I was open carrying at Wal-Mart, and....

[WhyteP38]

However I don't consider my choice to carry concealed instead of openly to be sacrificing anything. I'm still exercising my 2nd Amendment right and I'm still equipped to protect my family if I need to do so. Perhaps there's a small inconvenience in having to cover up, but I consider that to be substantially outweighed by the avoidance of situations like the OP's.

For me, it's not a matter of sacrificing anything. And it's not a matter of convenience. And I'm not knocking your choice to carry concealed. Do what you are comfortable with. For me, it's a matter of knocking someone else's choice that is legal and not immoral. (Something can still be immoral even if it's legal.)

I really don't get the idea of pro-gun people chiding others who carry openly where open carry is legal. What's the point of having a legal right if you don't exercise it or allow others to exercise it?

You have people upset about guns even when they don't see them, so whether the gun is concealed or not is a secondary issue. The Brady Bunch wets their collective diapers at the mere thought of private gun ownership. The idea vexes them 24/7/365. It is, after all, the reason for the group's very existence. Why not give up the 2A entirely so we can avoid the situation of worrying the Brady Bunch?

Also, as Indykappa so effectively said, "i want to educate people who are ignorant about guns as well as people who are just plain ignorant." Study his post; there's a lot of wisdom there.

Indykappa, you can quote stuff by typing the word quote between square brackets [], then place your text (I use copy and paste), then end with /quote between square brackets. Or if your browser shows it, there is a yellowish quote button right above the text entry box, to the right of the other formatting buttons.

 

[christcorp]

Yea indy; you keep thinking that way. Where I live, it is totally legal to walk down the street with an AK-47 in one hand and a 12 gauge shotgun in the other hand. Do you think I should do it? See, you're too caught up in the "IT'S HIS RIGHT" mentality. Well in ANY SOCIETY, other people have rights also. And you have to take that into consideration.

There are obvious times when open carry is common and bystanders don't even give it a 2nd look. I.e. a rancher with his pickup truck, in front of Home Depot, with a flatbed of lumber, posts, etc... and he's shopping in the store. Not one person here would even think about it. Guns are that common and normal here. The down town businessman with a shirt and tie, slacks, NO JACKET, and a holster open carry pistol; gets the "Ahhh, aren't we trying to be special" look from others.

Lets make a very simple comparison. If you go to the beach, do you give a 2nd thought to seeing girls in bikinis and guys in speedos? (Other than when you see the 300lb man/woman in the bikini or speedo). No, you don't. Why? Because that is an appropriate place for such attire. However; if you were downtown in the business district at 2pm on a Tuesday; and you saw a woman in a bikini, you definitely would think it's inappropriate. Forget this whole "That's her RIGHT" mentality. It's about what's appropriate.

Now, is carrying open in walmart "appropriate"? I guess it all depends. Some can argue it's all about rights if they want. Sorry, but the private property owner's rights TRUMP YOURS EVERY TIME. Except for your right to leave. Again, there are appropriate times, that don't even have to be written down, that are totally socially acceptable. And of course if you're in a place that doesn't allow concealed carry, that too is a different issue. But there will always be some people who are offended, scared, nervous, etc... when they see people carrying a weapon openly. And there will always be some people that think their rights are more important socially than anybody else's, and they don't care what anyone else thinks of them. Fortunately, the original poster isn't that type of person. He did what he should have done. But there are definitely those who would push the point that they have rights. BEEP!!! Wrong answer. When you're on someone else's private property, you have PRIVILEGES, NOT RIGHTS; other than the RIGHT to LEAVE. (Right to Liberty).

So by all means indy, "educate" the population. But when someone stands up and finds your behavior disturbing, realize that that person too has rights. And in society, you AND they, need to cooperate.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by WhyteP38: Judging by the context of the OP's post, he gave no indications that the two later employees were managers. In fact, he used the word "employees" not "managers."

It doesn't matter.

Also, he clearly stated that the previous employee had spoken to a manager.

That was his impression, but he had no way of knowing that.

That's why I wrote that the matter was between the two later employees and management, not between the two later employees and the OP.

The OP was dealing with the "two later employees" and only with them. There may have been an internal matter to sort out later, but it did not involve the OP.

Actually, it [Walmart's delegation of authority] does enter into the situation.

No.

The OP was already complying with store policy as decided by a manager, and a decision regarding store policy is a management decision.

