Had a LEO tell me to return my firearm to my vehicle.

[silvia0073]

Went to my local Cubs today, been there a few times open carrying without issue. Today however, the LEO there saw me carrying and stopped me by the door. Said to me "I can't allow you to enter with your firearm even if you have a permit". I replied, saying there are no signs and have yet to hear from management about open carrying here. LEO continues "Even so, I can not allow you to enter until you return your firearm to your vehicle and secure it." So I said, ok. Since it seemed the LEO was hired by Cubs to be there, I didn't say much. The wife and I left and we went somewhere else. Just finished e-mailing Cub's customer service about the incident as I couldn't easily find any policies that cubs have on open carry. If they are not OC friendly, I have plenty of other choices so didn't bug me much. Just thought I'd share.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Contacting Cubs management was the best choice.
With any luck they will reply to your e-mail with something along the lines of "we follow state law, etc. etc." and you can print it out. Then the next time Mr Security Guard accosts you, you can 1) tell him to pound sand, and 2) IMMEDIATELY bring up his poor conduct towards a Cubs customer with the manager that hired him. 3) Contact the store's District Manager and let him/her know about the employee's poor customer relations as well.

And yes, 'employee'... when the officer is working a 2nd job and being paid by Cub Foods, he's their employee (although he retains lawful authority in regards to criminal conduct.)

 

[MadGunner420]

They can be real diks sometimes, its that drunk with authority deal.:banghead:

 

[tjkruck]

Since it seemed the LEO was hired by Cubs to be there.

Jeez if that cub was actually hiring armed security I wouldnt want to shop there either, seems like a dangerous grocery store if they have to resort to that

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[gunns]

He clearly violated your rights and clearly violated the law. I need to get a recorder. I would own him if he did that to me and I had a recorder.

 

[wrightme]

He clearly violated your rights and clearly violated the law. I need to get a recorder. I would own him if he did that to me and I had a recorder.

How so? What rights were violated? If the LEO was acting as an agent of the store, what do feel was the clear violation of law?

 

[Deepdiver36]

He clearly violated your rights and clearly violated the law. I need to get a recorder. I would own him if he did that to me and I had a recorder.

Troll?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gunns]

Troll?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why are you calling me a Troll? Wow I didn't insult anyone.

 

[gunns]

How so? What rights were violated? If the LEO was acting as an agent of the store, what do feel was the clear violation of law?

Minnesota statute states that the premises has to be clearly marked as not allowing Guns and it was not. So the officer had no legal bounds to deny you your 2nd Amendment rights. No where in the explanation does it say the officer was employed by Cub, if he was, it would be the first time I have ever seen a policeman hired as security at Cub and I have been shopping Cub stores for years.

 

[silvia0073]

Gunns, the cubs on the east side by Maryland and Clarence. There's usually a LEO walking around the registers and just hanging out for no other reason than to violate our rights and waste our tax dollars I guess. Not sure if the LEO's are hired or what by I plan to continue to oc there. I had my recorder going but it was in my pant pocket an the recording was useless. Still no word from cub CS. I may just call them. Thanks for the replies guys. I'm gonna put up more of a challenge next time if I get stopped again, this time with a better positioned recorder.

Sent from my Droid Razr using Tapatalk

 

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

+1

Gunns, the cubs on the east side by Maryland and Clarence. There's usually a LEO walking around the registers and just hanging out for no other reason than to violate our rights and waste our tax dollars I guess. Not sure if the LEO's are hired or what by I plan to continue to oc there. I had my recorder going but it was in my pant pocket an the recording was useless. Still no word from cub CS. I may just call them. Thanks for the replies guys. I'm gonna put up more of a challenge next time if I get stopped again, this time with a better positioned recorder.

Sent from my Droid Razr using Tapatalk

Maybe you should ask him to secure his sidearm in his vehicle? I mean you both are law-abiding citizens...err, well at least you are .

"Do as I say, not as I do little man!" - What really goes through most of our leaders minds.

 

[wrightme]

Minnesota statute states that the premises has to be clearly marked as not allowing Guns and it was not. So the officer had no legal bounds to deny you your 2nd Amendment rights. No where in the explanation does it say the officer was employed by Cub, if he was, it would be the first time I have ever seen a policeman hired as security at Cub and I have been shopping Cub stores for years.

"employed by" was one of the comments in this very thread.

'Having no legal bounds' doesn't equate to 'acted illegally.'

IF the LE was not employed by the store, what exactly do you feel was the violation of law? LE can ask/tell someone pretty much anything they desire. That does not mean a law was violated. What statute do you feel the LE did violate?

 

[gunns]

"employed by" was one of the comments in this very thread.

'Having no legal bounds' doesn't equate to 'acted illegally.'

IF the LE was not employed by the store, what exactly do you feel was the violation of law? LE can ask/tell someone pretty much anything they desire. That does not mean a law was violated. What statute do you feel the LE did violate?

Maybe you have a point. I would restate it as he violated the 2nd amendment as approved by the states regulations for a permit holder. Does that make more sense? So if this LE at Cub doesn't like the shirt your wearing, he can ask you to remove it before entering Cub? Same premise.

