Problem at Best Buy in Greensboro

imported post

razor_baghdad wrote:

I shop in Best Buy Fayetteville Skibo almost everyday and I OC. I work in an office directly behind their radio installation facility.

In regards to leaving without incident every time you OC AND a supervisor/manager tells you to leave I'll call no-go. The manager is not always correct on these occasions, as with the incident with the OP. Let them call the po-po. Let them charge you and go to the courthouse to figure the situation out.

The manager of BB needs to be reminded of the consequences of his own actions AND Corporate policy for not knowing Best Buy corporate policy regarding the NC state laws and weapons carry within his own store.

I'm willing to take that chance at the front checkout stand of any store that allows weapons as per state laws. I get discouraged at folks who walk out and call corporate 'later'.

Make it a point so that the store manager knows right then and there that weapons are allowed by smarter people than the asshat managers at the local level who are anti-gun or simply ignorant to their own rights AND THEIR CUSTOMERS RIGHTS pertaining to RTKBA.

2 cents

Click to expand...

and you would be charged with trespassing and most likely disorderly conduct.
then you just made all OCers look like jackasses and took a huge step backwards to freedoms.

imported post

Ruger wrote:

The folks at the Apple store in Friendly Center didn't seem to be bothered by the SR9. I bought everything there instead

Click to expand...

Crazyness because i was asked to leave the store today, I made a post about it.

imported post

mekender wrote:

There is no such thing as a registry of firearms owners.

Click to expand...

Uhm, it's called the database of people who have CWPs... Oh, and anything NFA...

There are plenty such 'kill these people first' lists held by the government...

imported post

ixtow wrote:

mekender wrote:

There is no such thing as a registry of firearms owners.

Click to expand...

Uhm, it's called the database of people who have CWPs... Oh, and anything NFA...

There are plenty such 'kill these people first' lists held by the government...

Click to expand...

I dont have an NFA item and just because i have a CHP does not mean that I own any guns.

As for these "lists" should things get that far, it wont matter what list you are on.

imported post

no problems at Best Buy today...

imported post

You should have went to the apple store also. I wanna see how a different/same manager reacts

imported post

Wow, I wonder if it was the same Courtland I ran into in Gastonia. If so the communication within really sucks.

imported post

Preble wrote:

razor_baghdad wrote:

~snipped~ Make it a point so that the store manager knows right then and there that weapons are allowed by smarter people than the asshat managers at the local level who are anti-gun or simply ignorant to their own rights AND THEIR CUSTOMERS RIGHTS pertaining to RTKBA.

2 cents

Click to expand...

and you would be charged with trespassing and most likely disorderly conduct.
then you just made all OCers look like jackasses and took a huge step backwards to freedoms.

Click to expand...

Preble, I'm reading that you're an OC'er that would tuck tail and run, shouting, "I'm gonna call your boss'.......errrr.....whispering that on your way out the door.....and no mekender, I wouldn't refuse to leave, but I would certainly make certain that the manager knew he was not operating his store within state laws or corporate policy and he was violating my rights as a lawful gun carrier fully within my rights.

Huge step backwards?? Get a CC so you don't have to run into any situations like this. You obviously have absolutely no idea how to handle any confrontation if you call me a jackass for informing the manager of my legal right to carry a loaded weapon on his premises, even when he doesn't know his own corporate policy.

Even if I did get arrested (I would leave if told to leave~BTW), I go downtown, get charged, they drop the charges, BB (only an example) apologizes, and the manager is now educated on the rights of his customers to legally OC in his store. I fail to see the jackassery in that. We OC because we can legally and we take the situations we're put in unnecessarily and go from there. I inform, I don't trespass.

Stand up for your rights or lose them.

imported post

When we go onto private property, we no longer have a right to bear arms. We have a privilege if it is granted by the owner.

