Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: WSJ poll: What should retailers in open carry states do?

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...593489048.html

    Keep hitting thispoll: "What should retailers in open-carry states do about customers who display guns?" [apparently subscription required]


    --
    Article SNIP

    The "open carry" movement, in which gun owners carry unconcealed handguns as they go about their everyday business, is loosely organized around the country but has been gaining traction in recent months. Gun-control advocates have been pushing to quash the movement, including by petitioning the Starbucks coffee chain to ban guns on its premises.

    . . .

    Starbucks on Wednesday, while bemoaning being thrust into the debate, defended its long-standing policy of complying with state open-carry weapons laws, in part by stating that its baristas, or "partners," could be harmed if the stores were to ban guns. The chain said that in the 43 states where open carry is legal, it has about 4,970 company-operated stores.

    The company added: "The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores."

    In 29 states, it's legal to openly carry a loaded handgun, without any form of government permission. Another 13 allow an unconcealed loaded handgun with a carry permit, according to opencarry.org, which is a loosely organized Web forum for the movement.

    . .

    Supporters are spreading in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and other areas. Some are making lists of "OC-friendly" locales, and encouraging boycotts of businesses with no-weapons signs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Home Depot Inc., Best Buy Co. and Barnes & Noble Inc., are designated as "open-carry" friendly in some online forums or say they abide by existing laws. "Our practice is to comply with local and state laws," said Best Buy spokeswoman Sue Busch Nehring.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    What should they do? Exactly what Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy, Barns N Noble and Startbucs did. It's not that the companys aremajor supporters ofopen carry but rather they are just abiding and respecting the laws. That is all I ask for them to do. It's nice to hear that major retail stores are not crumbling under the pressure of groups like The Brady Campaign.

  3. #3
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    I don't see any poll at that link, Mike. Did they take it down? Trying to load "comments" now.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    MamaLiberty wrote:
    I don't see any poll at that link, Mike. Did they take it down? Trying to load "comments" now.
    Maybe you have to be a WSJ subscriber?

    I see this and did vote already - BTW, we are winning.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    Currently:

    • 74% Follow local law and allow
    • 6.8% Make own chain-wide policy
    • 19.2% Prohibit guns
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  6. #6
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    MamaLiberty wrote:
    I don't see any poll at that link, Mike. Did they take it down? Trying to load "comments" now.
    Maybe you have to be a WSJ subscriber?

    I see this and did vote already - BTW, we are winning.
    Ah, of course. Probably why I couldn't load the comments either. No interest in subscribing. I have too many things to read as it is! LOL Thanks.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    What should business do? Hmmmmm....



    Follow the law.
    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    What should business do? Hmmmmm....



    Follow the law.
    Which "law?" The German soldiers who murdered the poor sods in the concentration camps WERE "following the law."

    "The law" may, or may not have anything to do with what is right.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    MamaLiberty wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    What should business do? Hmmmmm....



    Follow the law.
    Which "law?" The German soldiers who murdered the poor sods in the concentration camps WERE "following the law."

    "The law" may, or may not have anything to do with what is right.
    Quite a stretch from following the carry laws of each state to the Third Reich! A leap in logic of such magnitude is ridiculous. Did you read the article? Are you suggesting businesses don't follow the laws of the state that they do business in? What other laws are you suggesting not to be followed? I would suggest only immoral, illegal and unconstitutionallaws need to be questioned and disobeyed.
    Live Free or Die!

  10. #10
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    MamaLiberty wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    What should business do? Hmmmmm....



    Follow the law.
    Which "law?" The German soldiers who murdered the poor sods in the concentration camps WERE "following the law."

    "The law" may, or may not have anything to do with what is right.
    Quite a stretch from following the carry laws of each state to the Third Reich! A leap in logic of such magnitude is ridiculous. Did you read the article? Are you suggesting businesses don't follow the laws of the state that they do business in? What other laws are you suggesting not to be followed? I would suggest only immoral, illegal and unconstitutionallaws need to be questioned and disobeyed.
    I'm not suggesting anything. I'm merely saying that we must first define the moral basis of the "law" in order to know whether or not to follow it.

    How do YOU determine what is an "immoral, illegal" and "unconstitutional" law? Is that the same for everyone? If so, why do we have a problem at all? Obviously, a great many government "enforcers" don't have any problem with a lot of "laws" many others consider immoral, illegal and unconstitutional.

    Blindly "following orders" is the evil I was pointing out in my example. Of course nobody likes to think that there is any relationship to that with their own blind obedience.

    And no, it is not relative. The smallest violation of human rights is as wrong as the greatest. The consequences may well be very different, but right and wrong are not relative.

    Again... the "law" may - or may not - have anything at all to do with what is right.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    MamaLiberty wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    MamaLiberty wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    What should business do? Hmmmmm....



    Follow the law.
    Which "law?" The German soldiers who murdered the poor sods in the concentration camps WERE "following the law."

    "The law" may, or may not have anything to do with what is right.
    Quite a stretch from following the carry laws of each state to the Third Reich! A leap in logic of such magnitude is ridiculous. Did you read the article? Are you suggesting businesses don't follow the laws of the state that they do business in? What other laws are you suggesting not to be followed? I would suggest only immoral, illegal and unconstitutionallaws need to be questioned and disobeyed.
    I'm not suggesting anything. I'm merely saying that we must first define the moral basis of the "law" in order to know whether or not to follow it.

    How do YOU determine what is an "immoral, illegal" and "unconstitutional" law? Is that the same for everyone? If so, why do we have a problem at all? Obviously, a great many government "enforcers" don't have any problem with a lot of "laws" many others consider immoral, illegal and unconstitutional.

    Blindly "following orders" is the evil I was pointing out in my example. Of course nobody likes to think that there is any relationship to that with their own blind obedience.

    And no, it is not relative. The smallest violation of human rights is as wrong as the greatest. The consequences may well be very different, but right and wrong are not relative.

    Again... the "law" may - or may not - have anything at all to do with what is right.
    Ok, back to the OP, this is a WSJ article on a business (Starbucks) and how they will follow state and local laws cocerning firearms. Starbucks is not in the position, as a business to determine which laws are moral. While they could exercise their right to place conditions on thier private property they choose these very specific laws over any determination to the morality of them.

    As far as the rest of your post, I understood from the outset, but this thread is about the original post and how Starbucks (and the poll) relate to a very specific set of laws. J Pierce has asked that threads stay on track and don't go off the deep end. I would suggest you start a thread on your premise, it may be a good debate.
    Live Free or Die!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •