Best Buy will be banning open carry next month

Hi all,

I was just shopping at Best Buy and was stopped by the security guy on my way out. He was very polite but regrettably informed me that next month they will be enacting a corporate policy banning open carry in their stores. I assume this means starting September 1 but did not ask for clarification.

I have not yet contacted their corporate office but plan on doing so soon. If anybody else wants to contact them as well, you can call 1-888-BEST-BUY (237-8289) or try their "Contact us" form at http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=cat12104&type=page

Geoff

Please post the store where this information was supplied to you, and the name of the employee who informed you.

Once I receive that information, I will immediately contact the CEO of Best Buy AGAIN!

In July of 2009, from a Best Buy corporate attorney stating Best Buy had no such policy.

Again, please provide the requested information and I will get a letter off straight away.

Well there you go boys. I called this.

Write and email all you like but some places will never be comfortable with OC.

That is THEIR RIGHT under law... hard to hear for some of you but true nonetheless.

Lets take a poll, Is this "infringement" or is it "reasonable regulation"?

Woodchuck said:

Lets take a poll, Is this "infringement" or is it "reasonable regulation"?

Click to expand...

I agreed with you in the other post but your question here is non-sequitur. Best Buy is a business and as such personal property regulated by the owners who can do as they please under law.

This happened at the Grafton store at 8:20 tonight.

Spartacus said:

I agreed with you in the other post but your question here is non-sequitur. Best Buy is a business and as such personal property regulated by the owners who can do as they please under law.

Click to expand...

I understand your point and understand we all have rights, both the property owners and the public, but the question I have is, on what basis does a property "right" trump a 2nd amendment "right"?

The property right seems to have the law on its side over the 2nd amendment. However, I think any place the general public is allowed, they should be able to go armed.

Geoff

Edit - Perhaps Doug can provide some insight as to which 'right' has the highest legal standing.

Woodchuck said:

I understand your point and understand we all have rights, both the property owners and the public, but the question I have is, on what basis does a property "right" trump a 2nd amendment "right"?

Click to expand...

The "right" to dispose and control property precede the constitution of the US and hearken back to Natural or Common Law and do not require any amendment to be valid, however the basis may be found here:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

So "the governed", us, have consented to value property rights above 2A rights.

Woodchuck said:

I understand your point and understand we all have rights, both the property owners and the public, but the question I have is, on what basis does a property "right" trump a 2nd amendment "right"?

Click to expand...

You have to understand that this conversation has been hashed out a number of times already across the life of the forum. It can and has gone on for pages and pages.

Please use the search feature to inform yourself of all the angles and arguments.

It all boils down to the fact that property rights are property rights.

We would do well to respect their property rights, even if they won't respect our (and their own) right to defend themselves. We do not want the government telling a business it has to accept OCers, because if the government can do that, it can do other mischief as well.

Citizen said:

We do not want the government telling a business it has to accept OCers, because if the government can do that, it can do other mischief as well.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Then you would be in a socialist state.

Geoff said:

Edit - Perhaps Doug can provide some insight as to which 'right' has the highest legal standing.

Click to expand...

Oh God please no...

I don't want to get into the debate about rights, but we can still contact them and tell them that it would be against their best interests to enact such a policy. I for one would never shop there again.

I just sent a note through their web form:

According to the person who started this thread [http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...st-Buy-will-be-banning-open-carry-next-month] a security guard at the Grafton, WI BB claims that BB will begin infringing on civil liberties starting 01SEP.

Open carry is legal in Wisconsin, and in fact is the only legal way to carry a tool for personal protection. Open carriers have caused no problems in BB stores, robbed or assaulted nobody, started no riots. We are law-abiding citizens who take civil liberties seriously.

Would BB try to turn away all people of a certain color just because a few people felt uncomfortable around "them"? No, because that would infringe their civil liberties, thereby being illegal (as well as a HUGE PR problem).

Continue your policy the way it is. Supporting civil liberties is the right and legal thing to do. (Also have a look at 18USC241 - http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/241fin.php)

Picket the store. Make it a national thing.

One thing they want more than exercising their land owners rights is......your money.

Good Point

MKEgal, it looks like a conspiracy crime to me. It would seem that a sole owner of a private property would not fall under this code but a business, especially a public business, that also includes one or more of it's employees along with the owner would be two or more conspiring to deprive. But not only is it a crime it is just plain ANTI-American. A business usually has the right to refuse to serve an individual for any reason, but once they make it about a group of people it is whole different issue. Suppose they said no Muslims, or no Native Americans, or no women.

If true, there goes my spending of thousands of dollars in the future. Along with money from other law abiding citizens that shop Best Buy.

I'll just go elsewhere.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a mall policy instead of a best buy corporate policy.

Geoff said:

The property right seems to have the law on its side over the 2nd amendment. However, I think any place the general public is allowed, they should be able to go armed.

Geoff

Edit - Perhaps Doug can provide some insight as to which 'right' has the highest legal standing.

Click to expand...

Constitutional rights are protections against government infringement, not private infringement. So the right of the property owner means everything in such an instance, and the Constitution simply does not apply. If we wanted a right to go armed into a business it would require an addition to Wisconsin's public accommodations law (Ch. 106.52) to add something like "lawfully bearing a firearm or other arms" to the list of discriminatory actions that a "place of public accommodations" e.g., businesses, are prohibited from doing. Currently businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry and in some instances, age.

Madison has a larger number of protected groups under it's public accommodations ordinance: sex, race,
religion, color, national origin or ancestry, age, handicap/disability, marital status, source of income, arrest record or conviction record, less than honorable discharge, physical appearance, sexual orientation, political beliefs, familial status, or the fact that such person is a student, or the fact that such a person is a member of a domestic partnership. But nothing that protects gun carriers from discriminatory actions by private businesses!

My de facto boycott of BestBuy.

I have not darkened the doors of BB since long before I left Charleston, SC on 13 January 2005. Unfortunately I do use Napster as my music download vendor, it's owned by BB.

I avoid, to the extent possible, Big Box (notice the coincidence) stores, preferring to trade with Mom & Pop local vendors. I "buy Island", from my 105 year old grocery and from the other local businesses, even when I disagree with their prices, politics, policies or personalities. Only when they can't provide me with my very odd purchases do I order off the internet or - heaven forfend - go off Island.

Currently my preferred local "hardware" store (there are two, one I avoid) is trying to source 10# quantities of boric acid. They have become a reliable source of potassium monopersulfate in kilogram quantities. Next I'll ask them if they can provide sodium percarbonate. So far my other chemicals have been available under peculiar brand names, sodium carbonate as Arm & Hammer Washing Soda , but boric acid sold as insecticide in 1# jars costs as much a 10# technical for the packaging, labeling and marketing as insecticide. Some of this is my attempt to implement Pat. No. 5352409 and some to start formulating DIY versions of household products (hypothetically for SHTF scenarios).