along just for a minute, and believe the manager that more than one customer has complained about our firearm... now it is two or more complaints by customers against one. What is the smart business decision - strictly from business and not out of any sense of duty?

Now Starbucks has a sense of duty and of what is right and wrong. Wal Mart has no sense of duty and what is right or wrong, they only have a sense of what makes the cash registers ring.

Wal Mart has chosen to compromise on everything - the closest thing to an official corporate policy is to don't hassle the gun guy, UNTIL more customers complain about the gun than customers carrying the guns, and then they ask the gun guy to appease the complaining customers by covering it up, or at the risk of losing the one customer carrying the gun, vice the two or more complaining customers - ask for the one customer to leave.

Click to expand...

Soooooooo,

What we should do everytime we go to Wally's is walk straight into the store and find the manager. Complain that everyone in the store is unarmed and you are very uncomfortable with this and demand that they all leave and only return armed! <sarcasm>

imported post

I have no idea why but after reading this I'm so incredibly compelled to post this shameless plug. No guns, no money, no problem.:shock:

Iavoid Walmart whenever possible but they have some good motor oil. Everything else I can live without. Such as managers that are pro-crime. That is what they're saying when they say they're anti-gun, right? No? Could have fooled me.:?

imported post

Dean, when I read "State law allow (sic) it and there is nothing he can do", took it to mean that there was nothing the manager could do about state law. What I was referring to in "is based on law" is that if a store follows state law, or "all applicable laws" that all arguments must return to the law unless the manager is making his own rules.

MD

imported post

Doesn't matter if it's "exactly true."

Click to expand...

I added the modifier exactly to be polite.

It's not true.

There is something the manager can do about it, the law notwithstanding: he can insist that you leave.

Nothing unlawful about that.

imported post

Dean, when I read "State law allow (sic) it and there is nothing he can do", took it to mean that there was nothing the manager could do about state law. What I was referring to in "is based on law" is that if a store follows state law, or "all applicable laws" that all arguments must return to the law unless the manager is making his own rules.

Click to expand...

I see.

State law does not prohibit OC on private property as long as the OCer has license from the property owner to be there. License is implied if a store is open to the public, but can be revoked at any time by the property owner or their agent. Being asked to cover up or leave would be a revocation of license.

imported post

State law allows open carry, it doesn't mandate that private property allow it though. A store manager [notice the difference between manger and employee] may ask you to leave his property.

There is really no argument about this because WAL-Mart still is private property.

imported post

notice the difference between manger and employee

Click to expand...

No. I do not take notice. I dismiss your notice as erroneous. All employees are agents of the owner. That's why the owner hired them - to represent him.

imported post

As stated before, any store can asked anyone to leave for any reason they wish and we have no recourse except to comply or try and change their minds in a civil manner, nothing illegal about their actions.

What really happens here, we have those that get upset and verbalize their objection which breads what? confrontation which does no one any good nor the cause and reinforces a negative encounter for the next one.

Instead we need to strive for positive encounters even though they do not go our way.

If asked we need to comply (while in the store) with their request and cover up then enter into a discussion about open carry to hopefully enlighten them about the laws and that we are law abiding responsible citizens.

Or keep telling them how wrong they are and that you will not shop their anymore or put them on a don't patronize list, yeah that breeds a positive view of open carry people.

Isn't it the idea to open carry is to exercise a right and to present ourselves in a positive manner to gain the respect and confidence of others?

Why is there so many conflicts and confrontation? Our we feeding the conflicts in our responses.

You tell me this encounter could not have gone better.

Him:I wanted to talk to you about your pistol, Im sure you have a CPL and all but Im gonna have to ask you to cover it up.

Me: It is completely legal in WA for me to OC.

Him: Well I need to ask you to cover it up.

Me: No its within my rights to carry like this.

Him: :stupid look:

Me: Are you asking me to leave the store?

Him: No but I need you to cover your pistol up.

Me: Well Im not gonna do that.

Him: Then I need to ask you to leave the store.

Me: Ok, Im gone and wont be back. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

note I am not against having a list of Don't Patronize but to throw it in their face does you nor the cause any good.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

BigDave wrote:

Or keep telling them how wrong they are and that you will not shop their anymore

Click to expand...

and especially when there is no intention on following through...

