Another Open Carry Texas success story ruins it for Washingtonians.....

tombrewster421 said:

Why the hell do so many gun owners feel that it's ok if one right is trampled as opposed to another. There's quite a few here who just give up their 4a just to play nice.

Click to expand...

Because they dont care about rights, which are colors of inherent liberty. What they care about is what they actually see as a privilege that they feel entitled to, and call it a right because that carries greater rhetorical weight.

tombrewster421 said:

Yes prisoners lose quite a few rights when in prison. That's because they violated the rights of another and went through due process of law to have those rights suspended. If a person on death row is killed by another prisoner it's still murder even though he's technically dead already.

Click to expand...

Not disagreeing, just clarifying:
Rights are never lost or suspended; they can be violated, in the cases of government and crime, and they can be superseded, in the case of justice.

Nothing illegal here, move along.

Complaining about the people conducting themselves in a legal manner instead of complaining that the business over reacted to pressure from a political action group does not make sense to me.

LMTD said:

Nothing illegal here, move along.

Complaining about the people conducting themselves in a legal manner instead of complaining that the business over reacted to pressure from a political action group does not make sense to me.

Click to expand...

Yes!

OC for ME said:

Uh, this is better.

Yes, OCT is asking...requesting that their members to purchase BP pistols (if they don't have one) if they wish to OC in support of their cause, instead of alread owned LGs. Essentially OCT is asking folks to "pay to play."

I don't own a BP pistol or rifle. This may change in the future, but 150 buck goes to ammo for guns I have now and not to a whole new weapons system.

Your fixated on Texans screwing you over in WA. How about talking to your favorite Target store and explain that you are not one of those nutty Texans who goes around scaring folks with a evil black rifle.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think that OCT is just trying to make suggestions that might help the focus narrow on our mission of getting handgun OC passed and normalized. I imagine it is akin to the reasoning behind not allowing LGOC discussion on this forum outside of states where HGOC is prohibited by law. As recently as last month I attended an OC walk in which CJ Grisham OCed his rifle. He has told me that no, he will not stop open carrying rifles and he will never suggest anyone stop. He is not throwing anyone under the bus.

Also, this not directed at you OC for ME, I think it is stupid to continue to tie this decision by Target to the actions of OCT when OCT made it official policy to discontinue LGOC in Target sometime around January due to TABC licensing issues AND OCers around the country had begun more recently to increase their presence in and support of Target, which was being criticized by the likes of MDA just as us in Texas have been criticized by them.

Edit: quoting got jacked up somehow.

Edit: ENM is just trying to incite, IMO.

tombrewster421 said:

There you go missing the point. I never compared rape to a policy change. Comprehend what I'm saying now.

I compared BLAMING a rape victim for the decision a rapist made to BLAMING an OCer for the decision to change policy that affects their natural right to bear arms.

In both cases a persons natural right is affected. In both cases the subject had nothing to do with the decision that was made. Why the hell do so many gun owners feel that it's ok if one right is trampled as opposed to another. There's quite a few here who just give up their 4a just to play nice.

Yes prisoners lose quite a few rights when in prison. That's because they violated the rights of another and went through due process of law to have those rights suspended. If a person on death row is killed by another prisoner it's still murder even though he's technically dead already.

Click to expand...

I must have missed that part in the United States Constitution that states " We have a right to SHOP at Target".

CCJ

If our right to be secure in our person applies everywhere, why would our right to bear arms not? Either we have that right or we don't. Which is it?

I will continue to speak out against those who would deny any person of any right. Whether it be government, an individual or a corporation, makes no difference to me.

tombrewster421 said:

If our right to be secure in our person applies everywhere, why would our right to bear arms not? Either we have that right or we don't. Which is it?

I will continue to speak out against those who would deny any person of any right. Whether it be government, an individual or a corporation, makes no difference to me.

Click to expand...

You have the right to bear arms anywhere you have the right to be, I think he's just pointing out that you don't necessarily have the right to be on Target property. Target may make conditions for entry to their property. Not saying it's good for them to do so, just that I think they do have that authority.

countryclubjoe said:

I must have missed that part in the United States Constitution that states " We have a right to SHOP at Target".

CCJ

Click to expand...

IDK man, it's a licensed public space.

It's not like Costco, where you have to agree to a MEMBERSHIP TERMS OF SERVICE BEFORE ADMISSION.

