Results of my Open Carry Wal-Mart complaint

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, it may be your State right. But why do people go into a store and somehow expect everybody in there to be supportive of your 2nd Amendment rights?
So, I have a right and a responsibility not to utilize it?
This whole don't OC b/c doing so endangers your right to OC just keeps making me think of dictatorships where people are allowed to vote. With a MG toting thug practically in the booth with them. Don't vote for anyone but the dictator or he will take your right to vote away.

THE ONLY WAY TO GET CARRY, open or concealed, ACCEPTED BY THE GENERAL POPULATION IS TO EXPOSE THEM TO DO IT. Preferably in a polite, professional fashion. CC does not expose anyone to it.

What is your approach? Wait for the media to run a few unbiased stories?
 
varoadking said:
Folks should exercise good judgement when it comes to their rights...some don't.

And, in your humble opinion, this is not:

28929137059395632015758.jpg


It just doesn't get much more American than that, my friend.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOM RENZO
The law is clear on this . If its posted at all general customer doors the owner of the store can BAN guns.

That depends entirely upon state law and is not universal in every state.

Once again the owner has controll of the property and under the law he can ban guns in his place of business. If memory serves me its been challenged. Not 100% shure but i think it was. Or you can ignore the law like i do. I could care less what they post i carry all the time. Its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Let them pound SAND!! With that said i still dont like a person carrying open unless that is the only way the state allows it. I do not want anyone knowing i have a gun. Just me could be wrong.
 
Tom,

You are confusing two entirely separate and unrelated issues. Take Washington State for example. Let's say the Tom's Hardware Store has a no firearms sign on the door. Does that make it illegal for me to possess a firearm in Tom's Hardware store? (Assuming I can possess that same firearm outside the store.) NO. I can walk right past that sign, open carrying my firearm and I have broken no laws. The police can be right there when I do it. They cannot cite me for anything, because there is no statute that says it is illegal to carry in Tom's Hardware Store and there is no statute that says it is illegal to carry past a no firearms sign.

Now, if the manager at Tom's Hardware Store asks me to leave his property, then I must leave. But, if I refuse to leave, there still can be no firearms charge against me, because there is no statute that makes carrying a firearm past a sign illegal. The citation will be for trespassing, not for illegal possession of a firearm.

Trespassing and illegal possession of a firearm are two completely unrelated situations.

Now, in a state such as Texas, if a Tom's Hardware store posts a sign that complies with Texas Statute 30.06 (how ironic)... now if I enter the store with a firearm, I have immediately broken the law and am guilty of illegal possession of a firearm because there is a specific statute in place that causes it to be illegal to carry past a properly posted sign.

Like I said, it all depends on the state law.
 
Just because you think you have a right to do something does not always mean you should - an NO, the 2A has nothing to do with CCW and your right to protect yourself from criminals
 
Just because you think you have a right to do something does not always mean you should

By the same token, just because exercising a right makes someone else uncomfortable does not mean you shouldn't.

and NO, the 2A has nothing to do with CCW and your right to protect yourself from criminals

+1! I absolutely agree!
 
Just because you think you have a right to do something does not always mean you should - an NO, the 2A has nothing to do with CCW and your right to protect yourself from criminals
So now we have to get into the argument about whether the second amendment relates to self-defense versus "homeland defense"?

Luckily for me I live in a state with a decent constitution of its own and a state supreme court decision that says that state constitution guarantees me the right to OPEN CARRY for personal defense. As such, I have the RIGHT to open carry, at least in my state.
 
So now we have to get into the argument about whether the second amendment relates to self-defense versus "homeland defense"?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To me, the second amendment means this:

A well regulated militia is necessary to ensure the security of a free State. That militia is to be made up of armed citizens. It is the duty of the citizen to protect the free State, and it is the duty of the government to ensure that those citizens have the ability to remain armed.

The right to self protection, IMHO, is not guaranteed in the second amendment, but is a basic human right that cannot be legitimately taken away by any government. That, in no way, however, IMHO, takes anything away from the guarantee the Second Amendment offers to private, individual citizens, to be armed in their private lives, because the way it is supposed to work is that if the free State requires defense, the free citizen is supposed to grab their gun and defend the free State.
 
just because exercising a right makes someone else uncomfortable does not mean you shouldn't.