Or so he had thought.

It [the delegation of authority]becomes an external business matter when it involves a customer, as in the OP's case....I have actually had the situation of going to a Walmart for a refund of an item that was defective. The first customer service employee told me that I could not get a refund, which I knew was incorrect, so I politely asked to see a manager.... The manager showed up, checked my item, and told me I was due a refund, and walked off....... I had to have the manager come back, at which point he decided to stay and make sure things were done correctly. ... If I had followed your logic, the second employee's decision would have trumped the manager's decision, and I would not have received my refund.

If you are dealing in a matter that involves an agreement with a business entity (in this case Walmart) or a Governmental body in a purchase or sales transaction, the settlement of a claim, etc., it's always a very good idea to make sure you are dealing with an agent or employee who has the authority to commit said entity. So, unless you are merely accepting a posted price, before you make an offer, rely upon an offer, or agree to a transaction, whether it involves a price, return, refund, service included, warranty, whatever, you should make sure you are dealing with someone who can accept your offer or make a binding offer to you. Some people may not be authorized to offer a refund, and others may be. If someone cannot offer you a refund he will not do so, if he knows what is good for him; if he does so anyway and you rely on it, someone is going to be unhappy--maybe you, maybe the employee who overstepped the bounds of his authority; you may get the refund, you may not. I'd bet yes, but that's irrelevant.

If you want to accept the decision of a non-manager over that of a manager, that's your choice. However, that's not how I do things.

If you ask to speak to a manager you may get your wish or you may not. If he calls the police, you do not have a "decision" to "accept". This is not a purchase or sales transaction, and no one at Walmart is going to discuss with you whether or not this employee or that one was authorized to call the police.

Depending upon the jurisdiction, they may decline to press charges for trespassing, or they may elect to pursue them. In the case of the latter, again depending upon the jurisdiction, the outcome may impinge upon your continued right to carry. Be careful.

 

[WhyteP38]

christcorp:

Seems to me, state laws that allow concealed carry and/or open carry generally spell out where it is/is not appropriate to concealed and/or open carry. For example, when I lived in NC, you could not legally CC in establishments that served alcohol or on premises that chose to ban CC. Illegal also equaled inappropriate in those instances.

Indykappa never advocated doing anything illegal or inappropriate (although I do wonder who exactly determines what is/is not appropriate if restricted locations are not specified by law). He did not advocate carrying openly on premises where the owner has posted signs that prohibit open carry. He never advocated that his rights trump everyone elses'.

He advocated carrying openly where the law said he could and in accordance with the law.

If the law says you can open carry in public, but nobody does it because they're worried about hurting hypersensitive feelings, you have a defacto ban on open carry.

Like Indykappa said, the OP was within his legal right to open carry: The state law allowed it, the store had no signs banning it, he had done so previously without any problems, and a manager had specifically okayed it for the incident at issue. When problems arose, he handled it calmly. And yet some continue to treat the OP as an outcast.

 

[JohnKSa]

You have people upset about guns even when they don't see them, so whether the gun is concealed or not is a secondary issue.

non sequitur This implies that concealed and open carry generate the same type of "upset". That's not true at all.

People are upset about concealed gun in the general sense. ("I don't like it that people carry guns--I wish they didn't, it shouldn't be legal.") Note that there is no specific aim of this concern. It's a broad, unfocused "upset".

People are concerned about openly carried guns in the specific sense. ("That guy RIGHT THERE has a GUN! Somebody call the cops and get him out of here before someone gets hurt!") Note that this is treated not like a statement of a general preference ("I wish folks didn't carry guns.") and is treated like an immediate concern focused on a specific "threat". ("THERE'S the threat, RIGHT THERE.")

This thread is not about the former (people being generally upset), it's about the latter (people being concerned about a specific instance).

For me, it's a matter of knocking someone else's choice that is legal and not immoral. (Something can still be immoral even if it's legal.)

This thread is about a specific person being hassled at Wal-Mart.

The point is that if he didn't want to be hassled he could have exercised his right to be armed by concealing his firearm. That may not play well in terms of the open carry movement's agenda, but it would solve the problem of his being hassled.

As far as being hassled, there is no "right to not be hassled". If you want to exercise your free speech you may be hassled for what you say. If you want to openly carry you may be hassled for it. If you do those things on private property you may be asked to leave and not come back.