Target must follow state law. If they want to pass a policy, they must actually 1) ask a OCer to leave and 2) have a no trespass order filed if the person refuses to leave.

This is WA. AFAIK a sign on the door caries no legal weight. Someone is welcome to try and cite otherwise.

tombrewster421 said:

If our right to be secure in our person applies everywhere, why would our right to bear arms not? Either we have that right or we don't. Which is it?

I will continue to speak out against those who would deny any person of any right. Whether it be government, an individual or a corporation, makes no difference to me.

Click to expand...

Hi Tom, I applaud you for you're convictions. Keep in mind that the folks that own target, and target stock holders and target employees and yes even target shoppers also have rights. The owners and share holders have a right to implement policy's, especially if they feel such policy's will increase their profits. The employee's and shoppers have a right to either follow or not follow the policy. If for example employees and customers chose to not follow the policy, employees can seek employment else where, shoppers can shop else where. That is their right. So basically no ones rights are being affected..

Tom, I see from you're post that you hold the 2A and 4A in high regard, as well you should, however there is more to the supreme rule of the land then those rights you chose to fight fore.

See On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill

My .02

Best regards

CCJ

countryclubjoe said:

The owners and share holders have a right to implement policy's, especially if they feel such policy's will increase their profits.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like no BLACK people allowed [/sarcasm]

Or any customer is subject to involuntary detainment without a right to a lawyer and the discretion of the store manager. [/sarcasm]

Or a reporter on premises is NOT ALLOWED to write anything on paper. [/sarcasm]

Etc.

Yeah, private property Rights should trump all other Rights in a licensed PUBLIC space. [/sarcasm]

Open an unlicensed store and you may have an argument. Open a private members only store and you may have an argument.

stealthyeliminator said:

You have the right to bear arms anywhere you have the right to be, I think he's just pointing out that you don't necessarily have the right to be on Target property. Target may make conditions for entry to their property. Not saying it's good for them to do so, just that I think they do have that authority.

Click to expand...

Yup, Target cannot trespass a inanimate object, they can't tell you not to carry, it is your right. What they are left with is trespassing a person. And that will cost them money if they trespass a large segment of society. That is why they did not do that.

Here is their dilemma, MDA has very limited choices of where they can shop where there are no firearms allowed. It is complete bull that they would boycott Target, because they have little choice of non gun stores. OTH people who carry have a WIDE assortment of stores that will welcome them, and that is the game. They have more to lose by alienating a large segment that has plenty of options.

Dave_pro2a said:

Yeah, like no BLACK people allowed [/sarcasm]

Or any customer is subject to involuntary detainment without a right to a lawyer and the discretion of the store manager. [/sarcasm]

Or a reporter on premises is NOT ALLOWED to write anything on paper. [/sarcasm]

Etc.

Yeah, private property Rights should trump all other Rights in a licensed PUBLIC space. [/sarcasm]

Open an unlicensed store and you may have an argument. Open a private members only store and you may have an argument.

Click to expand...

Let me address sarcasm #1- If the owners and share holders felt it would be profitable then they would attempt that policy however I doubt in modern day American such a policy would be profitable.

#2- A privately held company that operates a business and said business is open to the public, can implement such a policy, have you ever been
ask to show your receipt when leaving such a business, I'm guessing you and many others have. Did you ask for an attorney before you showed the receipt? I think not.

#3-The store could issue a policy that no pens, pencils or any writing material is allow on their premises. That would be a business decision.

Yeah, now, is an airplane a public place? How many law abiding citizens exercise their right to keep and bear arms on an airplane?

If you have a problem with a businesses policy then boycott said business, or attempt to violate the policy, get arrested, sue the business and the police agency for violating any rights you feel were violated. Keep in mind that only Government can be held accountable for Constitutional Rights violations and YEAH, last I checked the 2A was a Constitutional right and Target was not a Government.

Yeah, yeah.. LOL

Regards

CCJ

The receipt has been covered many times. Stores have absolutely no authority to demand to see a receipt.

countryclubjoe said:

#2- A privately held company that operates a business and said business is open to the public, can implement such a policy, have you ever been
ask to show your receipt when leaving such a business, I'm guessing you and many others have. Did you ask for an attorney before you showed the receipt? I think not.

Click to expand...

I have been asked to show my receipt many times.

I have NEVER shown my receipt at places like Walmart or Frys. They can bugger off, call the cops and file a no-tresspass order on me if they want -- but none have.

I do show my receipt at Costco because I agreed to their membership terms before shopping at their store.

