Asked to leave Best Buy!

Alright ive been openly carrying in the same Best Buy for about a year and a half and have never had any issues untill a week ago i was asked by an employee to leave for the safety of the other customers, no where is it posted that i cannot carry my firearm and when i asked the store manager she was unable to show me anywhere in the company policies stating that i couldnt be in there.

luckely this didnt involve the local authorities as i have had to deal with them on several other occasions.

My question is do these companies such as wal mart, target, best buy etc. have the right to bar us from the property or do they have to abide by state laws which allow us to openly carry in public... i know these are not state owned and operated companies but is there anything i can do to continue to carry in these places?

I dont want to boycott these companies just because one of one hundred employees feels uncomfortable by my presence with a firearm.

In my opinion legislation will have to be passed just like other civil rights, to force businesses "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC"
to honor your right to carry a firearm. It is discrimination, period. If they don't want to be open to the public then they can be a club. Members only.

These companies have private property rights just as you do. They may lawfully disallow firearms on their premises.

However, you have the right not to do business with chains that do not allow firearms.

I recommend that you write to the corporate offices for a clarification of their chain policy. Also, you may want to call the district manager to report the incident. The manager may well have overstepped his authority.

If you will provide details about time and place in this thread, you will find that many members will contact corporate to find out their policy and to remind them that many gun owners will not shop there if they have an anti-gun policy.

eye95 said:

These companies have private property rights just as you do. They may lawfully disallow firearms on their premises.

Click to expand...

I'd agree except I'm not keen on saying its ok to discriminate against armed Americans, but not Chinese Americans.

Daylen said:

I'd agree except I'm not keen on saying its ok to discriminate against armed Americans, but not Chinese Americans.

Click to expand...

None of us were born with a gun on our hip so it's not discrimination.

It's not a matter of civil rights, it's a matter of property rights.

Daylen said:

I'd agree except I'm not keen on saying its ok to discriminate against armed Americans, but not Chinese Americans.

Click to expand...

Two things: You, as a person, are still free to enter the store. The gun cannot.

I disagree as completely with laws that force people to give up property rights under the guise of preventing discrimination against protected classes as I would with laws that force store owners to give up their property rights based on the carry status of a prospective customer.

Let me ask: If you owned a store, should you have to allow a person to stand in your store and campaign for a candidate you find loathsome? Of course not. But, wait, the person you want to kick out is just exercising his 1A rights.

Your rights end where others' begin. If we are honest about wanting Liberty, we must want Liberty for all.

Thanx

Thank ya'll for the feed back on this...

I did go back and speak with the manager in person today and im assuming she couldnt find anything in writting in their policies but she told me that Best Buy recognizes state laws and has no problem with open carry rights and appologized...

flb_78 said:

None of us were born with a gun on our hip so it's not discrimination.

It's not a matter of civil rights, it's a matter of property rights.

Click to expand...

So it would be ok to discriminate against the Chinese if they could change their skin color at will?

eye95 said:

Let me ask: If you owned a store, should you have to allow a person to stand in your store and campaign for a candidate you find loathsome? Of course not. But, wait, the person you want to kick out is just exercising his 1A rights.

Click to expand...

I think simply wearing a firearm would be more like wearing a shirt that is supportive of the loathsome candidate.

Not sure why I'm arguing though since I do agree with your sentiments on property rights and wouldn't want to make a purchase from someone who is that against bearing arms.

Daylen said:

I think simply wearing a firearm would be more like wearing a shirt that is supportive of the loathsome candidate.

Not sure why I'm arguing though since I do agree with your sentiments on property rights and wouldn't want to make a purchase from someone who is that against bearing arms.

Click to expand...

In both cases, rights are being exercised on someone's property where the store owner doesn't want the rights exercised. Since one would be free to exercise those rights elsewhere, the rights are not being denied by not allowing him in the store.

However, the property rights of the store owner would be denied if you forced him to allow others to exercise rights on his property in a way to which he objects.

The only way to preserve everyone's Liberty is to allow the property owner to decide which rights will not be allowed to be exercised on his property. After all, he is not saying that one cannot exercise his rights. He is saying do it elsewhere, not on his property.

If someone says the to me about my 2A rights, my dollars and I will be happy to comply.

Ain't Liberty wonderful?

eye95 said:

Ain't Liberty wonderful?

Click to expand...

absolutely.

flb_78 said:

None of us were born with a gun on our hip so it's not discrimination.

It's not a matter of civil rights, it's a matter of property rights.