The reason that these threads typically dissolve into bickering is that we have two factions who don't want to understand the other's views.

On one side we have the open carry movement supporters who believe that they are spreading the gospel of open carry by walking around with their guns showing. (Like or hate it, that's the bottom line.) They are NOT going to be happy about folks pointing out that if they don't want to be hassled they can conceal. They are not going to be happy about concealing because their main focus is not self-defense, their main focus is "educating" people. This is obvious from the OP's statements:

I told her. "Wow, that was great, I'm so happy with how that worked out, those two did everything right, asked all the right questions, treated me with respect, and found out everything was fine, now we can keep shopping!" I was very pleased...

Clearly his goal wasn't simply being armed as a means of self-defense, it was to make converts and educate.

On the other side we have the people who are purely interested in the practical aspects of being armed. They carry purely for self-defense. They don't want to focus attention on themselves and they don't want to be hassled. This doesn't mean they aren't concerned about second amendment rights, it doesn't mean they don't support the RIGHT to open carry or that they don't support gun rights in other ways (contributions, volunteer efforts, legislative efforts) it just means that they aren't interested in carrying a "teaching aid" around in plain view.

So on the one side you have people on a mission who denigrate those with purely practical concerns and try to cast them as not caring about gun rights and on the other side you have those with purely practical concerns who denigrate those in the OC movement and try to cast them as exhibitionists and attention grabbers.

Seems to me, state laws that allow concealed carry and/or open carry generally spell out where it is/is not appropriate to concealed and/or open carry.

This is a logical fallacy called "equivocation". You are using the word "appropriate" in a different sense than christcorp did in an attempt to invalidate his assertion.

christcorp is using the term "appropriate" in the sense of what is generally acceptable. You are trying to make it sound like "appropriate" is a synonym for "legal". That is not correct.

 

[ATW525]

Wow... I started to type a reply, got interrupted by the wife and when I came back I saw JohnKSa's post. I think he hit the nail on the head.

 

[darkgael]

exactly

there is no "right to not be hassled". If you want to exercise your free speech you may be hassled for what you say. If you want to openly carry you may be hassled for it. If you do those things on private property you may be asked to leave and not come back.

Exactly. If you carry openly, ok, but expect to be questioned, criticized, censured. It goes with the territory. If you have been to the store before without a problem, lucky you.....there's a different set of people in there today.

some continue to treat the OP as an outcast.

Not at all. Just don't see why he's upset....should have expected it sooner or later.

if someone is intimidated by a gun in a holster it speaks volumes about them not about the person carrying. There is absolutely no reason a person shouldn't open carry if it's legal.

There is no reason a person shouldn't open carry if it's legal. True....as long as that person is willing to take the heat that will definitely be coming.

The other part about someone being intimidated about a gun in a holster.......is silly. They may have a reason to be intimidated; they are intimidated by the fact that a real person is carrying a gun and is next to them and they just read or heard that the police are looking for a gun man who......or the last time they saw someone carrying a gun they were in a bodega and the gun owner robbed the place.
People's fears aren't always groundless.
Pete

 

[oneounceload]

Just because you have the ability to do something does not always mean you SHOULD. There are better ways to "educate" folks without creating a sense of fear on their part, because if you do, they will not listen nor have sympathy for your position.

Do you want to win the battle and lose the war?

YOUR actions reflect on all of us as a group - whether we agree or disagree, whether we want the attention or not, does not matter -you have just thrust ALL of us into the fray. Is this the right time for this fight? Maybe yes, maybe no......the point is, ALL of us, EVERY day, need to be cognizant of what we do, how we act, what we say. There are MANY sitting on the fence, many soccer moms et al, that can sway the SCOTUS, POTUS, and the House and Senate./

Please think about the whole war we wage and not just your own local personal battle

 

[christcorp]

Yes Whyte; what John said. Appropriate and legal are 2 totally different things. It's legal to get into an elevator and while it's moving, to lift your leg and let out a very loud fart. You're even within your "rights" to giggle about it openly. But would you do it? Most people wouldn't, because it's socially unacceptable and inappropriate. And that is what rights are all about. Considering the rights of others, while you're exercising your own rights. That is the difference between a "civilized" society and one of anarchy; which then usually evolves into a dictatorship or fascist type of society whereby the government creates more and more laws to control the citizen's behavior.

