Wa Mart policy - Kicked out of Montgomery store (Atlanta Highway)

GWbiker said:

A female clueless about state gun laws and on a power trip when ever she can trump a man.

Click to expand...

Wow. Angry with women much?
Replace that with black & white for female & man & see how far that would fly.

MKEgal said:

Wow. Angry with women much?
Replace that with black & white for female & man & see how far that would fly.

Click to expand...

No TROLL, not angry with all women, only those who have reach their level of incompetence. In case you haven't noticed, it's the "Debbies" in business world who give the "Debra's" a bad rap.

since9 said:

There's a solution:

Start a nation-wide Wal-Mart boycott on the basis of their nebulous non-response, citing the "Debbies out there who refuse to respect our Constitutional rights." State that the boycott will remain in effect until Wal-Mart both make clear their policy commensurate with U.S. and State law, and educate each and every manager and assistant manager as to Wal-Mart Corporate Policy, which should read, in toto:

"Wal-Mart has no policy against people carrying their handgun in our stores as long as he/she is legally permitted by their state to do so."​

No additions.

Click to expand...

Fix'd

PS:

since9 said:

Start a nation-wide Wal-Mart boycott on the basis of their nebulous non-response, citing the "Debbies out there who refuse to respect our Constitutional rights."

Click to expand...

Should read

since9 said:

Start a nation-wide Wal-Mart boycott on the basis of their nebulous non-response, citing the "Debbies out there who refuse to respect their law abiding customers."

Click to expand...

That would get better reception, since it is their right to deny you access to their store on any grounds they so choose.

If someone tries to make stupid claims about gun owners, just point out the innumerous cases where armed LACs helped to protect Wal~Mart's interests. Such as the armed LAC that saved the life of that woman that worked in the deli.

I would also like to see movements to secure rights for employees to carry their side arms concealed while at work and for employee policies regarding firearms to not apply to employees that are off the clock.

MKEgal said:

Wow. Angry with women much?
Replace that with black & white for female & man & see how far that would fly.

Click to expand...

You have a very valid point and I am embarrassed that I didn't see it when I made my posts. You're absolutely right; it is not just the "Debbies", it is also the many others of whatever gender, ethnicity, etc., who would tromp on the rights of others in some sort of power trip.

Again, my apologies.

No one, except the most overly sensitive, would assume that you only meant women when you said "the Debbies." I assumed that you simply meant people who think and act like Debbie, knee-jerking in an irrational, emotional, hateful, and unproductive way.

There is nothing insensitive with anything you have written.

I for one will adopt the term "a Debbie" for that kind of person, regardless of sex. It's the attitude that I will be mocking.

GWbiker said:

OP's problem revolves around store managers like this Debbie. A female clueless about state gun laws and on a power trip when ever she can trump a man.

A letter from Walmart corporate on store policy following state gun law might put her in her place.

Kindly keep us informed.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

No one, except the most overly sensitive, would assume that you only meant women when you said "the Debbies." I assumed that you simply meant people who think and act like Debbie, knee-jerking in an irrational, emotional, hateful, and unproductive way.

There is nothing insensitive with anything you have written.

I for one will adopt the term "a Debbie" for that kind of person, regardless of sex. It's the attitude that I will be mocking.

Click to expand...

I respect you for putting a kind face on it, eye. It's nice of you to offer excuses as to what may or may not be the case in an attempt to keep the peace. But you have mistakenly offered to speak for others when you say "No one, except the most overly sensitive..". I'm not overly sensitive. I can see it. It's as plain as the nose on my face. What I am, is willing to call a horse "a horse". Turning a blind eye has never been one of my characteristics. Doing so only leads to the disgusting and despicable behavior we all have seen in stories about folks getting beaten and robbed while bystanders walk by on their cell phones minding their own business. It is this tendency for folks to turn a blind eye that offenders rely on in order to continue absolving themselves of their own inadequate humanity. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Those "No one's, except the most overly sensitive's" you refer to are the same as the cell phone talkers purposefully ignoring the pools of blood they're walking through.

