Walmart is SERIOUS!

[Jhhnn]

Hunting is like playing a game, where the other side doesn't even know that they're even playing..

Forget the deer, and the squirrels.

Go old school. Let's see you take down a big grizzly bear with nothing but a Bowie knife.

I gave up hunting long ago. It is, however, part of modern game management & a legitimate source of meat, some of it truly excellent. Conservationists & hunters often find common ground.

Home | Ducks Unlimited

Ducks Unlimited is the leader in wetland and waterfowl conservation. Established in 1937, Ducks Unlimited is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting wetlands, grasslands, and associated habitats to benefit waterfowl, other wildlife, and communities.

www.ducks.org

 

[bigboxes]

I support carry. But I also support businesses right to restrict who carries in their store. I think too many freak out over stuff like this. My Marine buddy has to text me about how Walmart is bad for not selling .223 and 9mm ammo. You can buy it elsewhere. Online.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I support carry. But I also support businesses right to restrict who carries in their store. I think too many freak out over stuff like this. My Marine buddy has to text me about how Walmart is bad for not selling .223 and 9mm ammo. You can buy it elsewhere. Online.

One of the family members told me their manager remarked (in the meeting where they were informing them of the new policy about asking people carrying guns to leave) that he was a hunter and disagreed with Wal-Mart because he didn't like that he couldn't buy all the ammo sizes he wanted since Wal-Mart only carries some varieties (and therefore he can't get his employee discount on them since he has to buy them elsewhere).

No doubt that he was doing this for clicks and giggles. I think one problem for companies like Walmart is that they leave themselves open to a lawsuit (successful or not) by not having a firm policy that is enforced across all stores. They are already moving in the direction of outright banning weapons in their stores, which is good.

A few more mass shootings in their stores ought to help them get their policies dialed in once and for all.

The issue is, they kinda can't do that as some states have laws that override it (although I see stores with signs saying open carry or even guns aren't allowed although I'm fairly certain Arizona law overrules that). This policy is straight up stupid though as it puts it onto the employees, and then imagine instances where an employee does it but then another employee says its fine (or maybe even a manager). Its just going to lead to more issues and is opening them to these surrogate-penis fanatics pulling stunts like this. I'm assuming law enforcement would be exempt, but what happens when an employee asks one of them to (there are officers that are in more plain clothes instead of a uniform) and then the person pulls a gun. Hell, black employees could even argue they're more concerned about the police officer carrying (and point to the situation where the officer ran up and executed the black guy when he was carrying a toy gun that he picked up from in the store).

Not that I can totally blame Wal-Mart. You're kinda f'ed on this issue since the laws, politics, and other there's no way you can win. But this seems like an especially poor way of handling it.

 

[Amol S.]

Open gun carriers would definetly cause the Walmart mascot to go from to

 

[JEDIYoda]

A lot of BS going on in this thread by gun nuts!!Walmart has a no open carry policy nationwide!!
What is the issue?
Is Walmart taking your weapons from you?? No!!
I really don`t see what the issue is.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Actually ... No. It's not theft unless you don't pay. You have to be past the last point of payment before you can make an arrest.

Now things like grapes are different. You can make an arrest because those and a few other things are priced by weight. He can a totally empty bottle to the cashier and pay and it's not theft.



But, they're rebels! The Wild Bunch come to life!

They want to shoot, what they want to shoot, when they want to shoot it. Every Marine and soldier I ever knew didn't do squat, without the order to "lock and load".

I never once released a weapon, without a "weapons free" or "fire at will".

sounds to me like your talking about a militia........who would have guessed?

 

[Paladin3]

He's trespassing when he stays after being asked to leave. It doesn't matter why he's asked to leave.

He wasn't trespassing. Walmart called the cops to ask him to leave because they didn't want him there open carrying. After the cops contacted him, informed him of Walmart's wishes and served him with a trespass warrant he was given his gun back and left peacefully. That's not trespassing. None of the stories I've read said a manager asked him to leave and he refused.

I don't support what this little grandstanding prick did with the live stream and all, but he didn't actually break any law, which the cops clearly told him in the video. Walmart stores are private property and they have the right to dictate what is and isn't allow within their store, so long as they are not discriminating against a protected class and apply their policies uniformly.

 

[Paladin3]

People like yourself, who falsely imagine that their 2a rights supersede the private property rights of others, and who also self-righteously assume that this issue is about some people being 'scared of guns,' are IMO the biggest threat to gun rights today.

Except I've never EVER said my 2A rights supersede the private property rights of others, so where the fuck did you get that from? I believe the exact opposite.

