• 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.

Detained at Pick N Save

AaronS

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I could not agree more, private property is just that. I will kick any person out of my home, at any time, for any reason. It is mine, not yours. My store iswould be thesame (well race and stuff aside). No way in the world can you force me to deal with a "man with a gun" if I don't like it. Now please don't get me wrong. I am pro carry, but some just are not.

If I did own a store, I would have to let people open carry. Not because it is legal, but because it WILLlower the crime in and around my store. I am very sure of that. People just act a lot better when they see that I can, and will, stand up for myself and my family. If I went to a store, and I saw three or more people carry, I am also sure it would be a crime free day. Win/Win for all. Now if a nut job did come in with an AK and a want to kill people, I would only hope that the other three open carry people can shoot as well as I can.:)
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Pointman wrote:
There's a difference between "private property" and "private property open to the public." You have the choice of opening your private property to the public, and if you do so you can't be a bigot.

"If you don't like it, you aren't being forced to go there" doesn't apply. That's what Wisconsin is doing with the school zones that prohibit everyone from carrying inhalf of the city of Milwaukee. The state could just as easily say, "You can't carry in any city, and if you don't like it, stay in the country."
Click to expand...

Nope, the only difference between a persons private property and a store owners private property as far as trespassing laws are concerned (that's what you get stabbed with when you won't leave when asked) is "Express consent" for the former and"Implied Consent" for the later. What you wrote is your opinion; and I'm not saying you aren't entitled toone, but no where is it backed with legal fact.

"If you don't like it, you aren't being forced to go there" does apply on private property.Your shool zone exampleis government infringement, and is covered by the U.S. Constitution, Bill of rights, and the Wisconsin constitution. We know the Wisconsin and Federal GFSZA are unconstitutional and we could use that in court if we were supposedly found in violation. You can't; however, bring a private property owner to court because he kicked you out of his store for something so simple as you wearing a Tommy Thompson T-shirt.
 
N

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Brass Magnet, lets turn this around and look at it from another direction,

Lets use the upcoming statewide smoking ban as an example. Smoking tobacco products is legal. Business owners used to have the right to either allow or disallow smoking in their buildings.

What are your thoughts on the government telling business owners they no longer have a choice to allow smoking? If I owned a bar, and I wanted it to be a non-smoking bar I have that option.
Now what if I wanted to allow my customers to smoke, I can no longer make my own decisions about it.
I am not forcing non-smokers to go to an establishment that allows smoking, they still have the choice to not patronize my bar becuase I allow smoking. But instead they have forced us to allow them into my bar and for that bar to be smoke-free.

Same thing, different material.
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Nutczak wrote:
Brass Magnet, lets turn this around and look at it from another direction,

Lets use the upcoming statewide smoking ban as an example. Smoking tobacco products is legal. Business owners used to have the right to either allow or disallow smoking in their buildings.

What are your thoughts on the government telling business owners they no longer have a choice to allow smoking? If I owned a bar, and I wanted it to be a non-smoking bar I have that option.
Now what if I wanted to allow my customers to smoke, I can no longer make my own decisions about it.
I am not forcing non-smokers to go to an establishment that allows smoking, they still have the choice to not patronize my bar becuase I allow smoking. But instead they have forced us to allow them into my bar and for that bar to be smoke-free.

Same thing, different material.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it's the same thing, although it is different material.

I'm talking about private property owners right to infringe on our privilege to be on their property. What you are talking about is Govermnet infringement, once again, covered by our founding documents.

I believe that the smoking banand new seatbelt laws are bothunconstitutional. It's needless intereference into the lives of private citizens andproperty owners. However; Goverment seems to get away with a lot of things in the name of "general welfare" clauses and eminent domain.
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Pointman wrote:
Discrimination refers to treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group that is taken in consideration based on class or category. Such a category could be "persons who are armed," and that discrimination would infringe on fundamental rights, even if only indirectly such as I listed previously, however, this is direct discrimination. Discrimination is generally prohibited and courts are quick to quash it.

Commercial entities have a lower level of protection than individuals. For instance, as an individual you can promote smoking on TV, but a commercial entity can't.

You also have to take free exercise into consideration, where you have a stronger interest in controlling your own actions than you have in controlling a third party, or a third party has in controlling you.

If a commercial entity invites the general public, that doesn't afford them the ability to discriminate against the general public.
Click to expand...

If all that you wrote takes into account actual "Discrimination" I understand your logic pointman; but, you'd have to have a ruling or a law stating that an individual carrying a firearm has protected class applied. Without it, there is no basis for discrimination in the eyes of the court AFAIK.

Here's a bigger list I found, along with the act that deemed it a protected class:

Now, if we were to get a "Self defense rights act of 2009"passed in the legislator, you may have something.