 

[wrightme]

Maybe you have a point. I would restate it as he violated the 2nd amendment as approved by the states regulations for a permit holder. Does that make more sense? So if this LE at Cub doesn't like the shirt your wearing, he can ask you to remove it before entering Cub? Same premise.

Nope. Unless he is acting as an agent of the state, it isn't a violation. If he acts as an agent of the state, it might be, if there is no statutory authority for his demand.

A business owner can have someone barred or removed for virtually no cause if they desire, as long as it isn't 'barred or removed only due to membership in a protected class of citizen.' 2A exercise isn't considered a 'protected class' of citizen.


So, "no shirt, no shoes, no service," "no hoodies, sunglasses, ballcaps," "no red shirts on thursdays," "no firearms," all would not be in violation. They don't seem like good business practice to me, but I do not see how it can be considered a violation of either statute, or Right. A business is essentially someones private property, which allows entry to customers; and they CAN choose to not allow someone in.

 

[MKEgal]

Unless he is acting as an agent of the state, it isn't a violation.
If he acts as an agent of the state, it might be, if there is no statutory authority for his demand.

IIRC the officer was in uniform.
Therefore he was acting as an agent of the state, even if they didn't know about it.
If the store just wanted someone to hang around the doors telling people they can't come in, they could hire any person.
But the store wanted someone with authority. Arrest authority. The authority given by employment as an officer. Therefore, the officer was acting in an official capacity.

Since he was in uniform & deprived you of your civil rights, that's a federal crime:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both...

 

[B. Reddy]

Did somebody say they were shopping for a voice recorder?

Found this GREAT, fresh thread for voice recorders:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?100493-Voice-Recorder-Purchase :banana:

 

[Deepdiver36]

Why are you calling me a Troll? Wow I didn't insult anyone.

I often find it that people regurgitate information without thinking it through.

Let's look at this situation. First, it would stand to reason the the LEO is hired security by the store. No tax dollars are being utilized for his side job as someone suggested.

Additionally, since he is no longer an agent of the government, at least for that time, he is not bound by 2a or other doctrine that bind the government only.

Second, he is to serve at his employers wishes. If they asked him to not allow anyone in with purple shirts, he can do so. Being in uniform has no bearing on this. He could have been wearing a clown costume. It's private property. They can deny service to anyone they wish.

That's why it was a troll comment as not every time someone is denied entry is someone's 2a rights being violated.

It sounds like others have OCed there so it may be that this employee formed and enforced his own opinion. The OP did a good job and contacted management to clarify the matter. If in the end, they don't allow firearms in any form, take your business elsewhere and be vocal about why you made that choice.

Not every overt act equals a federal crime.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FTG-05]

I often find it that people regurgitate information without thinking it through.

Let's look at this situation. First, it would stand to reason the the LEO is hired security by the store. No tax dollars are being utilized for his side job as someone suggested.

Additionally, since he is no longer an agent of the government, at least for that time, he is not bound by 2a or other doctrine that bind the government only.

Second, he is to serve at his employers wishes. If they asked him to not allow anyone in with purple shirts, he can do so. Being in uniform has no bearing on this. He could have been wearing a clown costume. It's private property. They can deny service to anyone they wish.

That's why it was a troll comment as not every time someone is denied entry is someone's 2a rights being violated.

It sounds like others have OCed there so it may be that this employee formed and enforced his own opinion. The OP did a good job and contacted management to clarify the matter. If in the end, they don't allow firearms in any form, take your business elsewhere and be vocal about why you made that choice.

Not every overt act equals a federal crime.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did we find out if this is true yet?

 

[Chunkychuck]

MN 624. Subd. 17.Posting; trespass.

(a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person or clothes under a permit or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this subdivision is not subject to forfeiture.

(b) As used in this subdivision, the terms in this paragraph have the meanings given.

(1) "Reasonable request" means a request made under the following circumstances:

(i) the requester has prominently posted a conspicuous sign at every entrance to the establishment containing the following language: "(INDICATE IDENTITY OF OPERATOR) BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES."; ********or

(ii) the requester or the requester's agent personally informs the person that guns are prohibited in the premises and demands compliance.******

If he was acting as an agent of the store he can ask you to do what he did.

 

[mohawk001]

MN 624. Subd. 17.Posting; trespass.

(a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person or clothes under a permit or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this subdivision is not subject to forfeiture.

(b) As used in this subdivision, the terms in this paragraph have the meanings given.

(1) "Reasonable request" means a request made under the following circumstances:

(i) the requester has prominently posted a conspicuous sign at every entrance to the establishment containing the following language: "(INDICATE IDENTITY OF OPERATOR) BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES."; ********or

(ii) the requester or the requester's agent personally informs the person that guns are prohibited in the premises and demands compliance.******

If he was acting as an agent of the store he can ask you to do what he did.

The key word being "if" since the first post said seemed to be hired by, and unless I missed it, it was not confirmed that he had been hired by the business. Has it been established yet if they had been hired by the business or not?