Do you know exactly how many businesses we would be limited to if we all stopped going to each business that some anti-gun encounter happened in?!? I'm sorry, I can't live on Ace Hardware and Starbucks alone!

Click to expand...

+1 Lt.

YuP! Let’s say my ACE doesn't allow OC, so now I’m going to drive to Oak Harbor, make sense! Right! Hell no! We all know most folks shop in the areas of our work and home, so we either suck it up, or as NavyLt alluded too and we follow through. Something that has started to lag; it’s easier to just put them on the list. Right!

Oh that darn store give me a hard time, and asked me to leave, so I put them on the DNP list, that I’ll show u’m! They’ll go out of business for sure!

imported post

BigDave wrote:

Him:I wanted to talk to you about your pistol, Im sure you have a CPL and all but Im gonna have to ask you to cover it up.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dave, I actually agree with your interpretation of how this encounter is 100% negative from the perspective of our cause, however I will suggest a better response to the manager's first statement.

You: Actually I don't have a CPL so I'm not allowed to cover it up

Click to expand...

If you leave your CPL in your car when you go inside, you can't legally cover up. Now he may ask you to leave, but he may also ask you about carrying without a CPL, in which case you are now having a positive, educational discussion about firearms law.

imported post

OhGod. WHY?! I'm sorry but this just sets me off big time.

If I were a seasoned open carrier, I would likely do the same. From what I've gathered, the CPL just gives you the privilege to conceal carry and removes the lock box burden when going to and from your vehicle. If I'm open carrying a firearm in the public eye and outside of a vehicle, I am not required by law to carry my CPL on me the moment I exit my vehicle. Is this correct? This effectively nullifies section 1bin 9.41.050 RCW and you cannot belegallyciteda civilinfraction for doing so. If you want a CPL simply to destroy the burden of carrying in a vehicle, by all means do so! It's only one of an extraordinary amount of perks you get when you do. Just right now forget the firearm. Gone.

If you're a citizen with a CPL that should be more than enough to earnthe trust of everyone around you. To me it says:
You have passed numerous background checks
You're not a felon
You have never been convicted of domestic violence
You lackmental problems(other than the trauma of dealing with stupid people and stupider threats)
You've been given adequate training
For Federal references you had no issue surrendering your fingerprints, photo, visual data, DNA...Basically everything and a stool sampleto authenticate who you are andeverything you stand for.
Ignoring trivial things like the ability to see colors or having social skills you have all the legal requirements to be a Federal Officer.
You have blessing from a particularly high rankLaw Enforcement Officer.
A firearm? Rounds? Accuracy? Can't have those without money. You probably have it.
Numerous other extremely difficult to obtain blessings that I can't even think of.

Then someone comes up to you, takes less than a second to size up what kind of person you are, doesn't ask to see your CPL and then has the gall to ask you to break the law because they assume you keep the CPL in your possession at all times. I cannot for the life of me begin to understand this train of thought.I can't imagine what kind of hell a small percentage of you go through that have a CDL, CPL, Federal ID and certain levels of security clearance that a large percentage of the U.S. population will never be able to obtain. That's way too many hoops and too much grief for me to personally jump through and that's why itearns my respect. How anyone can think otherwise, are asking too much and in such, they fall short of my ideals. I want no part of them.
:banghead:
.....Oh God, now I know how a judge gets angry. I need a beer.:shock:

imported post

DaemonForce wrote:

OhGod. WHY?! I'm sorry but this just sets me off big time.

If I were a seasoned open carrier, I would likely do the same. From what I've gathered, the CPL just gives you the privilege to conceal carry and removes the lock box burden when going to and from your vehicle.

Click to expand...

Lock box burden?

imported post

DaemonForce wrote:

Then someone comes up to you, takes less than a second to size up what kind of person you are, doesn't ask to see your CPL and then has the gall to ask you to break the law because they assume you keep the CPL in your possession at all times.

Click to expand...

A couple things. One, they probably have no idea what the laws are regarding firearms. All they know is that they have heard of a CPL and therefore assume that you have to have one to carry a firearm.

Two, they aren't really asking you to break the law, they are asking you to conceal. There is no intent on their part to have you break a law and it is your responsibility to know the law as the carrier and inform them that you can not carry a concealed firearm.

