Target Addresses Firearms

[WalkingWolf]

I don't know about this specific incident but Target builds a store they actually buy the property not least like most chain stores. This means any property that is in their boundaries (I.e. sidewalks, parking lots etc.) belongs to them and is not considered public property.

On a side note, being in management here at Wal-Mart, you would be surprised at all the complaints we get about havung the bell ringers out front.

Bell ringers do not bother me, but all the groups that make a point of asking for money get tiresome.

 

[wittmeba]

I see it this way.

If you tell a crowd of 30 people with a mix of gun attitudes - gun for and gun against, it seems easier to pacify those for gun control laws with a simple statement of "We request guns not be brought into Target Stores.". Those of us wanting to carry view generalizations differently. I'm not saying we are smarter, but I think most of us have read enough to recognize a difference between a "We request..." and outright "Not allowed or Prohibited" statement. Those against will hear "...guns not be brought into Target Stores". We will hear "...requested guns not be brought into Target Stores". However, it is unfortunate that we are the ones who will need to prove and defend our actions.

You open carry in Target with the confidence there is no law against it. You may be asked to remove it or leave the store. This is the time to play your card (sorry I have not seen a open carry card):

 

[wittmeba]

Bell ringers do not bother me, but all the groups that make a point of asking for money get tiresome.

...especially when you learn they have a higher income then you doing productive work!

 

[Right Wing Wacko]

I see it this way.

If you tell a crowd of 30 people with a mix of gun attitudes - gun for and gun against, it seems easier to pacify those for gun control laws with a simple statement of "We request guns not be brought into Target Stores.". Those of us wanting to carry view generalizations differently. I'm not saying we are smarter, but I think most of us have read enough to recognize a difference between a "We request..." and outright "Not allowed or Prohibited" statement. Those against will hear "...guns not be brought into Target Stores". We will hear "...requested guns not be brought into Target Stores". However, it is unfortunate that we are the ones who will need to prove and defend our actions.

You open carry in Target with the confidence there is no law against it. You may be asked to remove it or leave the store. This is the time to play your card (sorry I have not seen a open carry card):

I'm sorry, but I don't need a license to carry a gun.

 

[waskel]

I'm sorry, but I don't need a license to carry a gun.

+1.
Change the "unlicensed" to "illegal" and you might have something. Of course, criminals already know their gun is illegal (and don't care) and we're back where we started...

 

[protias]

I see it this way.

If you tell a crowd of 30 people with a mix of gun attitudes - gun for and gun against, it seems easier to pacify those for gun control laws with a simple statement of "We request guns not be brought into Target Stores.". Those of us wanting to carry view generalizations differently. I'm not saying we are smarter, but I think most of us have read enough to recognize a difference between a "We request..." and outright "Not allowed or Prohibited" statement. Those against will hear "...guns not be brought into Target Stores". We will hear "...requested guns not be brought into Target Stores". However, it is unfortunate that we are the ones who will need to prove and defend our actions.

You open carry in Target with the confidence there is no law against it. You may be asked to remove it or leave the store. This is the time to play your card (sorry I have not seen a open carry card):

​

More and more people are becoming pro-gun though...

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

 

[decklin]

I see it this way.

If you tell a crowd of 30 people with a mix of gun attitudes - gun for and gun against, it seems easier to pacify those for gun control laws with a simple statement of "We request guns not be brought into Target Stores.". Those of us wanting to carry view generalizations differently. I'm not saying we are smarter, but I think most of us have read enough to recognize a difference between a "We request..." and outright "Not allowed or Prohibited" statement. Those against will hear "...guns not be brought into Target Stores". We will hear "...requested guns not be brought into Target Stores". However, it is unfortunate that we are the ones who will need to prove and defend our actions.

You open carry in Target with the confidence there is no law against it. You may be asked to remove it or leave the store. This is the time to play your card (sorry I have not seen a open carry card):

No need to perpetuate the myth that it ok to charge for the practice of a Right.
Change it to illegal and I'd be ok with it.
You don't pay for any Right except the Second. Why?

 

[Logan 5]

I see it this way.

You open carry in Target with the confidence there is no law against it. You may be asked to remove it or leave the store. This is the time to play your card (sorry I have not seen a open carry card):

I look at that card, and I think that in theory and intent, it's good, however, I disagree with some of the information given.
There are those that have been convicted of felony crimes, violent crimes, or domestic violence crimes that have had their rights returned. Largely in part of winning on appeals. In such a case, should a person have a card saying "well, I was convicted, but later found innocent. but by golly I got my right back, now!" No.