In the case of the situation here, the manager was usurping the right of Best Buy to grant the privilege to carry on their premises.

right=inherent entitlement from God/creator in respects to dominion/ownership
privilege=power granted that can be revoked at anytime for any reason by the entity granting said privilege.

imported post

jp49911 wrote:

When we go onto private property, we no longer have a right to bear arms. We have a privilege if it is granted by the owner.

In the case of the situation here, the manager was usurping the right of Best Buy to grant the privilege to carry on their premises.

right=inherent entitlement from God/creator in respects to dominion/ownership
privilege=power granted that can be revoked at anytime for any reason by the entity granting said privilege.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

Preble wrote:

jp49911 wrote:

When we go onto private property, we no longer have a right to bear arms. We have a privilege if it is granted by the owner.

In the case of the situation here, the manager was usurping the right of Best Buy to grant the privilege to carry on their premises.

right=inherent entitlement from God/creator in respects to dominion/ownership
privilege=power granted that can be revoked at anytime for any reason by the entity granting said privilege.

Click to expand...

+1

Click to expand...

I beg to differ, you still have the right to bear arms even if you are on private property just the same as you still have the right to life, to privacy (even though it is limited)*, to not be a victim of crime, etc. It is never a privilege.

Our courts have not yet established whether or not the right to bear arms can be temporarily revoked by property owners.

Currently, that right can be revoked temporarily but that may change should it be ruled that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.


* you do not have a reasonable expectation of general privacy on private property, you do have an expectation of not being strip searched or videotaped in a changing room/bathroom.

imported post

Here's a newer (not by much) reply from Best Buy corporate regarding their LACK of a firearms policy and that customers are allowed to legally carry. Includes contact information NAME, PHONE, FAX, and E-MAIL.

Assuming I put it up properly. LOL

imported post

mekender wrote:

Preble wrote:

jp49911 wrote:

When we go onto private property, we no longer have a right to bear arms. We have a privilege if it is granted by the owner.

In the case of the situation here, the manager was usurping the right of Best Buy to grant the privilege to carry on their premises.

right=inherent entitlement from God/creator in respects to dominion/ownership
privilege=power granted that can be revoked at anytime for any reason by the entity granting said privilege.

Click to expand...

+1

Click to expand...

I beg to differ, you still have the right to bear arms even if you are on private property just the same as you still have the right to life, to privacy (even though it is limited)*, to not be a victim of crime, etc. It is never a privilege.

Our courts have not yet established whether or not the right to bear arms can be temporarily revoked by property owners.

Currently, that right can be revoked temporarily but that may change should it be ruled that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.


* you do not have a reasonable expectation of general privacy on private property, you do have an expectation of not being strip searched or videotaped in a changing room/bathroom.

Click to expand...

Rights are not contingent on what the courts say. Rights are and will always be rights.

Rights can be violated, but they are still rights.

Rights are in respect to dominion/ownership means I have a right to do what I want to do with my property, so long as I do not infringe on another persons right.

You have a RTKB arms on your property because you own the property (and presumably the arms). YOU do not have a RTKB arms on MY property because you don't even have a right to be on my property. I have a right to be on my property, because I own it; you have a privilege to be on my property, if I grant it.

If I own property, I can set stipulations that, you can't come in my restaurant unless you have a tie and jacket. You can't shop here unless you have shoes and shirt. No vulgar language on our property (I will even go as far to say I will determine what is and is not vulgar).

Now you most certainly have a right to wear casual clothes, go barefoot and shirtless, and swear like a sailor. You just don't have a right to do the above at said restaurant, said store or on said premises.

If I were to accept your understanding on this, then I have a right to come relieve myself in your bushes. I certainly have a right to relieve myself; so you can't revoke my rights because I'm on your property. (I have no intention of doing that for the record )

imported post

The rights you listed are not considered fundamental rights. Hell, they arent even enumerated rights though a right does not have to be enumerated to be fundamental.

The right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, privacy, marriage, to be free from harm, parental rights, citizenship, equal protection under the law, contract and voting are among the many rights that are no revocable while you are on private property.