Click to expand...

Although I understand the "property rights" argument, and respect the property rights of private individuals, I tend to disagree with the "private property rights" argument with regards to businesses that are open to the public for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of doing general business with the public.

And anyway, you're concept of what constitutes a Fundamental Human Right is Wrong. Wrong. Wrong...

None of us were BORN with a yarmulke on our heads, or a rosary in our hands, or wearing a pentagram necklace or whatever, but that doesn't make one's religious expression any less a Human Right than the color of one's skin.

None of us are BORN knowing how to operate a printing press, or use a word processor, or even speak a language, but that doesn't make the exercise of a person's RIGHT to free speech any less a HUMAN RIGHT either...

Rights are NOT based on unchageable physical conditions. Rights are based on the fundamental HUMAN-NESS of an individual. It is because we are HUMAN BEINGS that we have rights. Rights are not "granted" to someone because of some incidental genetic variance that somehow effects their physical appearance.

Your idea of a Right is fundamentally flawed.

Get thee to a library...

Yes, but limited.

eye95 said:

These companies have private property rights just as you do. They may lawfully disallow firearms on their premises.

However, you have the right not to do business with chains that do not allow firearms.

I recommend that you write to the corporate offices for a clarification of their chain policy. Also, you may want to call the district manager to report the incident. The manager may well have overstepped his authority.

If you will provide details about time and place in this thread, you will find that many members will contact corporate to find out their policy and to remind them that many gun owners will not shop there if they have an anti-gun policy.

Click to expand...

Corporations property rights are limited in many ways. Corporations trade away their owners rights in exchange for governmental protections and regulation. Just as protections were extended to the handicapped by statute so can your right to self defense be statutorily enforced against corporations that open their doors to the public for commerce. I am a business owner I do not consider it my right to deny others their right to self defense, especially since my company provides my customers no security while on my premises.

Their property rights are not limited.

It is a proper purview of government to dictate how buildings are to be built for the health and safety of the general public. Rules for access and building codes fall under this heading. Such limitations are not always applied strictly to corporations, and certainly not strictly to corporations who receive some benefit from the government.

Building codes apply to all. Private citizens, corporations, partnerships, proprietorships, publicly owned buildings, churches, etc. Building rules for safe handicap access apply to all buildings open to the public regardless of who owns them or why they are open to the public.

You may not consider that you have the property right to deny others the privilege to carry on your property, but, under the law, you would be wrong. You have that right.

I applaud you for not choosing to stop folks from carrying. But, you have that right.

DmDick said:

Alright ive been openly carrying in the same Best Buy for about a year and a half and have never had any issues untill a week ago i was asked by an employee to leave for the safety of the other customers, no where is it posted that i cannot carry my firearm and when i asked the store manager she was unable to show me anywhere in the company policies stating that i couldnt be in there.

luckely this didnt involve the local authorities as i have had to deal with them on several other occasions.

My question is do these companies such as wal mart, target, best buy etc. have the right to bar us from the property or do they have to abide by state laws which allow us to openly carry in public... i know these are not state owned and operated companies but is there anything i can do to continue to carry in these places?

I dont want to boycott these companies just because one of one hundred employees feels uncomfortable by my presence with a firearm.

Click to expand...

And, your followup call tot he store manager resulted in ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

wait a sec are you arguing fundamental rights or privileges given by law. governments and laws do not establish or create rights; they only can protect them or illegally infringe upon them.

When I said "privilege," I meant a privilege granted by a property owner to someone he has invited onto his property.

Denying him that opportunity would be denying him his fundamental property rights.

eye95 said:

Their property rights are not limited.

It is a proper purview of government to dictate how buildings are to be built for the health and safety of the general public. Rules for access and building codes fall under this heading. Such limitations are not always applied strictly to corporations, and certainly not strictly to corporations who receive some benefit from the government.

Building codes apply to all. Private citizens, corporations, partnerships, proprietorships, publicly owned buildings, churches, etc. Building rules for safe handicap access apply to all buildings open to the public regardless of who owns them or why they are open to the public.

Click to expand...

Interesting how you don't seem to consider it within ones right to build how one sees fit.

Daylen said:

Interesting how you don't seem to consider it within ones right to build how one sees fit.

Click to expand...

Considering that how you build within a community directly affects the ability of others to safely enjoy their property rights, government has a compelling interest in establishing building practices.

No, I don't think there is a fundamental right to build something however you want.

I am unsure how making your building inaccessible to the handicapped is going to impede another's property rights.