If you pass the state & federal checks and you have a concealed carry permit, that's all they need to know.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Only so much you can put on a 3 by 5 card ....

 

[marshaul]

Classic example of how trying to sit on the fence pleases no one.

Yup. And why basically nobody has followed the cue of Starbucks, Target et al. After all, The Mad Mommies can't afford to boycott the 95% of places which don't prohibit, meanwhile it's easy for us to boycott the 5% which do. As a result to only safe way to land is to "leave it up to the legislature".

We win again.

 

[marshaul]

I see it this way...

I see it this way: take your permit. Shove. And then naff off.

 

[Logan 5]

Only so much you can put on a 3 by 5 card ....

Really? Explain.
This is more along my thinking....


I never could do the PhotoShop thing, so I'm stuck with MS Paint.

 

[wittmeba]

I'm not sure if I should reply or how I should if so. This thread is not about needing a license to carry or not. It is about Target and their Code of Conduct policy.

You all seem to reflect a pissy attitude toward me - I'd like to believe we are on the same side.

I did not create the card. It is available on the internet but seems to have merits. It is simply a means of communicating some thoughts to a merchant.


I'm simply expressing my thoughts about what management of Target may be trying to accomplish to pacify pro and anti-gun people - their customers. In my life experiences I find people hear what they want. Merchants want customers. They really don't care who, just paying customers. Guns are causing a division (DO NOT jump on me about whether it should or not - it does) of people as some believe in their rights to carry and some are afraid of them.

If you feel they need to get off the fence, tell them. If they decide no guns, you just don't do business with them. There are many other places that will take your money. Don't blame me.

If you believe "your rights to carry" are free and clear - I think you are blowing smoke up your own tube.

 

[marshaul]

So make a better card. If photoshop is too much, try GIMP.

I dispute the merits of that card; it reinforces the notion that government oversight does improve safety, or indeed that it even has the potential to do so.

The possession of a CHP reveals precisely nothing about an individual -- except, of course, his willingness to accept privilege as a substitute for right.

 

[cloudcroft]

Here's a card that keeps it simple (attached), i.e., applies the KISS Principle. As an added bonus, it's good for people who can't read -- or more and more nowadays, people who no savvy English. ;-)

...but it's an animated (if opened in your browser) GIF file so please use with caution since when it's printed & carried, it may move around a bit in your pocket as it cycles images of various handguns. Some carriers may find such pocket movement to be disturbing, but I find it's sometimes a conversation-starter. ;-)

For less adventurous carriers, however, you can find these same cards in UNanimated JPG format also...Google the key words "no guns no dollars" using their "Images" search engine.

 

[Grapeshot]

Really? Explain.
This is more along my thinking....
View attachment 12276

I never could do the PhotoShop thing, so I'm stuck with MS Paint.

That would indict a position contrary to unlicensed OC which is legal in many (30) states and which would definitely be contrary to the spirit and intent of those states having Constitutional Carry.
http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=103

In fact your card only endorses carry with a permit/license - strange.

 

[utbagpiper]

The possession of a CHP reveals precisely nothing about an individual -- except, of course, his willingness to accept privilege as a substitute for right.

I can accept that some don't want to get a permit to carry. I'm fully agreed that no such permit should be needed.

But, the possession of such a permit in most States does reveal quite a bit about the individual and statements to the contrary simply do not bear up to an objective investigation. Ignoring the extremely rare case of permits issued in error, the possession of a permit to carry reveals that the person was eligible to get the permit. In most cases this revels a clean criminal and mental health history. In Utah, for example, persons with a permit are less likely than the general population to ever commit a serious crime and FAR less likely to commit a serious crime than is a person who is ineligible for a permit.

It is also clear to me that the permit system has allowed many States to move ever closer toward full statutory recognition of the RsKBA than we might expect to be reasonably possible trying to achieve in one single step. I think a fine case can be made that in the absence of some 40 years of history on shall issue, Heller may not have turned out nearly as good as it did, which might well have meant no McDonald.

Permits are far from ideal. But they have served a valuable purpose in more ways than one. They have allowed one or two generations to defend themselves legally where otherwise it would have been illegal. Notice that 40 years ago, most supporters of RKBA were hunters. Today, most are interested in self-defense first. Would that be true were we still looking at no effective carry at all (many States did not permit any effective possession of guns for defense, and with the federal gun free school zone, permit free possession in urban areas remains effectively illegal even in the 6 constitutional carry States)?