Further there are also laws that apply even if you are on private property that back some of those rights. You arent allowed to be killed, raped, sexually assaulted, robbed, beaten, etc... Just because you are on private property. Your right to life supersedes a private property owners right.

You have a RTKB arms on your property because you own the property

Click to expand...

Please show me where in Supreme Court rulings or in the Constitution where it says that the right to bear arms is limited to your own property?

It isn't there, in fact the Second Amendment specifically says "shall not be infringed". There are no qualifiers that allow anyone to infringe on that right. It is unlimited and may not be infringed upon by anyone. Just because our courts and laws have allowed infringement does not change the wording or the fact that it was never intended to have any limits. If you notice, other amendments do have built in limits such as the 1st which says "Congress shall make no law", that too was intentional.

Finally there are different levels of private property. A private home is very different from a privately owned outdoor shopping center. Some of the restrictions that would be allowed in a private home are not permissible to public businesses. For example a business may not deny someone entry or service because of their gender or race. A homeowner is free to do that.

In our current system, we have allowed the infringement of second amendment rights. I suspect that the courts would probably decide that the restriction of the 2nd amendment on private property is ok, probably even for public places that are privately owned simply because that is how things have been for so long.

However, if the right to bear arms is a key part of the right to life, as I believe it is, then it should not be revocable at all.

imported post

mekender wrote:

The rights you listed are not considered fundamental rights. Hell, they arent even enumerated rights though a right does not have to be enumerated to be fundamental.

The right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, privacy, marriage, to be free from harm, parental rights, citizenship, equal protection under the law, contract and voting are among the many rights that are no revocable while you are on private property.

Further there are also laws that apply even if you are on private property that back some of those rights. You arent allowed to be killed, raped, sexually assaulted, robbed, beaten, etc... Just because you are on private property. Your right to life supersedes a private property owners right.

You have a RTKB arms on your property because you own the property

Click to expand...

Please show me where in Supreme Court rulings or in the Constitution where it says that the right to bear arms is limited to your own property?

It isn't there, in fact the Second Amendment specifically says "shall not be infringed". There are no qualifiers that allow anyone to infringe on that right. It is unlimited and may not be infringed upon by anyone. Just because our courts and laws have allowed infringement does not change the wording or the fact that it was never intended to have any limits. If you notice, other amendments do have built in limits such as the 1st which says "Congress shall make no law", that too was intentional.

Finally there are different levels of private property. A private home is very different from a privately owned outdoor shopping center. Some of the restrictions that would be allowed in a private home are not permissible to public businesses. For example a business may not deny someone entry or service because of their gender or race. A homeowner is free to do that.

In our current system, we have allowed the infringement of second amendment rights. I suspect that the courts would probably decide that the restriction of the 2nd amendment on private property is ok, probably even for public places that are privately owned simply because that is how things have been for so long.

However, if the right to bear arms is a key part of the right to life, as I believe it is, then it should not be revocable at all.

Click to expand...

I think we are discussing two different things. I'm talking about rights vs privileges strictly based on what they mean not how they have been interpreted in our system.

At one point our system understood that blacks didn't have a right to freedom. Was that not a right then and after the 14th amendment become a right? Are rights only things that the Deceleration of Independence says is a right?

I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. The, Supreme Court, The Constitution, nor The Deceleration of Independence determines what is and isn't a right. The founding documents were an attempt to IDENTIFY (not create) rights. (I think they were pretty good in that attempt)

Currently there is a thought in our system that you have a "right" to healthcare; WRONG.

You have a right to be fed and clothed; WRONG.

You have a right to murder an unborn child; WRONG.

All of the above can change from administration to administration, from amendment to amendment, or from Supreme Court to Supreme Court. If you think the status of things actually change based off of presidential administrations, amendments and Supreme Court rulings, then you think rights are determined by the governmental system of a particular area. I believe the status of these things don't change, only how our system interprets them.