There use to be a time where people were much more considerate than they are now. Take cigarette smoking for example. It was pretty much socially acceptable to smoke any time and any place. However, MOST people considered the feelings of other people. "Do you mind if I smoke?" We didn't need "laws" to tell us where we could and couldn't smoke. People were considerate. But in my own lifetime, I've watch people with the "ME" attitude smoke wherever and whenever they wanted to, without any consideration for other people. Well, you do this long enough, and enough people do this often enough, and those who feel that they are being disrespected, revolt and push the government for a law. Before long, there are entire cities like Boulder Colorado where you're not allowed to smoke any place inside the city limits other than your own home and car. Not even outdoors. Now you can say that smoking is a health issue, but that doesn't take from the fact that there are laws in place, ONLY BECAUSE of certain people's disrespect for others. And for what it's worth, the government has put more power into the CDC's pocket; (Center for Disease Control); claiming that guns, gun violence, gun deaths, etc... are a "Health Issue".

Personally, I think the OP handled the situation the right way. He didn't cause a scene. He left when asked to. But the truth is, there are a lot more NON-Gun carrying individuals in our country, than those who DO carry guns. Gun carriers are a minority. My state of Wyoming has a very low personal crime rate, because most people have guns. 86% of all households. The criminals know that there is a very good chance that if they break into a house, they will be shot. I would prefer that ALL individuals be allowed to carry concealed. Then the bad guys will have no idea which potential victim is armed and will fight back and which ones wont. Thereby, increasing their risk and lowering the crime rate. But open carry is done usually for very few reasons:
1. You're not allowed a concealed permit, yet you are allowed open carry. (This is rare).
2. You are in a position where concealed carry isn't practical, and these situations are usually quite obvious and socially acceptable. The individual obviously in work clothes (Not a suit), on the job, at the home depot, etc... The hunter in camo clothes walking into the Mini-Mart at 5am getting a coffee on their way hunting. Etc... there are PLENTY of obvious times where concealed carry isn't practical. And these times are quite obvious and accepted by society. Some people try to open carry because they claim it's inconvenient to conceal carry. Weeeee; too bad. It's inconvenient for some people to put on a seat belt, but they do because it's the right and safe thing to do. There's a lot of things we do in life that isn't convenient.
3. Then there's those who open carry for no other reason than to make a political statement. These are the people that give gun owners a bad reputation. These are the open carry version of mall ninjas. "It's my right" is their only defense. Well, a lot of rights have been limited and curbed because of people with that attitude.

The 2nd amendment says that the government will not infringe on a person's right to keep and bear arms. The problem is; many states and the federal government; have differing opinions on if that means just in your own private property or if it includes public property. And many lawmakers in various cities and states have argued for decades that the 2nd amendment never said the government couldn't dictate how, when, where, etc... Some are even saying that the government limiting all personal handguns to calibers equal or smaller to 32acp is within their jurisdiction, because they aren't stopping you from having a gun. (The argument is: That the constitution, bill of rights, declaration of independence, etc... were all written before the time of centerfire guns/ammo. And that LEGALLY, the government could allow anyone to own a black powder gun and that's ALL.) Notice how you're allowed to buy a black powder rifle or pistol in the mail from cabellas and don't need an FFL dealer? You can ship it right to your house. There are many who claim these were the guns available during the 18th century, and that's what you have a "RIGHT" to.

Point is, laws and the constitution have been debated for centuries and they will continue to be. The more reasons gun owners give the government to tighten the laws/rules in the name of public health and societal harmony, the more they will do it. We can carry guns concealed and openly in an appropriate manner and in inappropriate manners. The choice is up to each of us.

 

[hickstick_10]

Well spoken sir

 

[ncpatriot]

Likely when you carried there before, the "right people" were working and had better things to worry about. That day, you got the worry warts and snivel wimps. You made the good case with them that you were legal, but still, "he's dangerous with that gun, what if someone bumps into him?", etc. Here in NC, OC is legal but w/caveats that anyone can ask you to leave his property and you can be charged with "going armed to the terror of the public if someone wets his pants when you walk by. So, very few people do it here. A few fishermen with shake shot, a few store managers, etc. Fisherman are outdoors, few people around, store mgrs have defense of it being their premises. I find CC is much more practical in most places. I defend OC in conversations, for 2A issue but seldom do it.