Open to the public versus open to members only.

WalkingWolf said:

A lot of people are confused about southern culture, it is true that AA are in more peril today then they were in the 60's. I also grew up in that time period. BUT something that the south is very different from the Racist Yankees is that we live together in the south. You will not see small towns devoid of African Americans, even the country it is a mix of ethnicity. Black people that grew up here are mostly respectful good people, compare that with the children of transplanted yankees(military brats) and the pure vile hatred for whites shows it's colors.

Jim Crow laws were written by the NRA, Yankees!

Click to expand...

Yep but some people won't go past the approved state history of the victors, isn't it funny throughout history the winners are always the good guys somehow?

If non fiction is too hard for them Maybe if they would pick up a book like Hucklberry Finn written by a Southern abolitionists, they would get a little education on how not all white southernes were horrible bigots out to get one group of people. If they stick to non fiction they might learn that the south with 1/3 the population had 3-4 times as many abolitionists as the north. Or that they were working out a deal with England and France for financial help in the war that would have ended slavery. Or that slavery was kept instituted at the insistance of 2 southern states and more New England states at the time of the signing of the constitution. Or as you point out the North was way more segregated had very few mixed marriages and where as in the south it was more common. A Texas Governor had a black wife and was reelected. Where as their hero Lincoln, helped enforce laws that kept black people out of his state, and his agenda was a white America with no blacks.

tombrewster421 said:

EMN is really good at deflecting, dismissing the point being made, and changing the subject. He fails to see the point of my analogies. He refuses to see that he is blaming a group of people for a decision that the had no part in making. He is alienating gun owners who are attempting to further gun rights, thereby dividing the community. That is not a winning tactic. He would be willing to throw any of us under the bus and shun us just because we may fight for rights in a way he disagrees with.

He thinks that the state is the only entity subject to the words in the constitution. That an individual or corporation can't violate a person's rights. If government is the only entity that can, then why would the founders create a government with the stated purpose of securing the rights that only it can violate? Wouldn't it make more sense to not create that which can violate a persons rights? It's plain to see that ANYONE can violate a persons rights. Rape is in fact a 4A violation, right to be secure in your person. Why should the 2A be treated any differently?

We have rights. We have them everywhere. Even in prison you still have some rights.

Click to expand...

+1 mostly....rights don't disappear, and I believe an owner of a property can dictate what happens are is allowed on his property.

The government has muddied the waters with make believe civil rights, and by deciding a company or a person must have a license to serve the public.

countryclubjoe said:

...Yeah, now, is an airplane a public place? How many law abiding citizens exercise their right to keep and bear arms on an airplane?...

Click to expand...

No, they are private. And if you own or charter your own plane, guess what you get to bring with you?

MAC702 said:

No, they are private. And if you own or charter your own plane, guess what you get to bring with you?

Click to expand...

Also, can't buy a commercial ticket w/o agreeing to terms.

WalkingWolf said:

The receipt has been covered many times. Stores have absolutely no authority to demand to see a receipt.

Click to expand...

WW

While they have no authority to demand that a customer show said receipt, does not mean that they will not request a customer to show said receipt. You as a customer can either comply by showing the receipt and being on you're merry way or you may chose non compliance to show said receipt and therefore may be suspected of stealing and subjecting yourself to be trespassed. Also keep in mind that a private entity( think Casinos) can label you an " undesirable" person, and simply bar you from their property. Private entities that cater to the general public are not held to any Constitutional laws only Governments can violate you're Constitutional rights.

However if you feel the private entity is violating you're civil rights in some way, IE, they are only requesting black folks or Asian folks or white folks with long hair and beards or folks over 6 feet tall etc, to show said receipt, then you may have a cause of action for a civil rights violation.

Think sporting venues, concerts, movie theaters, all private entities that cater to the general public. They all have rules and regulations that they try to enforce and that customers and ticket holders adhere thereof. If you don't approve of the rules and regulations, you have a right to not purchase a ticket.

To quote Michael Corleone," It's business, not personal".

If you feel you have a civil rights beef against any company please seek proper legal counsel.

Regards

CCJ

Kinda hard to trespass someone LEAVING the store.

WalkingWolf said:

Kinda hard to trespass someone LEAVING the store.

Click to expand...

Nope, it's easy. Call the police, file no trespass order.

If they leave to soon, get their license plate and have papers served on them at their home.

Pretty sure that's all it takes.