The concept that a government establishes what is and isn't a right is scary and contrary to the founding documents. The men who established this system said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident (any idiot oughtta be able to see this), that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are (we are about to IDENTIFY not CREATE some of these rights) Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (Government does not determine rights it is simlply put in place to secure them), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (government gets privileges granted to it from the people, the people own the government[sup](again ownership)[/sup] not the other way around), — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (when the gov. is destructive in recognizing and securing rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So yes, currently, in our system, the government says what is and isn't a right. Our government owns the people vs the people owning it. In our current system "rights" do not come from our Creator they come from government. All of this is true in the practical since of how things are. This is GROSSLY out of sync with the universal truth of rights/privileges.

Last thing; I don't think you have the right to do anything on anothers private property, including live...lemme splain. Living somewhere means that's where your body is. I am literally living (expending this portion of 20 min of my life) in my office chair. When I get up to go watch the game in the living room, at that moment I will be expending my life (living) on the couch. You don't have a right to expend your life on my couch, in my office chair or anywhere on my property. Does that mean I have a right to extinguish your life/existence? Not necessarily. I have a right to tell you to leave my property. I didn't tell you you can't live, I am just saying you can't live (expend your life) on MY property. See how you don't have a right to life on MY property? If you refuse to remove your property (your body) off of my property, you are violating my rights which then gives me the right to use my property (my body) to remove your body from my property.

Our legal system backs this up. They do not go as far to say that you can use any property you want to remove the person (i.e. you can't use your personal property known as a glock). In strict rights/privileges since, you do have a right to use the glock property to prevent someone from violating your property rights.

imported post

mekender out of curiosity, how would you define a right and a privilege and where do each of them come from?

imported post

mekender wrote:

It is unlimited and may not be infringed upon by anyone. Just because our courts and laws have allowed infringement does not change the wording or the fact that it was never intended to have any limits. If you notice, other amendments do have built in limits such as the 1st which says "Congress shall make no law", that too was intentional.

Click to expand...

Actually it is the other way around. The Bill of Rights only restricted what the US Congress could do. The idea that some of thethe rights guaranteed thereinappliedat the stateand local levelonly began with thedoctrine of incorporation. This has only been in effect for the last 110 years or so. The fact that the 2nd ammendment has never beenincorporated by the courts is one of the main arguments that gun control advocates use to justify local restrictions.

imported post

+1 jp49911. I found these quotes to be very enlightening about the danger of too powerful of an authority.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have,"
-Gerald R. Ford

Were we to be directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
-Thomas Jefferson

Man will ultimately be governed by God or tyrants.
-Benjamin Franklin

Power over a man's substance is power over his will.
-Alexander Hamilton

imported post

I was at a Best Buy in Las Vegas about two/three weeks ago and had an issue like this. The managers were really nice about it but asked me if I could put my weapon away. I was in a rush and had to get an item I purchased exchanged as it was for a birthday party that was starting in less than an hour. I informed them that my state has the right to open carry and that Best Buy's policy was to obey all state/local laws. He stated that their general manager did not want weapons in the store unless they were with a on an on-duty LEO. Not really sure what my I should do now since I shop their often and really do like their customer service. This is the first time I OC'd there however and was very dissapointed with how it was handled since I have seen many other people OC without any issues.

imported post

DoubleAgentMan wrote:

I was at a Best Buy in Las Vegas about two/three weeks ago and had an issue like this. The managers were really nice about it but asked me if I could put my weapon away. I was in a rush and had to get an item I purchased exchanged as it was for a birthday party that was starting in less than an hour. I informed them that my state has the right to open carry and that Best Buy's policy was to obey all state/local laws. He stated that their general manager did not want weapons in the store unless they were with a on an on-duty LEO. Not really sure what my I should do now since I shop their often and really do like their customer service. This is the first time I OC'd there however and was very dissapointed with how it was handled since I have seen many other people OC without any issues.

Click to expand...

Follow-up with an email and a phone call or it never happened, and will continue to never happen.

2cents