 

[bamaranger]

prudent?

Open carry may be legal, but is it prudent? One would be equally safe/prepared with the weapon concealed. No hassles, the advantage of surprise and discretion, no shoot me first. And how many open carry advocates are plugged into to their surroundings and alert to all other subject near them? What about gun retention skills v. a gun grab. Secure holster, minimum class 2?

I put much of this open carry business in the shock and awe category.

See me, see how bad I am.

 

[wyobohunter]

One more reason not to shop at WalMart. Not that I needed one

+1

Mall-Wart:barf:

We just got one of those awefull stores shoved down our throats in Kenai. I don't shop there for um... moral reasons. My wife went to look around just to see what the fuss is all about. They sell cheap garbage so luckily she will not be spending our money there either.

But, just out of curiosity I may go in while open carrying just to see if I get the same response. Nobody ever gives any guff at the other stores in the area.

I put much of this open carry business in the shock and awe category.

See me, see how bad I am.

Although I usually carry concealed it isn't always practical. Try carrying a 454 Casull concealed. The big revolver is sometimes carried in the open i.e., when I'm on my way to go fishing and stop to pick up some bait and a six pack.

 

[simonkenton]

You have proven the wisdom of the Japanese axiom:

"The upright nail will get hammered."

 

[TinyDee]

Much Ado about nothing. Your passion to carry would be possibly an issue for many stores. My advice, let it die and do not be so intent on carrying just because you can. Be respectful of the business too.

 

[markj]

Whenever I have purchased a firearm from Wal Mart they escorted me to the front door before handing over the gun. They have a strict policy on this, probably some nut in the past did something stupid that makes this a reality for the workers to deal with.

Last weeks Rudy Park cartoon dealt with open carry from a shopkeepers perspective. It scares people to see a gun on your waist bottom line. All the talk in the world will not make these people feel safe with a gun on the belt unless you are a LEO or security. I know this, a scared dog will bite ya, same as a scared person.

It isnt the wild west anymore, folks want to feel civilized and that means an unarmed society, crazy as it sounds. So CCW and be safe.

 

[WhyteP38]

ATW525 wrote:
Wow... I started to type a reply, got interrupted by the wife and when I came back I saw JohnKSa's post. I think he hit the nail on the head.

I must agree … and it’s my post JohnKSa was referring to.

I got wrapped around the axle of the OP taking heat from others on this forum for his choice, which as JohnKSa pointed out, is not the topic of the thread. The topic is the OP being hassled at Walmart for his choice. JohnKSa also rightly point out that “As far as being hassled, there is no ‘right to not be hassled’. If you want to exercise your free speech you may be hassled for what you say. If you want to openly carry you may be hassled for it.”

Also, it was not my intention to equivocate on the issue of legal vs. appropriate. My intention was to draw a comparison. However, the result was an equivocation due to the inexpert means I used. As bearer of my message, I am responsible for it.

I have never considered myself as having a position in either the OC camp or the “purely interested in the practical aspects of being armed” camp. I find OC an interesting topic, and I’m all in favor of greater gun rights for law-abiding citizens, but OC as a topic is not among the top issues on my list. For that reason, what JohnKSa described as an obvious main focus not being self-defense but instead "educating" people was not so obvious to me. I was looking through my own lens. However, now that JohnKSa has pointed it out, that focus is much more apparent.

 

[Eagleks]

WALMART CORPORATE POLICY for ALL stores is, if it's legal in your state, you can do it in their stores. Period. If open carry is legal, you can, if only cc carry is legal, then you can.

You just ran into some employees who did not know the laws, nor the Policy and inserted their personal thoughts into it.

What should have happened, you insist to them to contact the Store Mgr and have them clarify the "policy" to the employees... ..... and if they are up on Corp Policy at all... you would have been told you were fine and he would have educated his employees. If he was NOT up on Corp Policy and kicked you out, then advise Walmart Corp Offices in Bentonville, Ark .... and they will educate the Mgr.

 

[jhenry]

I think concealed carry is the way to go when out in public. No muss, no fuss. Do it right and nobody is the wiser. Stealth mode.

 

[Average Joe]

I don't open carry for a few reasons, one is because of what you went through.I don't care to explain to every ignorant person what the laws are.
The second reason is because I don't want the bad guys to know I am armed, and therefore become first target in a robbery or crime...