Results of my Open Carry Wal-Mart complaint

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regardless of whether or not open carry is legal or not, perhaps the best question would be, is it the smartest idea in a given circumstance!

Whether shooters are the minority or majority, the fact is there are a LOT of people who have little exposure to firearms! As a result, some people may associate firearms w/ criminals & criminal intent! :eek: I don't want to start a riot w/ that comment, but some people w/ a sheltered background may see a gun & immediately think criminal!

When lots of people are in a location, many who may not be gun advocates, it may not be the smartest idea to openly carry! Just my 2 cents worth!

A lot of responsibility goes into carrying, concealed or not, and common sense goes a long way! Certainly not to say that common sense was not used in this situation! ;) But I have known some people to do some stupid stuff when carrying a gun, which makes the rest of us look bad!
 
the fact is there are a LOT of people who have little exposure to firearms!
Click to expand...
How are they going to gain exposure? Make sure you look reasonably clean/well dressed. Be polite. Once walking into Wal-mart and seeing someone with a gun on their hip is a normal experience people will all have exposure to guns and all but a few whackos will go on about their day without thinking twice. I am willing to get kicked out of a store or two, or even have foolish run in with LE b/c someone oer reacts in order to reach this end, why aren't you?
 
"Intention" goes a long way. If you're dressed like you're on your way out for some recreation, fishing, camping and the sidearm is "discreet" -- as in holstered with a hammer strap -- then it looks like your "intention" is to shop for supplies before heading out.

If, on the other hand, you look like you "intend" to carry just so you can confront legal issues, then you're likely to get confronted.

Now and then I'm entirely supportive of "open carry rallies" -- so long as they're low-key and not "inflammatory." The last thing we need for RKBA is to demonstrate to the rest of America that we're an enclave of "armed crazies."
 
Well, for starters, how about Seattle residents? Would anybody here consider Seattle to be the heartland of conservatism? I think not. And yet, what do Seattle residents think?

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gu...ing-forward-gun-ban-despite-publics-rejection

The Second Amendment Foundation on Oct. 9 warned Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels to heed the public rejection of a proposed gun ban at city parks facilities or face the consequences in court. SAF obtained information from the mayor's office that the overwhelming majority of citizens living both inside and outside the city turned thumbs down on the mayor's plan to ban even legally-carried firearms in city parks facilities. Nickels has already been advised by Attorney General Rob McKenna that the city has no authority to enact such a ban, which would be illegal under the state's preemption law.

Only 8 percent of Seattle residents commenting on the idea support it, according to figures from the mayor's office. Ninety-two percent of Seattleites who opined rejected the idea. Only 2 percent of respondents who live outside the city support the proposed ban, and 98 percent oppose the idea. Deadline for comments was last Sunday. SAF has learned that the city received 1,088 comments via e-mail, and only 44 supported the mayor's proposal. Ten more telephone comments were received, with only one favoring the ban.
Click to expand...

And those figures were reported BY the mayor's office!

And, while not scientific - I think these numbers say something:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/bradycampaign?ref=ts
7,702 People Like This

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fairfax-VA/National-Rifle-Association/22561081832?ref=ts
166,086 People Like This

And, how about this poll put out there to the public by the Brady Campaign themselves? Again, it's not scientific, but I think it is more honest when they just put it out there for the public to respond unhindered:

http://apps.facebook.com/opinionpolls/index.php?pid=1271716670
Yes (I'm ok with guns in public)
94% (895 votes)

No (I do not believe in publicly carrying guns)
6% (62 votes)

And, how about this one by CNN! (Better known as the Clinton News Network for their liberal bias):
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/

(CNN) -- From Oakland, California, to Binghamton, New York, several mass shootings in recent weeks have killed dozens across the country. But has there been an effect on public opinion?
Fewer people fave stricter gun control after recent shootings, including one in Binghamton, New York.

Fewer people fave stricter gun control after recent shootings, including one in Binghamton, New York.

Yes, and in a surprising way.

Since 2001, most Americans have favored stricter gun laws, though support has slightly dropped in recent years: 54 percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared with 50 percent in 2007, according to Gallup polling.

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.
Click to expand...

The only reason pro-gun folks are afraid of the Brady Campaign and such groups is because of their propaganda that has been shoved at them incessantly for so long. They are not the majority, they just whine and cry the loudest.

thunderbird101 said:
Regardless of whether or not open carry is legal or not, perhaps the best question would be, is it the smartest idea in a given circumstance!