Even then, I disagree with the general premiss of "protected class" to begin with when it applies to private property owners. But that's just my opinion, backed only by my political philosophy.
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Pointman wrote:
However, several members of OpenCarry have been doing just that (via 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981), and the most recent victories haven't even had to go to court (Best Buy comes to mind).
Click to expand...
Surely you mean 42 USC 1983 but I doubt it was considered by Best Buy - nor any big box monopolistic enterprise. Shop mom&pop.

please give!
--> TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > §1981 Prev | Next §1981. Equal rights under the law How Current is This? (a) Statement of equal rights All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. (b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. (c) Protection against impairment The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
 
C

comp45acp

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
383
Location
Watertown, WI, ,
imported post

After playing answering machine tag with Therese Bailey for a few days she called me back today. She reiterated the following email that many of us got from her back in July:

Dear Mr. Burgess,

I am writing in response to your concern submitted to us on July 7, 2009. Roundy’s abides by all laws. Our long standing practice has been that if a store director receives a complaint or encounters a situation that he or she feels uncomfortable addressing directly with a customer, the store director is to defer to the expertise of the police to assess and handle the situation. If you choose to enter our stores openly carrying a weapon, please be aware that certain of our customers, as well as certain of our employees, may feel uneasy.

Thank you for your inquiry and patronage of Roundy’s Supermarkets.

Therese Bailey
Manager, Customer Relations


Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc., MS-2760
P.O. Box 473, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0473
Ph: 414-231-5954 Fax: 248-287-5509
Email: therese.bailey@roundys.com

The good news is she clearly said that if open carry is legal in Wisconsin it is OK in their stores but to please be aware that it may alarm some people. I assured her that I (we) are very aware of that and that everyone I know that carries works hard to not alarm anyone as that is certainly not our intention. She said she will contact all store managers once again to make sure they understand that Roundy's recognizes open carry as a legal activity. It will be good to get back to shopping at Pick'n Save as we have always liked their product selection. Thanks to all who wrote emails, letters and called Roundy's Corporate-all of our efforts no doubt had an impact on Roundy's position.
 
R

Rbwhanson

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
45
Location
Hartford, WI
imported post

I read around this site and posted a few times over a week or so before I went and OC'd so I can be ready for any situation. I have seen a lot of people saying to request an RAS from a Cop. Curious as to what it is.
 
R

Rbwhanson

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
45
Location
Hartford, WI
imported post

So in other words, what is the crime that the Cop has reasonable suspicion that you have committed or about to commit, correct?
 
springfield 1911

springfield 1911

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
484
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

McKenna Show Friday Hour 1 Part 2
August 28th: Liberal comments, continued. An open carry situation at Pick'n'Save ends with an apology from the company.
starts about 14 min in it's short.
 
C

comp45acp

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
383
Location
Watertown, WI, ,
imported post

comp45acp wrote:
After playing answering machine tag with Therese Bailey for a few days she called me back today. She reiterated the following email that many of us got from her back in July:

Dear Mr. Burgess,

I am writing in response to your concern submitted to us on July 7, 2009. Roundy’s abides by all laws. Our long standing practice has been that if a store director receives a complaint or encounters a situation that he or she feels uncomfortable addressing directly with a customer, the store director is to defer to the expertise of the police to assess and handle the situation. If you choose to enter our stores openly carrying a weapon, please be aware that certain of our customers, as well as certain of our employees, may feel uneasy.

Thank you for your inquiry and patronage of Roundy’s Supermarkets.

Therese Bailey
Manager, Customer Relations


Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc., MS-2760
P.O. Box 473, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0473
Ph: 414-231-5954 Fax: 248-287-5509
Email: therese.bailey@roundys.com

The good news is she clearly said that if open carry is legal in Wisconsin it is OK in their stores but to please be aware that it may alarm some people. I assured her that I (we) are very aware of that and that everyone I know that carries works hard to not alarm anyone as that is certainly not our intention. She said she will contact all store managers once again to make sure they understand that Roundy's recognizes open carry as a legal activity. It will be good to get back to shopping at Pick'n Save as we have always liked their product selection. Thanks to all who wrote emails, letters and called Roundy's Corporate-all of our efforts no doubt had an impact on Roundy's position.
Click to expand...
I emailed the store manager in Watertown and asked him for confirmation that he would follow company policy concerning open carry in his store. This is the response:

Mr. Burgess,

We accept the position of our company and will comply as stated by Therese Bailey.

Thanks,

Andy Ware

Store Director

Watertown PNS #6854

1-920-261-8281

My wife and I will be returning as customers to his store now that this issue has been resolved. The people I have dealt with at Roundy's have been very professional and open minded. If anyone has had problems at other Pick N Save stores I would suggest you contact them again as Ms. Bailey made it clear to me on the phone that store managers will follow company policy on the issue of open carry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top