A female clueless about state gun laws...

Click to expand...

Evidently, a female clueless about state gun laws is comlpletely different than anyone else that does so, right? Otherwise, why emphasize the sex? Why isn't it just a person. Or a manager? Or...any other adjective?

Nope. It's specifically a FEMALE.

on a power trip when ever she can trump a man.

Click to expand...

There's a good one. Evidently, it's not about the incident. It's about power. Who's power? The evil man hating FEMALE. Everyone knows those pesky females never pass up an opportunity to...what was it.."trump a man"?

And here I thought we were simply talking about an incident in Wal-Mart. Is this the sound of a discussion on OC? Where did the "power trips" by females and "trumping men" come into it? Maybe you can cast your eyes away from the fists landing on the victim as you dial your phone and walk by, but I won't.

might put her in her place

Click to expand...

How many nails does the coffin need?

Maybe GWBiker can kindly inform us as to what "place" this female needs to be put in? Maybe that's the same place the TROLL needs to be put in, huh? I think I'll go join her there. Wherever that place is, I have a feeling the people there won't pass me by if I am beaten to the sidewalk. Those of us who refuse to avert our eyes kind of like it there.

Jack House said:

Fix'd

PS:

Should read

That would get better reception, since it is their right to deny you access to their store on any grounds they so choose.

If someone tries to make stupid claims about gun owners, just point out the innumerous cases where armed LACs helped to protect Wal~Mart's interests. Such as the armed LAC that saved the life of that woman that worked in the deli.

I would also like to see movements to secure rights for customers to carry their side arms concealed while at work and for employee policies regarding firearms to not apply to employees that are off the clock.

Click to expand...

{since it is their right to deny you access to their store on any grounds thay so choose.} Let me get this right you are saying as a business owner I could stop you from shopping at my store for no other reson then "lets say" your BLACK or maby MORMON! Please tell me how that works.

Hey, Superlite, I was specifically replying to SFC. You can rail against the other posts all you want, but I stand by my defense of a man I know personally and respect tremendously.

I hope you take the time to read HIS posts and understand why I felt the need to tell HIM that no apology from HIM was necessary.

HE did not need to apologize, however...

rickc1962 said:

{since it is their right to deny you access to their store on any grounds thay so choose.} Let me get this right you are saying as a business owner I could stop you from shopping at my store for no other reson then "lets say" your BLACK or maby MORMON! Please tell me how that works.

Click to expand...

You cannot lawfully deny access based on membership in a protected class. You may deny access for virtually ANY other reason--including carry, unless there is a specific State law prohibiting such.

Property owners in most States do have the RIGHT to deny access to carriers. If we expect our rights to be respected, we ought to respect the rights of others.

Ahhh. It was my fault, eye.

I misread your reply. It appeared to me that you were trying to absolve GWBiker of the previous exchange outlined in my spur of the moment rant.

After rereading, I see where you simply cleared the air with SFC.

I apologize for accusing you of "walking past victims". I agree with you on what you said to SFC. I did not see anything offensive in his posts.

Superlite27 said:

Ahhh. It was my fault, eye.

I misread your reply. It appeared to me that you were trying to absolve GWBiker of the previous exchange outlined in my spur of the moment rant.

After rereading, I see where you simply cleared the air with SFC.