And, when someone calls the cops on a person legally open carrying simply because they don't like guns, it usually is out of fear, or a simple desire to harass. If you called my local 911 to report a person shopping with a holstered weapon they would only come out if that person was doing something illegal or suspicious, and carrying in and of itself is NOT suspicious.

But that's not what happened in this case. Walmart had every right to ask the man to leave, and call the cops to ask him to leave and issue a trespassing warrant to him saying please don't come back. Private property rights supersede gun rights. Shopping at Walmart is not a right.

 

[Paladin3]

I support carry. But I also support businesses right to restrict who carries in their store. I think too many freak out over stuff like this. My Marine buddy has to text me about how Walmart is bad for not selling .223 and 9mm ammo. You can buy it elsewhere. Online.

Exactly, no business has to cater to you if they don't want to earn your dollar or if you are just flat out too unreasonable a customer. Just like you get to decide where you shop and spend your hard earned dollars. The folks screaming loudest about their rights don't think Walmart has the right to decide who can and can't shop there (so long as they are not discriminating against a protected class.) So very hypocritical.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I don't support what this little grandstanding prick did with the live stream and all, but he didn't actually break any law, which the cops clearly told him in the video. Walmart stores are private property and they have the right to dictate what is and isn't allow within their store, so long as they are not discriminating against a protected class and apply their policies uniformly.

I support 100% a persons right to take video of anything they see in public!!

 

[Vic]

Except I've never EVER said my 2A rights supersede the private property rights of others, so where the fuck did you get that from? I believe the exact opposite.

And, when someone calls the cops on a person legally open carrying simply because they don't like guns, it usually is out of fear, or a simple desire to harass. If you called my local 911 to report a person shopping with a holstered weapon they would only come out if that person was doing something illegal or suspicious, and carrying in and of itself is NOT suspicious.

But that's not what happened in this case. Walmart had every right to ask the man to leave, and call the cops to ask him to leave and issue a trespassing warrant to him saying please don't come back. Private property rights supersede gun rights. Shopping at Walmart is not a right.

My apologies then. I've seen too many claiming that their gun rights supersede private property rights, particularly on this current topic.

This is entirely a business decision by Walmart. It's not that they want to lose anyone's business, it's that El Paso is going to be very expensive for them, such that the risk of lost business from this decision is far less than the risk of another El Paso.

 

[Paladin3]

My apologies then. I've seen too many claiming that their gun rights supersede private property rights, particularly on this current topic.

This is entirely a business decision by Walmart. It's not that they want to lose anyone's business, it's that El Paso is going to be very expensive for them, such that the risk of lost business from this decision is far less than the risk of another El Paso.

Nobody wants to see innocent folks killed, and I think Walmart is perfectly within their right to ask those who carry to keep it concealed. Only nuts who insist on opening carrying get bent over this kind of reasonable request. I could tell this guy was nuts when I heard about him claiming how Walmart was lucky to have him there, armed, and ready to defend their secured gun counter. He probably stands outside by the kiddie rides making sure no kids are dropping slugs in the bucking bronco.

As you said, Walmart made the right decision for their business model. Again, even if I didn't agree with their decision it's their stores to do with as they will. I enjoy Walmart's sporting good section, but that's not the store's mainstay by a long shot. Walmart is where I go when I need toilet paper and a pint of ice cream (then I cruise sporting goods, particularly the knife case and fishing poles, to see if anything cool is on clearance.)

I personally only carry, always concealed, maybe 10-20% of the time I leave the house. Never on the way to work because I have no place secure enough to leave the gun while working. And not every time I go out even on my days off. And I carry knowing full well that I will likely never, ever need it, that nobody should ever know I've got it, and that it's a huge responsibility to keep the gun safe and out of the hands of someone who would misuse it.

But if I ever need it, I'll be glad I have it. Just like playing the lottery is pretty much a waste of money, but I have personally met (back when I was a newspaper photographer) several people who have won $1M or more doing so.

And I will admit there is a bit of a psychological issue when it comes to guns. I know how to handle a gun safely. I've trained to do so. I understand the difference between fantasy and the real pain of others. I have the ability to empathize and understand that my irresponsible actions very well could hurt another individual, which is wrong. And I know I am a moral person who doesn't want to hurt anyone.

But, just like a chainsaw, I know that my safety precautions and safe handling of my potentially dangerous tools vastly mitigates the chance I will ever hurt myself or anyone else with them by accident. And I believe I am firm enough of character that I won't let a gun turn me into a murder, as are most people.

And I like guns. They aren't just a tool to keep me safe, not by a long shot (pun intended.) I use them for hunting, various shooting sports and plinking, with self-defense as a very tertiary reason for owning them.