Whether shooters are the minority or majority, the fact is there are a LOT of people who have little exposure to firearms! As a result, some people may associate firearms w/ criminals & criminal intent! I don't want to start a riot w/ that comment, but some people w/ a sheltered background may see a gun & immediately think criminal!
Click to expand...

I would also like to know exactly how we are supposed to change that if we do not present to the public the visible image of normal people going about their normal business that everybody else does... with a gun visible on the belt...
 
Last edited:
Come on guys, give the OP a break. He is standing up for what he believes in. Most of you are willing to let companies and politicians rough-shod over your rights.

I live in Colorado and open carry is legal and some of us prefer open carry. Wal-mart is private property, but it is open to the "public". They want the public in there so they can sell their Chinese crap.

I don't know if you remember K-mart and their situation. They stopped cleaning their stores and giving service, but what really hurt them was loosing the gun people and hunters. They listened to the antis and pulled the guns off the rack. When customers complained, they pulled ammo off the shelves. What they didn't expect was a boycott of their stores by the gun community...and (OOPS!) their families. I don't know how we let Wal-mart get away with some of the crap they have done to us. Maybe we can't stay away from the abuse. Oh yes, my wife works for them and has for 20 years, so I know some of the crap they pull.

Also, in Colorado, if you want to keep the gun-toter out of your store, you need to post a sign...oops!
 
jhco50 said:
Also, in Colorado, if you want to keep the gun-toter out of your store, you need to post a sign...oops!
Click to expand...

I don't suppose you have a reference to a statute that actually backs up that statement? oops! I'll bet that you don't!

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpex...a/31af3?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.

(b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene.

(2) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

(3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that:

(a) A permittee may have a handgun on the real property of the public school so long as the handgun remains in his or her vehicle and, if the permittee is not in the vehicle, the handgun is in a compartment within the vehicle and the vehicle is locked;

(b) A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty;

(c) A permittee may carry a concealed handgun on undeveloped real property owned by a school district that is used for hunting or other shooting sports.

(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:

(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;

(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and

(c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.

(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.

(6) The provisions of this section apply to temporary emergency permits issued pursuant to section 18-12-209.

I don't see any requirement for a sign in paragraph (5)...
 
I strapped on my .45 the other day, wife asked me what was I doing. I told her about OC. She said that is silly, "you arent going hunting". Didnt even equate it to SD. Hmmmmm, made me think. Most folks are OK with the hunting thing, but stumble over SD carry. I have asked everyone I work with and shoot with. All seem to think when in public you should conceal the weapon as was popular in the wild west times. (Check it out). So I cant say folks are in the wrong when they freak out, just uneducated. I also see folks getting educated on this subject. Which is good.

A gal was unloading a .38 her husband had (he has passed away) it went off striking her in the arm. Was in the paper today. Sure would have done her better if she had someone to help her out she can trust.
 
All seem to think when in public you should conceal the weapon as was popular in the wild west times.
Click to expand...

So which is it?!? "They" tell us not to open carry because "this isn't the wild west anymore", and then "they" tell us that they concealed carried in the wild west.... which is it? I sure wish "they" would make up their minds (not that the Brady Campaign would actually let anyone make up their own mind...)
 
WAL-MART ? Wild west ? How about looking at todays news in West Memphis AR ! :eek:
Police made a stop ,doing drug patrols .This sadly ended in the deaths of two officers by "AK-47s" and a shootout in the Wal-Mart parking lot which took the lives of the perps !!! I wonder who they were.
But Wal-Mart wants to be gun free and safe !
 
Walmart doesn't have a problem with you being legally armed!

There were 2 other officers shot at the W.Memphis Walmart. Both are in critical condition. The situation started when 2 drug-interdiction officers driving an unmarked vehicle pulled over a suspicious-looking van. As the officers approached the van, 2 Hispanic or Middle-Eastern men opened fire on them. The officers were killed. One was the chief's (whom I worked with years ago) son.
A concerned citizen was listening to the police broadcast on his I-Phone, and saw the van at Walmart. He alerted police. The Sheriff and his deputy responded, and were both shot in a hail of gunfire. Both are hospitalized.
 
Well... a new law passed here (takes effect Jul 1) makes it legal to conceal carry anywhere but a very few places like the Govenor's Mansion, unless it's posted.

There has been another law they've been working on, which requires any business that does post a sign, to have metal detectors and provide security to ensure absolutely no one on the premises can enter with a gun, and measures to ensure the safety of all people on there premises at all times.