Make enough uncomfy and they will use their voting power against you. Lets look at Denver for example, folks got tired of hearing loud piped motorcycles so they got togther and put a little pressure here and there, now modified pipes are outlawed there. Now go ahead and tell me this cant ever happen for OC. I am seeing a huge push in America for less restrictive gun laws, why go out and try to put a stop to this with the OC thing? It makes a lot of folks uncomfy, why do you feel you should be able to go around and do this? just cause you can? That is just silly IMHO. Guns have always made folks uncomfy, always.

Better to conceal it and not lose the ability to carry at all. IMHO
 
MarkJ,

Of course you give no consideration to the fact that people are uncomfortable around guns because of the image of guns the media and the Brady Campaign has shown them for the last decade. They are NEVER, EVER going to SEE anything DIFFERENT if we don't SHOW it to them. They are NEVER going to see a person with his wife and step daughter out for Sunday Mother's Day Brunch carrying a gun if they can't see the gun!

Everybody keeps talking about all these negative images people have about guns, and yet 50 years ago these negative images weren't there. Why? What changed in those 50 years? I'll tell you what changed. The Brady Campaign cramming their crap down everyone's throats while the gun community stood idly by and thought that guns were a part of the American way like apple pie and baseball. And now everybody believes the Brady Campaign crap and that is all the ever SEE. We can't stand by and continue to let the Brady Campaign be the ONLY image of guns that people SEE. Can't you understand that? All we are doing by hiding our guns is REINFORCING exactly what the Brady Campaign is saying! We are reinforcing that guns are evil and need to be hidden!

And nobody from the concealed carry crowd yet has offered a solution to changing the negative images that the public has of guns. All the concealed carry crowd has said is "OMG! We need to run and hide from these people."
 
Last edited:
Crime and stupid people are ALWAYS going to be there to fuel the anti-gun fire. Do you fight a fire by letting it burn and hope that it doesn't get out of control while you hide your hose buried in your fire truck? That's what concealed carry does. It protects us from criminals, but it does nothing to protect us from the fire the Brady Bunch causes. Maybe it is time we started standing up and ACTIVELY fighting that fire, at the level of public opinion.
 
Everybody keeps talking about all these negative images people have about guns, and yet 50 years ago these negative images weren't there. Why? What changed in those 50 years? I'll tell you what changed. The Brady Campaign cramming their crap down everyone's throats while the gun community stood idly by and thought that guns were a part of the American way like apple pie and baseball. And now everybody believes the Brady Campaign crap and that is all the ever SEE. We can't stand by and continue to let the Brady Campaign be the ONLY image of guns that people SEE. Can't you understand that? All we are doing by hiding our guns is REINFORCING exactly what the Brady Campaign is saying! We are reinforcing that guns are evil and need to be hidden!

And nobody from the concealed carry crowd yet has offered a solution to changing the negative images that the public has of guns. All the concealed carry crowd has said is "OMG! We need to run and hide from these people."

Again, this seems to be a common attitude among the Open Carry crowd. It's not about self-defense per se, it's an 'in-your-face' approach that says that the general public should support OUR rights, regardless of overall public perception, media presentation, the opinion of gun writers, instructors or police administrators.

It's akin to saying "To hell with what anybody else thinks, it's my right and I'm gonna do it."

To me, this brazen approach is like shouting our rights through a bull-horn. While it may be legal, the media may portray these people as self-absorbed radicals who are trying to force the issue of Open Carry down the throats of the general public.

While CCW laws have relaxed greatly in the last twenty years, the general population may still leery of seeing civilians openly carrying guns in public.

I'd guess that most store managers and many police officers simply do not want to deal with complaints from citizens upset about seeing somebody walking around wearing a gun in plain sight. Even if they get one single complaint, they have to act upon it.

The result of this confrontation may not be favorable to the law-abiding gun owner who makes the conscious decision to carry his gun openly.

Sure, some people will support Open Carry in theory, but many of them wouldn't do it themselves. Like most people, they just want to be left alone while they go about their business.

People do not have to physically see a gun strapped to the side of a regular civillian to form an opinion as to whether or not Open Carry should be widespread practice. I think people form an opinion instantly, whether it is positive, negative or neutral.

And to some people in our society, wearing a gun in public in plain sight may indeed be as offensive as shouting through a bull-horn. While Open Carry may perfectly legal in many places, to some it may be seen as flagrant and reckless. Remember those same people vote, call store managers and sometimes police.

In my opinion, we win our legal carry rights when the opposition realizes that police cannot be there to protect them from a sudden, unprovoked attack. This forces anti-gunners to confront the real question that if police cannot protect them, who will?

