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

[protias]

There are some old threads on OCDO that have the current memo from Wal-Mart stating their policy. Unfortunately, they are pre-conversion, so all my links to them don't work. Also, I am having trouble finding them using the search feature. (Do you have any idea how many times Wal-Mart is mentioned here?)

So, anyone got links to those threads?

The best I could do: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...rporate-Policies&highlight=corporate+policies

 

[rickc1962]

I was specifically replying to the implication that the unlawfulness of denying access to someone because he is black or Mormon means that
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.

If someone gets in a altercation with someone else he could be throne out if he has a firearm or not. I do agree with property rights, my point is simply this, you say government cannot infringe on a persons business, and I would say, lite up next time you are in a private business, if you own a restaurant tell the health dept. they can`t inspect, put up a sign without a perment. I`m not saying it`s right, but government does enterfere with business` everyday. Just a thought, maby if business` that didn`t allow carry of firearms had to pay a higher insurance premium so if someone was hurt by a bad guy thay would be covered, just thinking outloud any thoughts?

 

[eye95]

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.

If someone gets in a altercation with someone else he could be throne [sic] out if he has a firearm or not.

It never ceases to amaze me how a post can be misread, the underlying point missed entirely, one single facet focused on in a lame attempt to discredit that post, and yet that point is so miserably misread as to render the reply useless (except by others who do not carefully read).

Case in point: I was trying to illustrate a case where someone might be thrown out because the presence of a firearm aggravated a situation in which the person might not otherwise have been thrown out.

Address what I wrote or your replies are not worth considering any more than to point out their ineptness.

 

[rickc1962]

It never ceases to amaze me how a post can be misread, the underlying point missed entirely, one single facet focused on in a lame attempt to discredit that post, and yet that point is so miserably misread as to render the reply useless (except by others who do not carefully read).

Case in point: I was trying to illustrate a case where someone might be thrown out because the presence of a firearm aggravated a situation in which the person might not otherwise have been thrown out.

Address what I wrote or your replies are not worth considering any more than to point out their ineptness.

I apologize. I see red when {not saying you} pro gun people say business` have all the rights, but will not stand against anti-constitutional things that interfere with capitalism, such as ohsa,msha,epa,dot,batf,health dept.,zoning laws,gfsz,and on & on. I know this is of subject some, but we as law abiding gun owners with a God given right protected by the Constitution will act apathetic when it comes to us being able to protect ourselves and our rights, but will let the government do anything it chooses with no opposition in the name of safety.

 

[eye95]

I apologize. I see red when {not saying you} pro gun people say business` have all the rights, but will not stand against anti-constitutional things that interfere with capitalism, such as ohsa,msha,epa,dot,batf,health dept.,zoning laws,gfsz,and on & on. I know this is of subject some, but we as law abiding gun owners with a God given right protected by the Constitution will act apathetic when it comes to us being able to protect ourselves and our rights, but will let the government do anything it chooses with no opposition in the name of safety.

Thank you. I was a bit harsh in my assessment, but I was seeing a bit of red myself.

To clarify my position: I am dead set against the legal concepts of "protected classes" and "public accommodations" which take away the property rights and rights of association from business owners. I believe that limiting a store owners right to deny service to anyone for any reason (including carry) is anti-Liberty.

That being said, the current legal reality is (unfortunately) that a store may not refuse to do business on the basis of race or religion (which is anti-Liberty law), but can refuse to do business with a carrier (which is pro-Liberty law).

 

[rickc1962]

Thank you. I was a bit harsh in my assessment, but I was seeing a bit of red myself.

To clarify my position: I am dead set against the legal concepts of "protected classes" and "public accommodations" which take away the property rights and rights of association from business owners. I believe that limiting a store owners right to deny service to anyone for any reason (including carry) is anti-Liberty.

That being said, the current legal reality is (unfortunately) that a store may not refuse to do business on the basis of race or religion (which is anti-Liberty law), but can refuse to do business with a carrier (which is pro-Liberty law).

Thankyou! I holehartedly agree with your statement, so what do we as gun owners do next, thay say there are 90,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. and probably 85,000,000 of them say thay have a right to hunt and keep a firearm in there home, and in there mind that is enough, thay do not understand why we choose to carry and do not care.If ALL gun owners stood together and said we will not shop here or there until policies changed, or we stood together in opposition to Big Bro`, can you imagine the potential to change things. I do not wish to bully privete business` in to submission, I want them to recognize that 90,000,000 gun owners standing togather would financially bankrupt them.