Finally, they have no right to see your CPL anyway. If anyone other than a LEO asked to see my CPL I wouldn't comply or even acknowledge that I had one, and if an LEO asked to see it, I'd ask him why he needed it.

imported post

heresolong wrote:

BigDave wrote:

Him:I wanted to talk to you about your pistol, Im sure you have a CPL and all but Im gonna have to ask you to cover it up.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dave, I actually agree with your interpretation of how this encounter is 100% negative from the perspective of our cause, however I will suggest a better response to the manager's first statement.

You: Actually I don't have a CPL so I'm not allowed to cover it up

Click to expand...

If you leave your CPL in your car when you go inside, you can't legally cover up. Now he may ask you to leave, but he may also ask you about carrying without a CPL, in which case you are now having a positive, educational discussion about firearms law.

Click to expand...

Why should I have to change anything Im doing just because I might make someone else uncomfortable?
If I take my CPL out every time I OC Ill Probably lose it, I keep things like that in the same spot at all times so I know where it is for sure.
My view on this situation is: It is my right to carry my firearm, if that makes someone uncomfortable its not really my problem, I don't feel comfortable without it.
I dont feel like I should have to give up my rights to educate someone on the law, I understand most people don't realize that OC is legal, but their ignorance doesn't make my rights any less important.
I am more than willing to inform people of the laws pertaining to carry a firearm either CC or OC, but when they start saying "you cant" do this or "you need" to do this it gets under my skin a bit.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Lock box burden?

Click to expand...

Oh...That's my language. It suggests the user open carries apistol without a CPL. When you go to and from your car, you are expected to go through the burdensome ritual of temporarily parting with your firearm by locking it in the vehicle and hiding it. To me, this is a little vague. I specifically think of a locked box to be put under the driver's seat. It can be any kind of locking device but a box is what I think of. Around here, anyone watching someone do this process in the parking lot immediately becomes suspicious of the person's actions.Also, I don't lock my vehicle. Poo.

heresolong wrote:

A couple things. One, they probably have no idea what the laws are regarding firearms. All they know is that they have heard of a CPL and therefore assume that you have to have one to carry a firearm.

Click to expand...

Is this theprimary problem that open carriers experience? I thought it was bad legislation. I would callthis an excuse but I have to assume people are stupid. Reason being it's the truth.:lol:

heresolong wrote:

Finally, they have no right to see your CPL anyway. If anyone other than a LEO asked to see my CPL I wouldn't comply or even acknowledge that I had one, and if an LEO asked to see it, I'd ask him why he needed it.

Click to expand...

I find this confusing. It immediately brands you as suspicious. I can now see why there are so many MWAG calls, as stupid as they still are.

Bovaloe wrote:

I dont feel like I should have to give up my rights to educate someone on the law, I understand most people don't realize that OC is legal, but their ignorance doesn't make my rights any less important.
I am more than willing to inform people of the laws pertaining to carry a firearm either CC or OC, but when they start saying "you cant" do this or "you need" to do this it gets under my skin a bit.

Click to expand...

Agreed. In fact, I believe this is what will finally kill me. I'm probably going to die at a ripe age of 27 because some stupid blonde managed to give me a heart attack with her incessant bitching because some guy I just met is being harassed over his sidearm in open view.

Not good.

imported post

I think part of the reason people get into these little confrontations in stores is because they are slightly ignorant about their rights and where they end.

Some talk about the ignorance of the store employee vis-à-vis concealed carry laws, yet that same person is demonstrably ignorant about where their right to carry a gun ends. Two ignorant people can't have an intelligent discussion. Confrontation follows.

To wit:

My view on this situation is: It is my right to carry my firearm, if that makes someone uncomfortable its not really my problem, I don't feel comfortable without it.

Click to expand...

There is no right to carry a firearm on private property except for the property owner. There is license to carry a firearm on private property, and this license can be revoked at any time.

imported post

That's my language. It suggests the user open carries a pistol without a CPL. When you go to and from your car, you are expected to go through the burdensome ritual of temporarily parting with your firearm by locking it in the vehicle and hiding it

Click to expand...

Well, I hope that's not what you're doing, because the salient point of RCW 9.41.050 (2)(a)[url] is that the handgun must be unloaded to be legally carried or placed in a vehicle by a non-permit-holder, whereas that same section makes no mention of concealment.