But here is the rub: While I dislike people telling me that I am too stupid to own a gun safely, there are a small but substantial number of gun owners who's actions have proven that they absolutely are too stupid to have one. How do we keep our gun rights when way too many people don't seem to understand the responsibility that comes with them?

 

[obidamnkenobi]

So about that black guy who got shot for holding the toy or paint gun?

The cops should have just taken this guy out with a sniper shot from across the parking lot, and then claimed they felt threatened. No charges filed..

 

[JEDIYoda]

The cops should have just taken this guy out with a sniper shot from across the parking lot, and then claimed they felt threatened. No charges filed..

amazing the quality of people they will allow in these forums.....
At least your not a gun owner...are yaz?

 

[HomerJS]

So about that black guy who got shot for holding the toy or paint gun?

People hating on Walmart ending open carry want to keep it because people like John Crawford get shot. These same people didn't give a fuck then.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

mazing the quality of people they will allow in these forums.....
At least your not a gun owner...are yaz?

huh, what? *confused

 

[Paladin3]

I support 100% a persons right to take video of anything they see in public!!

So long as you are standing in a public place you can photograph or video tape pretty much anything you can see without any permission required with a very few, specific exceptions. What you can do with those images is limited, which is why most uses require a release signed by the subject. Editorial use is completely legal without any release, so long as you don't commit liable. There is no such thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy outside of your home and a few other specific place, definitely not while out in public.

But a Walmart is not a public space. It's a private store that allows the public use for the express purpose of conducting business with the store. When you are done conducting that business you can't just hang around. And, while you are inside of the store it has the right to set any conditions it wants for you to remain on property, such as no video or photography. At least as long as those conditions do not discriminate against a protected class.

The guy went in open carrying despite Walmart's (I assume) posted policy against it, started live streaming his grandstanding shenanigans and tried to get kicked out so he could cry his rights were violated. The fucking idiot doesn't even understand basic property rights. As far as he is probably concerned The Constitution starts and stops at the 2A and it's the absolute, primary law of the land superseding all others.

I support reasonable gun rights and the very important responsibilities that go with those rights. Too many Americans are all about rights and never think of the associated responsibilities.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So long as you are standing in a public place you can photograph or video tape pretty much anything you can see without any permission required with a very few, specific exceptions. What you can do with those images is limited, which is why most uses require a release signed by the subject. Editorial use is completely legal without any release, so long as you don't commit liable. There is no such thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy outside of your home and a few other specific place, definitely not while out in public.

But a Walmart is not a public space. It's a private store that allows the public use for the express purpose of conducting business with the store. When you are done conducting that business you can't just hang around. And, while you are inside of the store it has the right to set any conditions it wants for you to remain on property, such as no video or photography. At least as long as those conditions do not discriminate against a protected class.

The guy went in open carrying despite Walmart's (I assume) posted policy against it, started live streaming his grandstanding shenanigans and tried to get kicked out so he could cry his rights were violated. The fucking idiot doesn't even understand basic property rights. As far as he is probably concerned The Constitution starts and stops at the 2A and it's the absolute, primary law of the land superseding all others.

I support reasonable gun rights and the very important responsibilities that go with those rights. Too many Americans are all about rights and never think of the associated responsibilities.

I am sorry that you are totally ignorant of the law when it come to taking video! I need no release to post video that I take of you in a public place! Nice try though!

I will leave your right to bear arms alone and you leave my right to video tape alone!!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yeah because you never know if an attempted mugging will occur in the toy section of store

Conceal carry defeats the whole purpose of open carry trolling.

 

[bigboxes]

How do we keep our gun rights when way too many people don't seem to understand the responsibility that comes with them?

In Texas, we have to attend classes for gun safety and proficiency to carry. I think it's fair to expect the same for all gun owners. I don't see why it's such a big deal. I want people to at least take a safety class.

 

[JEDIYoda]

In Texas, we have to attend classes for gun safety and proficiency to carry. I think it's fair to expect the same for all gun owners. I don't see why it's such a big deal. I want people to at least take a safety class.

actually you can attend a lot of that class time using online registration......
Getting an Online Texas License To Carry requires just a few tasks to complete.

Step 1: Register for the 4 to 6-hour online classroom instruction which is done with our Texas Online License To Carry Class. A written examination is administered at the completion of the classroom instruction when taken at LicenseToCarry.com. Discounts are available to qualified applicants.

The Texas Online License To Carry Class is modular so you can take the course at your own pace using your computer, tablet or mobile phone. LicenseToCarry.com designed the class to be affordable, accessible and convenient for our students.

