Inland Stores Post "No Guns" Signs

Inland Stores in the southeast have added "No Guns" signs to the entrances to all of their stores. I called corporate, and this is a corporate-wide policy. The lady I spoke with said it is because guns make their customers and employees "uncomfortable."

I tried to make the distinction between lawfully armed citizens and bad guys with guns. Using the story of Dr. Gratia-Hupp at Luby's Cafeteria, I tried to point out that no-gun situations don't stop violence; they just prevent the innocent from defending themselves.

Her response was to ask why I carry and if anyone was "after me." :banghead:

I cited a long list of retailers who have a neutral policy of following State law to no avail.

Oh, well. She was civil, but ignorant. Anyway, I won't be buying anything from them in the future, whether I am armed or not. I hope others simply choose to shop elsewhere, where we are not unwelcome.

If you want to contact them:

phone: (229) 246-1553

email: info@inland-stores.com

eye95 , What kind of store is this you speak of?

Convenience/gas.

Inland Food Stores are owned by:


Source

If they're refusing to honor our Constitution, they are, in my humble opinion, a brain-dead, unAmerican entity undeserving of our business i.e. avoid them like the plague.

Feel free to e-mail them a link to this post. Be sure to remind them OCDO has more than 24,000 members, and that for each and every member, online message forums average five additional lurkers who read these posts, so that's upwards of 144,000 people who may read this post.

Lol, that's an interesting, if not Biblical number!

Please let me know if they change their mind so I can post a retraction. I they insist on keeping their anti-Constitutional heads where the sun never shines, however, there will be no retraction.

By the way, I received a compliment from the owner/manager of a nearby gas/convenience store I've frequented more than 90 times since I began OCing just over a year ago. He and I often have long conversations late at night. He said, "You're good for business!" I asked him, "How's that?" and he responded, "Since you've been carrying into my store, business has gone up about 14%, and several folks have told me they feel safer coming here ever since I 'hired a security guard.'" :lol:

Those who exercise their property rights are just as much honoring the Constitution as those of us who exercise our right to carry.

It is their judgment with which we should take exception, not their dedication to the exercise of rights. I won't shop there. I will encourage other carriers not to shop there. However, I defend their exercise of their rights, much as I wish they would defend mine.

I may just make this a signature line: It is through the defense of the rights of others that we best serve the cause of defending our own rights, not vice versa.

eye95 said:

Those who exercise their property rights are just as much honoring the Constitution as those of us who exercise our right to carry.

It is their judgment with which we should take exception, not their dedication to the exercise of rights. I won't shop there. I will encourage other carriers not to shop there. However, I defend their exercise of their rights, much as I wish they would defend mine.

I may just make this a signature line: It is through the defense of the rights of others that we best serve the cause of defending our own rights, not vice versa.

Click to expand...

We aren't interfering with their exercise of property rights; they are interfering with our excercise of self defense rights. That's the difference. 'Your rights end where mine begin' applies both ways. Voltaire quotations notwithstanding, when it is a commercial venue, we vote with our wallets. They offer nothing of any interest to me that 50 other places who welcome my business don't have. I still carry my pistol everywhere else. They can do nothing against my doing so. We can put them out of business. That is the power that those of us who are pro-2A need to use more effectively. Anti-2A newspaper: contact their advertisers. Anti-business, use forums like this put them on record--AND LET THEM KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Therein lies the path to victory for our side.

Gunslinger said:

We aren't interfering with their exercise of property rights; they are interfering with our excercise of self defense rights. That's the difference. 'Your rights end where mine begin' applies both ways. Voltaire quotations notwithstanding, when it is a commercial venue, we vote with our wallets. They offer nothing of any interest to me that 50 other places who welcome my business don't have. I still carry my pistol everywhere else. They can do nothing against my doing so. We can put them out of business. That is the power that those of us who are pro-2A need to use more effectively. Anti-2A newspaper: contact their advertisers. Anti-business, use forums like this put them on record--AND LET THEM KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Therein lies the path to victory for our side.

Click to expand...

When you demand the authority to use their property on your terms (even if your terms include doing what you have the right to do on the public square, but not on someone else's property) you are disrespecting their right to property just as much as those who demand that you go about unarmed are disrespecting your right to carry.

Moving on.

EYE, you obviously have no clue of the DIFFERENCE between Business property and Private property... I'll let you try to figure out which one of those has INVITED the public onto their property......

axeanda45 said:

EYE, you obviously have no clue of the DIFFERENCE between Business property and Private property... I'll let you try to figure out which one of those has INVITED the public onto their property......

Click to expand...

There is no constitutional difference. There is no difference under the concept of natural rights. The only difference that exists is in the expedient concept "public accommodations," which flies in the face of both the Constitution and our natural rights.

Even if the goal is admirable (such as fighting discrimination, for which the concept of "public accommodations" was invented), usurping constitutional and natural right for that goal is repugnant. As a matter of fact, it is more repugnant. Such usurpation is being done in a way that dupes well-meaning people into going along with actions that will eventually erode all of their rights, thereby creating greater injustices than the one "fixed." Such is the nature of expedience.
_____________________________

On a side note, it is extremely uncivil to say that another has no clue. I would ask you to argue with what is said, and not make comments about the person. You are, of course, free to post however you will (within the limits set by the owners of this site, exercising their rights to property). However, if you choose to be uncivil, I will simply toss you onto the ignore heap with others who can't or won't make a civil argument. I hope not to have to do that.

eye95 said:

When you demand the authority to use their property on your terms (even if your terms include doing what you have the right to do on the public square, but not on someone else's property) you are disrespecting their right to property just as much as those who demand that you go about unarmed are disrespecting your right to carry.

Moving on.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure whose post you're referencing, but you quoted mine. I did not advocate 'demanding' access to anyone's property to exercise my right to carry. I advocate making them pay for denying my right while recognizing they have the "right" to do so. A commercial venue faces that consequence, and we should be proactive in making sure they learn what that consequence entails.

EYE,
You STILL have no clue, sorry, no matter how "elegant" your answer may seem.........


No-One, especially Government, has ANY power or right to deny anyone else their Constitutional rights while in public, period, end of story.

A business, that has invited the PUBLIC onto their property.... has NO AUTHORITY to deny anyone ANY of their Constitutional rights, they INVITED them (the public) and as such, that is what they get, the PUBLIC, along with ALL of their rights INTACT..... Please show me ANYTHING in the Constitution or BOR that say's a persons rights are void once they step onto a BUSINESS property.

axeanda45 said:

EYE,
You...

Click to expand...

*sigh*

Off to ignore land with you.

Maybe you will believe a Judge instead of lowly little me.........

(relevant part starts at 1 minute into video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE


--Moderator deleted personal insult--

Sucess!!

Thanks to a massive phone call, email, and letter campaign by the good folks at ALOC, Inland has rescinded their "no guns" policy and instructed all managers to take down the signs.

Keep pressing forward. We are making a difference.

On edit: More detail at http://alabamaopencarry.com/forum/index.php?topic=1227.msg11380;topicseen#new .

eye95 said:

Thanks to a massive phone call, email, and letter campaign by the good folks at ALOC, Inland has rescinded their "no guns" policy and instructed all managers to take down the signs.

Keep pressing forward. We are making a difference.

On edit: More detail at http://alabamaopencarry.com/forum/index.php?topic=1227.msg11380;topicseen#new .

Click to expand...

Good news. As I said, change for commercial ventures' misguided 'rules' begins with the power of purchase or the denial thereof.