I apologize for accusing you of "walking past victims". I agree with you on what you said to SFC. I did not see anything offensive in his posts.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

When our Wal-Mart was in it`s old location about 3 years ago, my wife and I on a shopping day entered the store one day and the greeter stoped us to inform us no firearms were aloud, I promply asked to see the manegar. When he arived he informed the greeter Wal-Mart had no policy against any stile of carry of firearms, as we entered the store I asked him if he was from Az. he said he just moved here from Oh. I said welcome to Az. and you need to learn our gun laws. Wal-Mart has now moved to the new mall, and 3 months ago while walking out one day, mall security was making there rounds when thay seen me, thay told me mall policy was no firearms aloud and I could leave my gun in my truck, again I promply went inside {after disarming} and spoke to the manegar, he said he did not care what mall policy was, he gave me some of his cards and said if aproched again to give them a card and have them call me , he said Az. was pro gun and he was pro gun and would not loose business do to a anti-gun Ca. based company.

eye95 said:

You cannot lawfully deny access based on membership in a protected class. You may deny access for virtually ANY other reason--including carry, unless there is a specific State law prohibiting such.

Property owners in most States do have the RIGHT to deny access to carriers. If we expect our rights to be respected, we ought to respect the rights of others.

Click to expand...

So if i`m black or female i`m` a protected class what an insalt!! BUT if I exercise a God given right protected by the Constitution who cares! Thats why we are looked down on. Maby its` time for people who beleave in the Constitution to be a Protected Class!

rickc1962 said:

So if i`m black or female i`m` a protected class what an insalt!! BUT if I exercise a God given right protected by the Constitution who cares! Thats why we are looked down on. Maby its` time for people who beleave in the Constitution to be a Protected Class!

Click to expand...

I was simply correcting an incorrect notion as to what the law allows and does not allow.

Personally, I regard the legal concepts of "protected classes" and "public accommodations" as affronts to Liberty.

I agree with Eye95, as a private property owner, you should have the right to deny anyone access for any reason you so choose, regardless of how unpopular that reason may be.

Superlite27 said:

I respect you for putting a kind face on it, eye. It's nice of you to offer excuses as to what may or may not be the case in an attempt to keep the peace. But you have mistakenly offered to speak for others when you say "No one, except the most overly sensitive..". I'm not overly sensitive. I can see it. It's as plain as the nose on my face. What I am, is willing to call a horse "a horse". Turning a blind eye has never been one of my characteristics. Doing so only leads to the disgusting and despicable behavior we all have seen in stories about folks getting beaten and robbed while bystanders walk by on their cell phones minding their own business. It is this tendency for folks to turn a blind eye that offenders rely on in order to continue absolving themselves of their own inadequate humanity. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Those "No one's, except the most overly sensitive's" you refer to are the same as the cell phone talkers purposefully ignoring the pools of blood they're walking through.



Evidently, a female clueless about state gun laws is comlpletely different than anyone else that does so, right? Otherwise, why emphasize the sex? Why isn't it just a person. Or a manager? Or...any other adjective?

Nope. It's specifically a FEMALE.



There's a good one. Evidently, it's not about the incident. It's about power. Who's power? The evil man hating FEMALE. Everyone knows those pesky females never pass up an opportunity to...what was it.."trump a man"?

And here I thought we were simply talking about an incident in Wal-Mart. Is this the sound of a discussion on OC? Where did the "power trips" by females and "trumping men" come into it? Maybe you can cast your eyes away from the fists landing on the victim as you dial your phone and walk by, but I won't.



How many nails does the coffin need?

Maybe GWBiker can kindly inform us as to what "place" this female needs to be put in? Maybe that's the same place the TROLL needs to be put in, huh? I think I'll go join her there. Wherever that place is, I have a feeling the people there won't pass me by if I am beaten to the sidewalk. Those of us who refuse to avert our eyes kind of like it there.

Click to expand...

WOW, having a bad day in "GOD'S Country"? I see emotions running rampant again, clearly OT.

Those of us who are not protected by GOD must rely on firearms for personal protection. Individual store managers, male and female, knowing state gun laws BEFORE they INSULT customers in public would be a plus.

Here's a suggestion for you - why not undergo a campaign to educate these "Debbies" in your area on state gun laws relating to OC and CC.

