| Author | Post |
|---|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 03:59 am |
|
joeroket wrote: Vandal wrote:
IIRC, it is Wal-Mart company policy to follow state law regarding firearm carry. I have OC'd in my local one many times with no reactions.
I will check with a good buddy of mine who works there tonight for clarification.
It is corporate policy for them to follow state law, however that does not mean crap if an employee is asking you to leave. You must still comply at the time and fight it with his superiors later. Believe me managers do not take kindly to others going against policy when it comes to money not being spent in their store.
Exactly.
|
vegasche1023
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | Las Vegas, NV |
| Posts: | 64 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 10:10 pm |
|
reply to an email I sent Walmart corporate.
Thank you for your message.
Dear Jonathan,
* There is no policy against customers carrying their handgun in our stores as long as he/she is legally licensed by their state to carry the handgun.
Sincerely,
Walmart Customer Relations
For further correspondence regarding this issue, please reply to this email.
|
David.Car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 10:37 pm |
|
I have OC in every Wal-Mart in this region (valley, north, shadle, airway heights) multiple times in each store and was never asked to leave. Was never hassled.
The employee that usually works the sporting goods counter at the Shadle center thanks me every time, despite knowing me already.
Take it up with corporate. There has been a long history of corp backing us up by stating Wally Worlds follow the state law that the store resides in.
If that stores operator starts hearing stuff from corp he will make sure his employees don't goof up again.
In fact I will be buy that Wal Mart tonight (going to best buy). I will make sure to stop in and walk around for a while and check on some ammo.
|
0V3RC10CK3D
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 07:43 pm |
|
David.Car wrote: I have OC in every Wal-Mart in this region (valley, north, shadle, airway heights) multiple times in each store and was never asked to leave. Was never hassled.
The employee that usually works the sporting goods counter at the Shadle center thanks me every time, despite knowing me already.
Take it up with corporate. There has been a long history of corp backing us up by stating Wally Worlds follow the state law that the store resides in.
If that stores operator starts hearing stuff from corp he will make sure his employees don't goof up again.
In fact I will be buy that Wal Mart tonight (going to best buy). I will make sure to stop in and walk around for a while and check on some ammo.
What's best buy's policy on open carry?
|
David.Car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 08:02 pm |
|
0V3RC10CK3D wrote: What's best buy's policy on open carry?
I have never been stopped or asked about it. No signs posted. Not gonna ask about their policy until someone gives me a hard time. Probably OCed in the Best Buy at the Y 3-4 dozen times now though.
|
heresolong
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Blaine, WA |
| Posts: | 1003 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 09:21 pm |
|
David.Car wrote: 0V3RC10CK3D wrote: What's best buy's policy on open carry?
I have never been stopped or asked about it. No signs posted. Not gonna ask about their policy until someone gives me a hard time. Probably OCed in the Best Buy at the Y 3-4 dozen times now though. Ditto B'ham. I have OC'd a couple times through there, never had an issue with anyone. I also wouldn't ask unless you are prepared for a reflexive anti-gun denial.
|
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1000 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 10:07 pm |
|
0V3RC10CK3D wrote:
David.Car wrote: I have OC in every Wal-Mart in this region (valley, north, shadle, airway heights) multiple times in each store and was never asked to leave. Was never hassled.
The employee that usually works the sporting goods counter at the Shadle center thanks me every time, despite knowing me already.
Take it up with corporate. There has been a long history of corp backing us up by stating Wally Worlds follow the state law that the store resides in.
If that stores operator starts hearing stuff from corp he will make sure his employees don't goof up again.
In fact I will be buy that Wal Mart tonight (going to best buy). I will make sure to stop in and walk around for a while and check on some ammo.
What's best buy's policy on open carry?
Best Buy's policy is to follow state law. This coming directly from HR...
|
G22Paddy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 12:32 am |
|
How about Cabelas? I know they have a sign on their door that says firearms being brought in for repair must be checked in at the front desk, and it doesnt apply to conceal permit holders.
|
A_patriot@ymail.com
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 12:45 am |
|
This is FRIGHTENING:
" You don't. sorry.
I work for a retailer, Staples! That was Easy.
At times I have asked 'non customers' to leave based on poor behavior or safety. Such as using profanity even after I have asked them to stop. I then simply inform them they are on private property and must leave. There is no 'company policy', I simply have the right as the agent for the property owner to ensure the professionalism and safety of my associates and customers."
WRONG. Its SHOCKInG that most of the advice in this thread is contrary to LAW.
Especially on a Forum dedicated to carry which is greatly concerned with LAW.
This post is another "opinion piece" that makes the false generalization that everything in the world works according to my experience and the way I see things.
Washington Revised Code proves you wrong, it reads:
RCW 9A.52.090Criminal trespass — Defenses.
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain; or... (snip)
See Citation in Attorney General McKennas Opinion 2008 No. 8, p.5 at:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188
Question. Are those of you posting this grossly false information just uninformed, or doing it deliberately?
My answer to you, Store Manager, is that I dont work for you. Your Policies are not legally binding on me, Im not your Enployee. Im a CUSTOMER whose job it is now to get you FIRED. Telling you off and putting you in your place is neither a criminal or civil offense.