I can respect your choice not to have a permit. You ought to respect those whose decisions differ from your own.

Charles

 

[marshaul]

But, the possession of such a permit in most States does reveal quite a bit about the individual and statements to the contrary simply do not bear up to an objective investigation. Ignoring the extremely rare case of permits issued in error, the possession of a permit to carry reveals that the person was eligible to get the permit. In most cases this revels a clean criminal and mental health history. In Utah, for example, persons with a permit are less likely than the general population to ever commit a serious crime and FAR less likely to commit a serious crime than is a person who is ineligible for a permit.

I have respect for folks who get permits so that they may carry when otherwise they wouldn't, but that has nothing whatever to do with my objection.

Anyway, selection bias: comparing those who have permits with those who are ineligible to have permits.

Not being able to get a permit says a thing or two. But it simply doesn't work the other way. What can you affirmatively say about the trustworthiness of a person who has received a felony conviction? Now, what can you say affirmatively about the trustworthiness of everyone else?

Statistically, most crimes are committed by a few people. So, statistically, by eliminating those people you've eliminated "most crimes" from consideration. But that doesn't reveal much of use (this is why statistics and technocratic analysis, and by extension things like government licensure, tend to be useless), because those people wouldn't bother getting permits anyway. Unfortunately, the vast majority of remaining crimes (especially serious crimes like murder) are committed by those without an extensive rap sheet. Most of those folks could receive permits; whether they do so or not must depend on other factors not under consideration.

There is nothing inherent about licensure which disfavors these "late in life" killers. If these folks are less likely to seek permits, there are other sociological causes, which are free to change at any time (being independent of the law).

When you know an individual is a criminal (i.e. has received a felony conviction), you are equipped to make a specific judgment about that person. But knowing a person has no convictions is not the same as knowing they are not a criminal. What you have here is the difference between making a specific statement about one specific individual, and making a class (category) assumption about the other.

Individuals are not statistics. It is not especially meaningful to discuss the "likelihood" of a given individual's actions, while it may be quite meaningful to do this to people as a class. For instance, I am highly unlikely to be killed my any person I meet walking down to the convenience store. Therefore, as a class, people I meet walking down the street are "unlikely to commit crimes". Now, say I encounter a particular individual walking down the street. All I know about him is that he belongs to the class of "people walking down the street". What else am I equipped to say or predict about his likelihood of killing me compared to everybody else's? The answer is, of course, "nothing", from which we can see that class generalizations do not readily apply usefully to the individual.

I'm sorry, Charles. I just don't buy it. Lots of work has been done massaging numbers to prove one or other various political points, but you're a long way from demonstrating that category distinctions such as "people I do not know to have committed crimes" have utility, or that government is particularly positioned to make these determinations, or indeed even that a criminal history is an especially good criterion for making the determination. After all, government has implicitly declared that all presently-employed police are stable, law-abiding, professional individuals (certainly none of them are convicted felons).

The simple fact is when you are comfortable around a random stranger, you are making a class/category judgment. You are making the same sort of judgment about a licensed individual. The only implication from selecting permit-holders as a "more preferable" category is that non-permit holders are "less preferable". But why should you treat a non-permit-holder any differently from any random Joe of the street? If you shouldn't, then why are we touting the merits of permit eligibility?

Frankly, it seems to me that you're operating from a position of innumeracy coupled with an exaggerated, credentialist notion of the value of bureaucratic approval.

 

[Logan 5]

That would indict a position contrary to unlicensed OC which is legal in many (30) states and which would definitely be contrary to the spirit and intent of those states having Constitutional Carry.
http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=103

In fact your card only endorses carry with a permit/license - strange.

First off, if you had looked at the origin of the card you would see it is not mine.

I really don't care either way, really. If they have a sign saying "no guns", then respect their wishes. If you dispute it and have had no previous problems, then I guess if you want to still patronize then while OC'kng or CC'ing, then don't let me stop you.

I don't care!

 

[OC for ME]

And a valid drivers license says what about the ability of that DL holder to be a safe and responsible driver.

A license/permit is only proof that you have given unto Caesar his tribute.

Rationalizing Target's "no gun policy" seems to be a academic exercise at this point.