Asked to Disarm at Walmart

imported post

And all these years, I kept hearing about a lawyer's duty and responsibility to seek the truth. Bullsh*t.
Hired lieyers..........

imported post

Maybe if you didn't go around looking for trouble, you wouldn't need to know who the agent is for a particular business. Maybe you should just support businesses that allow weapons.

But that's not your motivation anyway and we all know it.

imported post

DZelenka wrote:

If you think I am wrong, prove it by going to Walmart, precipitating such a request and refusing to leave. I don't think your defense that the manager is not an "agent" of the company will hold water.

Click to expand...

Um, yea, that's not going to happen. Some folks here are all talk and insults. They lack the ability to back up a single claim they make.

For example, someone here, claims that a security guard and/or a manager is not an authorized agent of a company or a corporation. Yet, they bowed down to the authority of a manger and a security guard at a hospital when his firearm was demanded.

Hypocrisy at it's best here folks.

imported post

I'm expecting at any time to walk up to the doors at Walmart and they will have a NO GUN sign.

I think they are getting tired of the BS

imported post

I certainly hope so.
Then all the statists can stand there, wave their prized CCW permits and cry,"but, but, but I'm one of the special citizens !!"
Can hardly wait !!!

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

I certainly hope so.
Then all the statists can stand there, wave their prized CCW permits and cry.
Can hardly wait !!!

Click to expand...

No the sign will have except LE and CHP holders. It will be only for we the people that can get a CHP.

imported post

I doubt it.

If the undisputed true corporate owners of Walmart have, indeed, publicly declared OC'ers to be welcome, any employee asking an OC'er to leave is going against the stated wishes of his bosses.
It would be rather amusing to sit in the back row of seats in 19th JDC, watching some prosecutor pressing for a conviction under such circumstances. Does anyone here truly believe a conviction would be forthcoming? Oh my, we ARE in Louisiana, I almost forgot.

charlie12 said:

I'm expecting at any time to walk up to the doors at Walmart and they will have a NO GUN sign.

I think they are getting tired of the BS

Click to expand...

I wish they would decide one way or the other. These retailers should make their intentions to ban guns known. There is nothing worse than spending 1/2 hour shopping, only to leave a shopping cart full of crap because they don't like your handgun.

george everette sibley said:

If the undisputed true corporate owners of Walmart have, indeed, publicly declared OC'ers to be welcome, any employee asking an OC'er to leave is going against the stated wishes of his bosses.
It would be rather amusing to sit in the back row of seats in 19th JDC, watching some prosecutor pressing for a conviction under such circumstances. Does anyone here truly believe a conviction would be forthcoming? Oh my, we ARE in Louisiana, I almost forgot.

Click to expand...

Has little to do with it being Louisiana and more to do with your lack of knowledge of the law and the facts as represented or perhaps misrepresented.

Wal-Mart has never in my recollection issued a corporate wide, firm policy. What the have said is that they follow state laws in which their stores are located. It does not mean that they pledge under any penalty to do one thing or another.

Following state law is a two edged sword which includes them being able to ask anyone to leave - not doing so will likely earn you an arrest and probable conviction for trespass. If the employee were to have been in violation of store or corporate policy, they may be fired or reprimanded - in the meanwhile you are subject to their directives.

kwikrnu said:

I wish they would decide one way or the other. These retailers should make their intentions to ban guns known. There is nothing worse than spending 1/2 hour shopping, only to leave a shopping cart full of crap because they don't like your handgun.

Click to expand...

But that wasn't a Walmart, that was your Costco experience...you left without purchasing the goods. That's why you say they have no record of you using your card that day.

I oc in the Wallyworld in Hammond about once a week. Never had a problem. Had a short chat with a TPSO about how boring his detail must be. Oc'ing in the checkout line, he didn't even blink.

How about when they ask you if you are an LEO you tell them that's none of your business. So if people have complained about it and the offender is a LEO it's ok for them to continue to offend the people in the store. It's poppycock.

Masher said:

How about when they ask you if you are an LEO you tell them that's none of your business. So if people have complained about it and the offender is a LEO it's ok for them to continue to offend the people in the store. It's poppycock.

Click to expand...

Actually a private establishment can ask a LEO to leave (or disarm) if he is not there on official business. Has been done before, but rarely I would think.

the two things that jumped out at me, in the wall-mart policy, was " If a Wal-Mart customer has been awarded a concealed handgun license by the state government" and a LE. it seems that wal-mart thinks the govt. can do no wrong.
i find the term "awarded" by the govt. offensive. it sounds like you got your rights from a lottery. but, as a respecter of private property, if a owner asks me to leave that is what i will do. although if it is by a flunky i will get clarification from top management.
btw. there is a youtube video of a police man being asked to leave a coffe shop, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCzxvsDzJf0&feature=related

DZelenka said:

mark edward marchiafava wrote: If you are looking for certainty on this issue, you need to volunteer to be the test case. The determination of agency is going to be the judge's (and ultimately possibly an appellate court's). Any opinion that you get from an attorney is going to be just that - an opinion. It may be based upon more research than I have conducted (as much as you are willing to pay for), but no attorney is going to give you a definitive answer unless he finds a case that is "on all fours" i.e. has the exact same facts as yours. Further, that case must be from either the LA Supreme Court or the appellate court for the district that in which your case arises in order to be precedent for your case.

"To clarify and resolve matters is NOT their goal." In fact it is not an attorney's job to do so. It is the attorney's job to advise his/her client and advocate on the client's behalf. Resolving legal issues is the job of judges.

Click to expand...

Once again....DZelenka is correct.

[63.3. Entry on or remaining in places or on land after being forbidden

A. No person shall without authority go into or upon or remain in or upon or attempt to go into or upon or remain in or upon any structure, watercraft, or any other movable, or immovable property, which belongs to another, including public buildings and structures, ferries, and bridges, or any part, portion, or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, including by means of any sign hereinafter described, by any owner, lessee, or custodian of the property or by any other authorized person. For the purposes of this Section, the above mentioned sign means a sign or signs posted on or in the structure, watercraft, or any other movable, or immovable property, including public buildings and structures, ferries and bridges, or part, portion or area thereof, at a place or places where such sign or signs may be reasonably expected to be seen.

B. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the parish jail for not more than six months, or both.

Added by Acts 1960, No. 78, §1. Amended by Acts 1963, No. 91, §1; Acts 1968, No. 647, §1; Acts 1977, No. 445, §1; Acts 1978, No. 694, §1.

Click to expand...

trust me when I tell you, it does not matter who the agent is, because as soon as LEO arrives, he will get with the manager or pretty much anyone he wants and ask if they want you to leave. AT that point, he will tell you to leave and if you do not immediately about face, you are breaking the law.

It is as simple as that. There will be no discussion about who the agent is You can look that up during library time in jail between make-out sessions with Pookie and yard time.

many here worry about the dumbest ****. If you are at a place and are asked to leave, leave. If you are at my place and I ask you to leave, you will. I can promise you that. you will wish you had simply walked away.


_____________

14:619. Use of force or violence in defense

A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.