I will remind you that while you need my business, especially in an economic crash, I have absolutely no need for your store. I have a Credit Card and can take my business to China, as repugnant as that is.
On the other hand, you do need me. Money, honey.
My next move is a contact to your Companies HQ and repeat the Riot Act to them.
"right as the agent for the property owner to ensure the professionalism and safety of my associates and customers.""
You have no such "right." You are an employee with responsibilities under Employment laws of the State/Fed... but if you cant follow RCW, youll never be able to follow me thru the complexities of Employment Law.
Thats that GOD COMPLEX the Leftist Anti Gun crowd uses -
"We just care about the Children"
"Guns are unsafe"
"were just protecting you..."
Wheres your Staples, you need a visit. : )
Shall I bring one Attorney or five? I can afford it!
Last edited on Thu Nov 19th, 2009 12:48 am by A_patriot@ymail.com
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 12:54 am |
|
A_patriot@ymail.com wrote: WRONG. Its SHOCKInG that most of the advice in this thread is contrary to LAW.
Especially on a Forum dedicated to carry which is greatly concerned with LAW.
I found this post to be wonderfully informative. I had not previously seen that RCW.
|
G22Paddy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:00 am |
|
A_patriot@ymail.com wrote:one gigantic troll post
-1 Troll
Last edited on Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:17 am by G22Paddy
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:05 am |
|
G22Paddy wrote: -1 Troll
A. It's incredibly annoying when people quote long posts, that's what [SNIP] is for
B. Can you explain the Troll comment (other than his low post count)?
|
G22Paddy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:21 am |
|
What is [snip]? Not familiar with that tag, unless it's your way of saying to prune quotes, which I went back and did, and will do in future postings.
In terms of him being a troll, I'll quote from Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
He essentially claimed that it's not trespassing if he were to refuse to leave a store when asked. His entire post is obviously flamebait.
|
gogodawgs
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:29 am |
|
I responded. (PM) Low post count.
This person obviously misunderstood. If someone unleashes profanity or is physically dangerous to my employees or the public then they will be asked to leave. A private property owner and agent does have that right.
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:51 am |
|
G22Paddy wrote: What is [snip]? Not familiar with that tag, unless it's your way of saying to prune quotes, which I went back and did, and will do in future postings.
In terms of him being a troll, I'll quote from Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
He essentially claimed that it's not trespassing if he were to refuse to leave a store when asked. His entire post is obviously flamebait.
That's what I meant by [SNIP], thanks.
I agree that his tone was inflammatory, but the material was interesting. I haven't seen anyone quote that RCW in response to the "Manager's can do whatever they want" statement.
I'm interested in understanding how it would apply to OC'ers.
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:55 am |
|
gogodawgs wrote: I responded. (PM) Low post count.
This person obviously misunderstood. If someone unleashes profanity or is physically dangerous to my employees or the public then they will be asked to leave. A private property owner and agent does have that right.
I would guess that "Not being disruptive/disorderly" is a lawful condition you may impose on your patrons.
I am curious if "No weapons" is also a lawful condtion, as no breastfeeding is NOT a lawful condition and it is not even protected by the Constitution.
|
gogodawgs
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:00 am |
|
diesel556 wrote: gogodawgs wrote: I responded. (PM) Low post count.
This person obviously misunderstood. If someone unleashes profanity or is physically dangerous to my employees or the public then they will be asked to leave. A private property owner and agent does have that right.
I would guess that "Not being disruptive/disorderly" is a lawful condition you may impose on your patrons.
I am curious if "No weapons" is also a lawful condtion, as no breastfeeding is NOT a lawful condition and it is not even protected by the Constitution.
What are you talking about?
|
Orphan
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:09 am |
|
This is interesting if your OCing but not being disorderly or disruptive or breaking any law then according to RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080 they can not trespass you. The recent 10th circuit ruling on OC would back this up as long as no laws were being broken.
There must be a catch somewhere because LEOs have been trespassing people for eons.
Orphan
|
gogodawgs
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:18 am |
|
| I would never ask anyone to leave unless there is a clear threat or profanity and they have been asked to stop and don't. Trust me you don't want to ask customers to leave. 99.9% when asked to cool it do. OC is not an issue or any other thing you have mentioned. More people get worked up when a customer brings a bird into the store ... 'service animal', but you are limited in what you may ask them.
|
joeroket
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:30 am |
|
Orphan wrote:
This is interesting if your OCing but not being disorderly or disruptive or breaking any law then according to RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080 they can not trespass you. The recent 10th circuit ruling on OC would back this up as long as no laws were being broken.
There must be a catch somewhere because LEOs have been trespassing people for eons.
Orphan
Section 3 of 9A.52.090 is where the catch is. As soon as you are asked to leave you are no longer licensed to be on the property. As long as you are not being asked to leave for something that is a protected right then you must leave when asked.
Quote McKennas opinion has no bearing on this thread as that opinion is based off the question if a municipality can ban firearms or trespass people from city property because of a firearm. It has absolutely no application to private property.
|
Current time is 09:35 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