Oh, almost forgot - Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

Jack House said:

I agree with Eye95, as a private property owner, you should have the right to deny anyone access for any reason you so choose, regardless of how unpopular that reason may be.

Click to expand...

+1, and Arizona has a law that defines a private property owner can refuse service or entrance to anyone.

My debate focuses on a worker (manager) of a large business (Walmart) who refuses to adhere to Corporate policy on handgun OC/CC as pertaining to state law, then insults a customer in presence of other shoppers.

That female manager's behavior is inexcusable and should be dealt with.

SFCRetired said:

I thought we were pretty clear with Wal Mart until tonight. I was confronted by an assistant manager and three of the most thuggish-looking individuals I've seen in a long time. The manager asked me if I was a cop and, when I replied in the negative, informed me in the snottiest manner possible that they did not allow any firearms in their stores.

Has Wal Mart changed their policy? I've sent an email to corporate and tomorrow I will try to talk to a manager.

This is the first time I've been told to leave a Wal Mart. I didn't mind being told to leave as much as I minded her snotty manner and the three thugs (if I called them what want to, I'd be banned), apparently some kind of loss prevention, that were with her.

I won't go back into that store until I get a definitive answer from either corporate or from a manager at that store.

Click to expand...

You're headed in the right direction. Call corporate. Remind them that since you cannot carry in their store(s) per their decision or policy they cannot lawfully allow another customer to handle one of their "for sale" firearms or transfer a firearm within confines of the store in any manner under that same decision or policy. Doing so means they are specifically targeting lawful carriers.

Stress the handling and transfer issue and make sure you inform them you'll file a complaint with your Attorney General's office. You'll need to be prepared to make good on the matter with your AG.

If you get a positive answer from corporate, ask for a letter to be sent to your residence on the matter.

Lastly, if it IS NOT a corporate policy, and I've not heard that it is, make sure you stress that corporate reprimand the manager involved. It's the only way we can seem to communicate to anti-gun managers that their personal beliefs shall not be tolerated.

eye95 said:

You cannot lawfully deny access based on membership in a protected class. You may deny access for virtually ANY other reason--including carry, unless there is a specific State law prohibiting such.

Property owners in most States do have the RIGHT to deny access to carriers. If we expect our rights to be respected, we ought to respect the rights of others.

Click to expand...

But the property owner (Wal-mart) does not exclude gun owners, and as a representative of the owner, their managers shouldn't have discretionary control over company policy such as this.

rickc1962 said:

{since it is their right to deny you access to their store on any grounds thay so choose.} Let me get this right you are saying as a business owner I could stop you from shopping at my store for no other reson then "lets say" your BLACK or maby MORMON! Please tell me how that works.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

You cannot lawfully deny access based on membership in a protected class. You may deny access for virtually ANY other reason--including carry, unless there is a specific State law prohibiting such.

Property owners in most States do have the RIGHT to deny access to carriers. If we expect our rights to be respected, we ought to respect the rights of others.

Click to expand...

jsimmons said:

But the property owner (Wal-mart) does not exclude gun owners, and as a representative of the owner, their managers shouldn't have discretionary control over company policy such as this.

Click to expand...

I was specifically replying to the implication that the unlawfulness of denying access to someone because he is black or Mormon means that denying access to a gun carrier should similarly not be lawful. I was making no comment on an individual manager's ability to go against company policy.

However, the manager does have the lawful authority, regardless of Wal-Mart's policy to kick a carrier out. For that action, he is not answerable to us or to the courts. He is answerable to his employers.

FTR, Wal-Mart does give some discretion to Managers to kick out carriers. For example, if that carrier gets into a verbal altercation with someone (even if that altercation does not rise to the level of prompting ejection on its own) the fact that the carrier has a gun, combined with the arguing, will almost surely get the carrier tossed, with the manager getting a pat on the back from corporate--as he should.

The purpose of having a manager it to have someone with the authority to act in the owner's place as his agent.