Wisconsin stores that infringe upon our rights

Mlutz said:

It was in this thread...
"Thank you for your inquiry. Blain's Farm & Fleet does have a "Weapons Free Environment" policy. Our policy reads in part, "To safeguard our employees, our customers and the general public, we absolutely prohibit any employee, vendor, supplier or customer to bring or possess firearms (including but not limited to handguns, regardless of any authorized permit), explosives or any dangerous weapons or objects on Blain's Farm & Fleet premises or at Blain's Farm & Fleet sponsored events."

Best Regards,
Gary H.
Vice President - Loss Prevention / Risk Management "

So it goes back on the list?

Click to expand...

Springfielddx40 said:

What about fleet farm? I know they are similar.

Click to expand...

musky1011 said:

M&I Bank Menomonee Falls

Click to expand...

McX said:

Jeez, i used that friend or foe thing. i'm the only one shown friendly. life is lonely at the top. heh-heh.

Click to expand...

musky1011 said:

M&I Bank Menomonee Falls

Click to expand...

IcrewUH60 said:

Posted at the door. Corporate policy.

Click to expand...

XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX said:

I noticed the thread on baby r us that both baby r us and toys r us are both anti gun stores.

Click to expand...

protias said:

Toys R Us is not anti-gun according to their corporate policy (see previous post). Can someone verify Baby R Us?

Click to expand...

I am new to this forum, but I wanted to relate an experience that I had two weeks ago (10/20/10) at the Toys-R-Us store in Orem, Utah that simply boggles my mind and necessitates sharing. I am a Utah LEO who was on duty and in full uniform when I visited the store, on break, to purchase a game for my son’s birthday. At the checkout counter the employee, later identified as Jen, informed me as I was paying that she could clearly see that I was a police officer, but that they don’t allow firearms in their store. After I picked my lower jaw up off the floor several seconds later I smiled and politely informed her that as a police officer my firearm goes with me wherever I go. She told me that they have a sign posted on their door and it applies to everyone. Of course, I elected not to make a scene and simply left. I figured I would call the manager later and the policy would be clarified to the employee. As I was leaving I searched for the sign out of curiosity and finally found it posted where you would only see it if you were looking for it.

The next day I called and spoke with a store manager, named Edika (spelling confirmed), regarding the incident. She had already been made aware of the incident the previous day by Jen and immediately informed me that the policy applies to everyone, including on-duty, uniformed police officers. She told me that they would certainly make an exception for a police officer called to their store for law enforcement reasons and said that they actually do contract with the city to have a law enforcement presence on Black Friday (I believe that was the event she mentioned).

I made it very clear to Edika that their sign does NOT provide a legal basis for any law enforcement action to be taken against anyone in legal possession of a firearm in their store; that all they could do was ask that person to leave the property. She said that she asked someone to leave their store the day prior (not firearm related) and that it was very uncomfortable. I told Edika that I thought it was crazy for a retail store like Toys-R-Us to prohibit an on-duty, uniformed police officer from bringing a firearm into their store as it serves as the largest crime and theft deterrent that I know of. She agreed with me somewhat, but said that it was a new company policy, enacted two months prior in August 2010. She then said that she could NOT speak with me further about it, but that she would be trying to get clarification herself on a possible exemption to the policy for on-duty, uniformed LEOs. I kindly asked if she would call me back when she had more information. She refused, stating that she could NOT speak with me further regarding the matter because they have to be careful what they say as the media might hear and report, creating negative publicity. I informed her that I was not affiliated with the media or cooperating with the media in attempting to get my question answered. She laughed and said that she knew that. Edika informed me that I would need to contact their (800) number to get an answer for myself.

To make a long story short, I received the run around from their guest relations personnel at the (800) number for almost two weeks wherein they refused to give me an answer (telling me that they didn’t know how to document my call) and told me that I would have to wait 3-5 business days for someone from corporate to call me back. They told me that I could call back and have my question expedited if I had not received an answer within five business days. Surprise! I did NOT receive a call within five business days, or even after one and one half weeks.

When I contacted guest relations again on 11/01/10, I was informed that they still could not give an answer to my question as to whether they consider an on-duty, uniformed LEO exempt from their new policy. I was told that I would now have to write a letter to their corporate office to find out. I told them that I refuse to keep playing their games and just wanted a simple yes/no answer to a very simple question. They refused to cooperate, with a manager named Lorraine stating that they don’t have the ability to make outbound calls and that they don’t have a contact number or a way to contact anyone at corporate. Nice one… I told Lorraine goodbye.

I checked their website on 11/02/10 and, lo and behold, there was a corporate phone number, where I easily contacted someone in their corporate guest relations department named Denise. Denise was very nice, but dumbfounded me further when she informed me that on-duty, uniformed LEOs are NOT exempt from their new policy. She told me that it applies to everyone. I kindly told her that I thought her company was absolutely crazy for not wanting on-duty, uniformed LEOs walking through their stores on a random basis, even if just for a couple of minutes. She told me that they would welcome a LEO if Toys-R-Us called an officer to the store for a law enforcement reason, but that police officers are not welcome as customers. [Emphasis mine.]

Well, that about sums up their approach towards public safety, doesn’t it? I clarified with Denise two more times just to be sure my ears weren’t deceiving me and she confirmed it repeatedly. I asked if Toys-R-Us has a written copy of that policy that she could send to me. She told me that they don’t have it written anywhere; that the policy is only written on the local store signs. Nice one…

I rest my case.

I know I will NOT be purchasing anything else from Toys-R-Us or Babies-R-Us unless their policy changes. I have also made it a priority to tell everyone I know about my experience and their policy, which potentially creates a VERY unsafe shopping experience. Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Simply unbelievable!

Click to expand...

Shane28 said:

http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/viewtopic.php?p=111141#p111141

Click to expand...

IcrewUH60 said:

I think it makes perfect sense. A policy is a policy and if they have the right to create the policy, then they have the right to enforce it on "anyone" patronizing their stores.

I'm glad this has come to light as now they will not receive any of my business... but I applaud them for making the policy fair to everyone....well, except the would-be robbers.

Click to expand...