This approach takes the media spotlight off the gun itself and puts it onto the bigger issue of an individual's fundamental right to self-defense.

This larger question of self-defense gets to the heart of why we carry firearms in the first place. And this is where we can defeat the media and change public perception.

The issue of self defense is the one question for which the anti-gunners have no answer. This is what makes regular people, often anti-gunners in the past, to reconsider their opposition to self defense. As this realization gains momentum throughout the general public, we have less political opposition.

In my opinion, when a person realizes that he is still armed while legally covering his gun, it just makes no sense to Open Carry if he doesn't want the hassle of being confronted by police, store employees or by curious civilians, as the OP has found.

Personally, I don't want to be confronted by anybody while I'm shopping. I don't want kids getting up close to me, pointing and staring at my gun. That's not what I'm carrying for. I don't want any media attention. I don't want to make a political statement or to challenge people to ask me why I'm carrying a gun. My gun is only there to protect my life. And I don't want anybody to know it's there until I need it.

Sometimes, discretion really is the better part of valor.
 
Last edited:
LOL..... I love it.

Tell everyone it's private property and the business owner can BAN guns if they want.

But, let the same business owner decide he wants to allow smoking , and watch how fast the Govt will tell him otherwise.

Is it their property and their business or not ? Seems they can't keep playing it both ways when they want.
 
MTS840,
How do you propose we expose non-shooters to firearms in a safe and responsible fashion?
My end goal is for there to be a point at which everyone accepts the sight of a firearm and doesn't freak out like a 6 year old who stumbles across older kids playing with firecrackers.
 
How do you propose we expose non-shooters to firearms in a safe and responsible fashion?
How did the CC movement have so much success if we can't get our message across without exposed guns?
My end goal is for there to be a point at which everyone accepts the sight of a firearm and doesn't freak out like a 6 year old who stumbles across older kids playing with firecrackers.
Mine too. But if you realize that some folks "freak out like a 6 year old who stumbles across older kids playing with firecrackers" when they see a gun then you should also realize that you're not going to make a positive impression on them by letting them see yours at the supermarket. ;)
 
Concealed carry laws were a compromise that were done within the halls of legislature and had nothing to do with public acceptance of guns. The pro-gun crowd accepted the hamburger meat of concealed carry laced with the poison of regulation and government permission in the form of licensing when we should have settled for nothing less than the prime rib of freedom. We just don't seem to be able to must the strength of our vocal chords that the Brady Bunch and their blind followers have. And too many of those within the pro-gun crowd believe way too much of the Brady Bunch propaganda.
 
Last edited:
How did the CC movement have so much success if we can't get our message across without exposed guns?
In Ohio the "Orange Hat Brigade" who usually lobby hunting issues, was called out and circled the capitol building walking laps open carrying until the law was passed. Took a week or so as I hear it. At least that is the story told around the campfire here. I was still in HS and hadn't become involved quite yet. I guess Ohioans don't know any other way to do it.
 
Concealed carry laws were a compromise that were done within the halls of legislature and had nothing to do with public acceptance of guns. The pro-gun crowd accepted the hamburger meat of concealed carry laced with the poison of regulation and government permission in the form of licensing when we should have settled for nothing less than the prime rib of freedom. We just don't seem to be able to must the strength of our vocal chords that the Brady Bunch and their blind followers have. And too many of those within the pro-gun crowd believe way too much of the Brady Bunch propaganda.
1. If you mean to say that concealed carry laws passed without public acceptance and support you are absolutely wrong. The TX CHL law, in particular, had enough public support that some credit it with displacing Governor Ann Richards who opposed the law.

2. I have no doubt that there are certainly a few people who feel like CC laws are "laced with the poison of regulation", but I have seen no evidence that suggests that's anything like a majority view. From a practical standpoint, in the 15 years I've been carrying with my permit I've found that the "poison laced regulations" of the TX CC laws have actually restricted me only a couple of times and even then they restrictions were only very minor inconveniences.

3. No, it's not possible to dismiss this by saying that people with differing views are deluded by propaganda from anti-gunners. I understand that would wrap things up into a nice, neat, package for you but it's just not that simple.
In Ohio the "Orange Hat Brigade" who usually lobby hunting issues, was called out and circled the capitol building walking laps open carrying until the law was passed.
Interesting anecdote. The fact remains that open carrying or otherwise publicly displaying firearms was not required to pass concealed carry laws in most states across the nation and that means that the anecdote does not provide an answer to the question I posed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top