Step 2: After completing the classroom instruction, you must pass the written examination with a score of 70% or above. The results are immediate, and you can either download or print your LTC-101 immediately or at any other time that works best you.

Active Military personnel, County Jailers or State Correctional Officers are exempt from having to go to the range for the 1 to 2-hours additional gun safety training and the proficiency demonstration. Qualified applicants can jump to Step 3.

If you are not exempt, the next step is to find a local range to attend to receive 1 to 2-hours additional training on gun safety and to shoot the 50-round course-of-fire as the proficiency demonstration. Remember to take your LTC-101 to the range and get it signed by the range instructor.

Step 3: Start the online application for LTC at https://txapps.texas.gov/txapp/txdps/ltc. Here, you will provide information, pay the application fee, schedule and pay for your fingerprints. You will also upload the documents the state requires including your completed LTC-101. Qualified individuals will also find discounts listed that apply towards the application fee.

 

[Paladin3]

In Texas, we have to attend classes for gun safety and proficiency to carry. I think it's fair to expect the same for all gun owners. I don't see why it's such a big deal. I want people to at least take a safety class.

I'm of two minds on this.

First, I took a class when I was young before I got my hunting licence that covered gun safety. I've also sat through classes that taught when you can and can't use deadly force. I've been run thorough (as a visitor) a shoot/don't shoot training simulator run by the California Highway Patrol. I've spent many, many hours researching the law and training, so I know my weapons well enough that I can operate them safely and responsibly. And I've taken advise from lawyers, experts and law enforcement rather than listen to the latest tactifools teaching to shoot first and keep shooting like a boss. I wish every gun owner would do likewise.

But, to put barriers in the way of a citizen exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right is wrong, unless that person has committed a crime or otherwise been judged unfit to exercise that right. It would be unthinkable to require a test, permit, license or other burden on a citizen before they can vote, right? So how can we do so for some rights, but not others? I'm not advocating for unrestricted gun ownership at all, and we have plenty of reasonable gun control laws on the books already. But if it's too much to ask that voters show a $20 state issued ID before they vote, then how can you say a law abiding citizen, who's never been judged mentally incompetent, has to prove they are worthy of their 2A constitutional rights?

In the end, constitutional rights are guaranteed by the constitution unless you have done something to lose them. They are not something government can withhold pending citizens jumping through their hoops. Citizens have already met the requirements simply by being of age and law-abiding.

 

[shortylickens]

I'm of two minds on this. I took a class when I was young before I got my hunting licence that covered gun safety. I've also taken classes that taught when you can and can't use deadly force. I've been run thorough (as a visitor) a shoot/don't shoot training simulator run by the California Highway Patrol. I've spent many, many hours researching the law and training, so I know my weapons well enough that I can operate them safely and responsibly. And I've taken advise from lawyers, experts and law enforcement rather than listen to the latest tactifool who teaches to shoot first and keep shooting. I wish every gun owner would do likewise.

But to put barriers in the way of a citizen exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right is wrong, unless that person has committed a crime or otherwise been judged unfit to exercise that right. It would be unthinkable to require a test, permit, license or other burden on a citizen before they can vote, right? So how can we do so for some rights, but not others? I'm not advocating for unrestricted gun ownership at all. But if it's too much to ask that voters show a $20 state issued ID before they vote, then how can you say a law abiding citizen who's never been judged mentally incompetent has to prove they are worthy of their constitutional rights?

In the end, constitutional rights are guaranteed by the constitution unless you have done something to lose them. They are not something government can withhold pending citizens jumping through their hoops. Citizens have already met the requirements simply by being of age and law-abiding.

Lawyers are sometimes good places to get advice, but not always. Theres more than a couple who advocate carrying with an empty chamber.
That defeats the purpose of having a gun entirely. Either carry loaded or dont bother.

If I had an empty gun the one night that guy threatened to kill me I'd have been in deep trouble.

 

[Paladin3]

Lawyers are sometimes good places to get advice, but not always. Theres more than a couple who advocate carrying with an empty chamber.
That defeats the purpose of having a gun entirely. Either carry loaded or dont bother.

If I had an empty gun the one night that guy threatened to kill me I'd have been in deep trouble.

Just like scientists, there are a few nutty lawyers. That's why you have to rely on widely circulated, peer reviewed studies and opinions.

 

[shortylickens]

Just like scientists, there are a few nutty lawyers. That's why you have to rely on widely circulated, peer reviewed studies and opinions.

Not nutty. Just ignorant.
They know the law, they dont know tactics.