So, post... pay for the security, metal detectors, etc. .... or don't post.
 
You are confusing a government ban of firearms with private property owner's rights. A governmental building in which firearms are banned must be posted in accordance with CRS 29-11.7-104. If a person with authority over private property such as an employee acting as an agent of a company wants you to leave the premises it's as simple as them telling you to, "get the heck out!".

If a business owners does not want you to bring your gun on their property in the first place, then, yes, they SHOULD post a sign. Once you are on their property, though, you have no RIGHT to remain on their property without their permission, and their permission for you to remain on their property can be withdrawn at any time.

For instance, let's say Joe's Supermarket has a no firearms policy, but they choose to not put up any signs because they don't want to run off any customers. Let's say Joe's manager on shift, Billy Bob sees you carrying your gun in the store. Billy Bob comes up to you and says, "Sir, you are going to have to leave the store with that thing." You say, "What thing?" Billy Bob says, "That gun. We don't allow guns in our stores, so I am asking you leave this store which is private property owned by Joe's Supermarket Corporation, of which I am acting as their agent which I am being paid by them to do." If you refuse to leave, do you think the courts will uphold any "right" that you have to remain on Joe's Supermarket's property because they did not have a no gun sign at the door?

You will be guilty of trespassing because you have remained on private property once permission for you to be on that property has been removed. The business' right to remove you from their property is specifically protected by the statute that I posted, which has no requirements for any signs:
(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.
 
Last edited:
This is getting stupid. Just carry, and do it everywhere. It's that simple. Carry to church, wal-mart, mowing your lawn, whatever. We're all like-minded to a degree. Whether or not you're supposed to do it because someone else says you shouldn't is secondary. Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, right?
 
This is getting stupid. Just carry, and do it everywhere. It's that simple. Carry to church, wal-mart, mowing your lawn, whatever. We're all like-minded to a degree. Whether or not you're supposed to do it because someone else says you shouldn't is secondary.
Click to expand...

I agree totally, so long as the location is not specifically prohibited by statute (state or Federal). And it helps to have a CPL, CCW, whatever you want to call it, because then, prior to entering a mall or store with a gunbuster sign, a person can just pull their shirt over the gun. That's why I always an undershirt!
 
What did you expect- it's Walmart, the corporation that uses child slaves, abuses workers, almost always gives minimum wage, and doesn't give anything back.
 
What did you expect- it's Walmart, the corporation that uses child slaves, abuses workers, almost always gives minimum wage, and doesn't give anything back.
Click to expand...

Please cite ALL of your sources for your BS......and I'll bet you shop there anyway to save a buck

If you do not like someone's posting of no carry then DON'T GO IN THERE.....what is so damn hard to understand? Why would you knowingly support a business who deems your CCW a bane?:rolleyes:
 
What part of this do you guys not understand??
Walmart's corporate policy is to follow state laws. No individual store can deny legal carry.
Click to expand...

I understand that a representative of the store can make statements on the spot that preclude the activities of individuals (given that said preclusion isn't actually against the law and it isn't in this case). If that is a violation of corporate policy, then that is between Walmart management and the employee in question. That employee's exclusion of persons or behavior is still legal until which time somebody of greater authority counters the preclusion.

A non-Walmart employee does not have the right or authority to determine or interpret Walmart policy and hence do what he or she feels fits with policy and be legally justified against a Walmart employee telling that person that they must leave.
 
What part of this do you guys not understand??
Walmart's corporate policy is to follow state laws. No individual store can deny legal carry.
Click to expand...

Double Naught Spy said:
I understand that a representative of the store can make statements on the spot that preclude the activities of individuals (given that said preclusion isn't actually against the law and it isn't in this case). If that is a violation of corporate policy, then that is between Walmart management and the employee in question. That employee's exclusion of persons or behavior is still legal until which time somebody of greater authority counters the preclusion.

A non-Walmart employee does not have the right or authority to determine or interpret Walmart policy and hence do what he or she feels fits with policy and be legally justified against a Walmart employee telling that person that they must leave.
Click to expand...

I think what D.N.S. is saying is that the Walmart employee/manager can boot you out of the store for whatever reason they want to, whether or not it is corporate policy, and you can't do jack about it because you are not an employee of Wal Mart and have no "rights" to remain on their property after being told by them to leave. And once they give you the boot, or have the police remove you, then you can take it up with the corporate if you so desire - but it doesn't change anything in the present - your butt is still going to be removed from the property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top