Flintlock Tom goes UOC in San Diego

[ConditionThree]

imported post

KylaGWolf wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

Mike wrote:

pullnshoot25 wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

When I asked what the company policy was concerning firearms, the local manager said that "the company will stand firm on it's no firearms rule".
I asked if they were going to include firearms on the sign by the door which prohibits pets and roller-blades, the district manager said he "would look into it".

How many times do we have to remind folks - NEVER ASK STORES TO POST!

Repeat - NEVER ASK STORES TO POST. Don't mention it - if you say it, they will come!

Now you have encouraged them to codify their policy which they may not in fact really have anyway.

Sorry.

I'm new at this.

nothing to apologize for. In all honesty I don't think your asking that was wrong. No way to know if they don't post.

As can probably be ascertained from my prior post, I'm with Mike on this.

If we start asking where the sign is, they will create one, which will preclude even those who are licesened to carry from being armed.We dont need any more posted gun freezones.As I pointed out before, signs dont mean a thing in California law, so why would it be benefical for property owners to memorialize their sentiments next to the No Skateboarding and No Loitering signs?

Back to Tom's most recent action; Awesome that you were able to carry at a tea party rally. I went to the one in Sacramento on 4-15, but since it was on the Capitol grounds I had to go unarmed. Locally, a couple of school zones come into play at the protest areas so I may have to check into organizing another location for a seperate group.

http://www.pjtv.com/Pajamas TV has covered some of the Tea Party business. I dont know if these are the people you talked to but its probably a good idea to exchange contact info so we can check up on what the media is saying about us. I have business cards being printed-- for pretty much any contact that I have, whether that be media, police or just the curious bystanders.

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

KylaGWolf wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

Mike wrote:

pullnshoot25 wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

When I asked what the company policy was concerning firearms, the local manager said that "the company will stand firm on it's no firearms rule".
I asked if they were going to include firearms on the sign by the door which prohibits pets and roller-blades, the district manager said he "would look into it".

How many times do we have to remind folks - NEVER ASK STORES TO POST!

Repeat - NEVER ASK STORES TO POST. Don't mention it - if you say it, they will come!

Now you have encouraged them to codify their policy which they may not in fact really have anyway.

Sorry.

I'm new at this.

nothing to apologize for. In all honesty I don't think your asking that was wrong. No way to know if they don't post.

As can probably be ascertained from my prior post, I'm with Mike on this.

If we start asking where the sign is, they will create one, which will preclude even those who are licesened to carry from being armed.We dont need any more posted gun freezones.As I pointed out before, signs dont mean a thing in California law, so why would it be benefical for property owners to memorialize their sentiments next to the No Skateboarding and No Loitering signs?

Back to Tom's most recent action; Awesome that you were able to carry at a tea party rally. I went to the one in Sacramento on 4-15, but since it was on the Capitol grounds I had to go unarmed. Locally, a couple of school zones come into play at the protest areas so I may have to check into organizing another location for a seperate group.

http://www.pjtv.com/Pajamas TV has covered some of the Tea Party business. I dont know if these are the people you talked to but its probably a good idea to exchange contact info so we can check up on what the media is saying about us. I have business cards being printed-- for pretty much any contact that I have, whether that be media, police or just the curious bystanders.

Wait, can't you go onto Capitol grounds and even into the Capitol building as long as you don't have ammunition for the weapon on your person? E.g. you go with a friend and you carry his magazines while he carries yours...

 

[ConditionThree]

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

Wait, can't you go onto Capitol grounds and even into the Capitol building as long as you don't have ammunition for the weapon on your person? E.g. you go with a friend and you carry his magazines while he carries yours...

The Capitol grounds are considered a State Park, where weapons are prohibited.

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

Damn, you're right! What was I thinking of then with the whole double buddy ammo one one belt, etc. stuff?

 

[ConditionThree]

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

Damn, you're right! What was I thinking of then with the whole double buddy ammo one one belt, etc. stuff?

171(b)

 

[flintlock tom]

imported post

I just got back from the T.E.A. party. Several hundred people showed up. Several impassioned speeches about "throwing the bums out", lots of clever signs and tee-shirts. My boss was there. He was standing behind me during the speeches, reading my shirt (Nation of Riflemen, Bill of Rights, inviolate), then he noticed I was wearing a kilt, then he noticed I was wearing a gun, then he realized: "hey, that must be Tom." Two SDPD cars and one SD Harbor police on the street, but not too near. Individual officers were walking around the perimeter of the crowd, but didn't get agitated about the goings-on. No police contact today. I got several compliments on my kilt and just as many on my gun. Two guys with a microphone and a video camera asked me about my thoughts on the activities and zoomed in on my side-arm. I think they were some free-lance outfit on the internet. No idea how to locate their web-site. I had my audio recorder going all the time and a couple friends there with cameras, but nothing interesting to report.

A couple photos a friend from work took:

©2009, K. Leicester
.

©2009, K. Leicester

 

[flintlock tom]

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

KylaGWolf wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

Mike wrote:

pullnshoot25 wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

When I asked what the company policy was concerning firearms, the local manager said that "the company will stand firm on it's no firearms rule".
I asked if they were going to include firearms on the sign by the door which prohibits pets and roller-blades, the district manager said he "would look into it".

How many times do we have to remind folks - NEVER ASK STORES TO POST!

Repeat - NEVER ASK STORES TO POST. Don't mention it - if you say it, they will come!

Now you have encouraged them to codify their policy which they may not in fact really have anyway.

Sorry.

I'm new at this.

nothing to apologize for. In all honesty I don't think your asking that was wrong. No way to know if they don't post.

As can probably be ascertained from my prior post, I'm with Mike on this.

If we start asking where the sign is, they will create one, which will preclude even those who are licesened to carry from being armed.We dont need any more posted gun freezones.As I pointed out before, signs dont mean a thing in California law, so why would it be benefical for property owners to memorialize their sentiments next to the No Skateboarding and No Loitering signs?
...

After giving it a lot of thought, I think I'm going to have to disagree with you guys on this one.
I believe, for the debate to proceed, our positions need to be clearly stated, on both sides. Positions and policies need to be out in the open.
Forcing the opposition to declare their position forces them to defend it as well. Most corporations doing business with the public want to avoid taking a stand on political, potentially divisive, issues because it will invariably alienate a portion of their market.

Regardless of how I feel about this, I will defer to your opinion. You guys have been in this battle a lot longer than I and your position has less potential, than my position, to harm our cause.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

After giving it a lot of thought, I think I'm going to have to disagree with you guys on this one.
I believe, for the debate to proceed, our positions need to be clearly stated, on both sides. Positions and policies need to be out in the open.
Forcing the opposition to declare their position forces them to defend it as well. Most corporations doing business with the public want to avoid taking a stand on political, potentially divisive, issues because it will invariably alienate a portion of their market.

Regardless of how I feel about this, I will defer to your opinion. You guys have been in this battle a lot longer than I and your position has less potential, than my position, to harm our cause.

I agree with you on principle. I think the reason we don't want to do this is that in some states the law prohibits possessing weapons in businesses that post signs. The other reason is that it may force local management to follow an anti-gun policy that they don't agree with.

For the purposes of California, there are no legal impacts. If I saw a sign outside I might even enter anyhow. The worst that can happen is the management asks me to leave.

 

[KylaGWolf]

imported post

I do agree though if they ask us to leave then we should leave. As to my reasoning to not having a problem with them posting a sign is if I know they are anti outright then it makes it a whole lot easier to take my money elsewhere.