• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Wife asked to not carry in Michael's

SovereignAxe

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
791
Location
Elizabethton, TN
okay, I finally got around to open carrying to Michael's. I know this is an old thread, but give me a break lol, it's not a store I go into-I only go there with my fiancee.

So anyway, I carried there for a good half hour while she was shopping for scrapbooking supplies. Nobody said anything, but I'm not sure if anyone noticed either. It wasn't very busy and the few people that were there seemed pretty well focused on the merch they were shopping for. I'd be surprised if none of the staff saw it, but like I said, nobody said anything.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Re-read what you wrote. It is clearly not what you said, although it may have been what you meant.
It is the same. Just not worded the same.
The customer's right ends where the property owner's right begins. That is NOT the same as 'goobermint infringe.' It means that the property owner can recognize and allow the customer to remain and exercise their right, but is not under a compulsion to do so.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
wrightme said:
Well, inside the business, the manager's 1st Amendment Right does supercede the 2nd Amendment Right of the customer.

Since it is not protected as a civil right (yet), there is no 2nd Amendment right of the customer to be superceded when on private property, including business open to the public.

So you did NOT say the same thing as Skidmark, in any way, shape, or form. Intent, possibly, but not in word.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
However, when the property owner decides to make me give up my right to self defense in order to use their property (say a large public shopping center) then that property owner has assumed liability for my safety.

Personally, I simply won't shop in such a place, but what of someone who does and then there is a violent incident? Or the employer who (like most employers) has a no firearms policy? They also take on additionall liability. When someone is subjected to a violent incident in such a place....and EVERY time it happens.....those property owners need to be taken to task for not fulfilling the obligations they assumed when they denied an individual or individuals the right to protect themselves!

Perhaps some large damages and punitive awards would make them start reconsidering.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
However, when the property owner decides to make me give up my right to self defense in order to use their property (say a large public shopping center) then that property owner has assumed liability for my safety.
No, they have simply set a requirement upon your entry. It is your choice to make at that point. The liability is still yours. You are not compelled to enter.

We-the-People said:
Personally, I simply won't shop in such a place, but what of someone who does and then there is a violent incident? Or the employer who (like most employers) has a no firearms policy? They also take on additionall liability. When someone is subjected to a violent incident in such a place....and EVERY time it happens.....those property owners need to be taken to task for not fulfilling the obligations they assumed when they denied an individual or individuals the right to protect themselves!

Perhaps some large damages and punitive awards would make them start reconsidering.
An employer is a bit different. It isn't the same as a business you can either choose to patronize or not.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Since some participating in this thread are not in Nevada, remember that state laws vary on this.

Wisconsin's new CCW laws including liability on the stores that prohibit firearms. Most are posting anyway. It will be interesting to see what happens.
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
Update

The update is: after another 3 months still no answer as to what the policy is. Guess that is an answer in in itself...

TBG
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Guess we should just try again and see what happens then. Do they have any MAN stuff there?
 
Top