Kroger chain bans customers from carrying

[bigfatdave]

As said before, people open carry in that store often. The issue was an OVERZEALOUS MANAGER.

Overzealous and inconsistent.

"Ummm, I think your gun is dangerous, but I'll just annoy you on purpose anyway"

 

[Atroxus]

I agree with everything you said Basicblur. However I believe that property owners can limit what parts of the public can use their property. I don't thinks it is as "all or nothing" as your quote makes it seem. For example, "No shirt, no shoes, no service". So while a business is free to post signs and not allow the public to use their property if we are not clothed properly, or if we are armed we as consumers are still free to take our business elsewhere.

 

[basicblur]

However I believe that property owners can limit what parts of the public can use their property.

Even if they are denying you a constitutional right (and since it's in The Constitution, by nature it's a civil right).
As stated, this one is probably headed for the courts somewhere down the road?

I don't thinks it is as "all or nothing" as your quote makes it seem.

For the record, that's not my quote-it's from the Napolotano video interview.

For example, "No shirt, no shoes, no service". So while a business is free to post signs and not allow the public to use their property if we are not clothed properly, or if we are armed we as consumers are still free to take our business elsewhere.

Are you really going to equate no shirt/no shoes to OC/CC?
Don't know all the particulars regarding the shirt/shoes signs, but it may be related to health issues, and is The Constitution as specific 'bout you not wearing shirts/shoes as it is 'bout your right to keep and bear arms?
How 'bout a "No Jews, no Italians, no Irish etc sign?
How far would a business get with a sign like that posted?

 

[rellascout]

Legally, don't know how this issue is going to hash out down the road, but here's Judge Napolotano's take on the Starbucks open carry flap.

Note he says, "Starbucks is a public accommodation, which means it invites the public to come on its property, and when the public comes on its property, the public doesn't shed any of it's Constitutional Rights".

As he says in the video-if it's your property, you can pretty much do what you want.
If it's your property and you openly invited the public on it, not so much.

Until there is a national right to carry your "constitutional rights" are not in play. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[rellascout]

How 'bout a "No Jews, no Italians, no Irish etc sign?
How far would a business get with a sign like that posted?

Apples and oranges. You simply don't get it.

 

[basicblur]

Until there is a national right to carry your "constitutional rights" are not in play.

Which may be decided by SCOTUS very soon (McDonald vs Chicago)?
'Course, there will probably be more legal cases 'til this thing is hashed out.

 

[Atroxus]

Even if they are denying you a constitutional right (and since it's in The Constitution, by nature it's a civil right).
As stated, this one is probably headed for the courts somewhere down the road?


For the record, that's not my quote-it's from the Napolotano video interview.


Are you really going to equate no shirt/no shoes to OC/CC?
Don't know all the particulars regarding the shirt/shoes signs, but it may be related to health issues, and is The Constitution as specific 'bout you not wearing shirts/shoes as it is 'bout your right to keep and bear arms?
How 'bout a "No Jews, no Italians, no Irish etc sign?
How far would a business get with a sign like that posted?

When I said "your quote" I meant that as in the quote that you posted, I wasn't trying to say that it was a quote of somthihng you said.

And absolutely I am willing to equate wearing a gun with wearing a shirt. If a business can tell someone they can't enter because they are not wearing something, I see no reason that they can't do the same for someone who IS wearing something. I do think that to do so they should have to post any restrictions clearly at all entrances though, which gives consumers opportunity to not use services that deny entry to OC/CC gun carriers. We have the right to carry, but at the same time the antis also have the right to have their property be as unsafe as they want by denying the presence of firearms.

 

[rellascout]

Which may be decided by SCOTUS very soon (McDonald vs Chicago)?
'Course, there will probably be more legal cases 'til this thing is hashed out.

Right but people like you are already declaring it a right. At this point that is not the case yet you continue to claim it as one. Your assertion has no legal standing.

At this point the right to carry is a state issue. I know of no state that will allow you to remain armed on private property once the property owner has asked you to leave.

You are arguing from a non-existent foundation because it suits your purpose. I can argue that the sky is green all I want but it does not give my conclusions any credibility.

 

[CSA 357]

Is kroger the only store where you live?

 

[rondog]

Does anybody know if King Soopers is a part of the Kroger chain? KS are pretty prolific here, and I "think" they're part of the same co.

 

[Averageman]

I got a great idea,...DONT SHOP AT KROGERS.

 

[riddleofsteel]

Many years ago the Kmart in Greensboro, NC posted their store against firearms. This is despite the fact they sell ammo and firearms. I asked for clarification as to if it pertained to CCW holders and was told it did.
I contacted Grassroots NC. This is the group that tirelessly campaigned for CCW here in NC. Within a week the communications of the business offices of Walmart was flooded with complaints, inquiries, and coments.
Signs came down.

Booya...strength in numbers

 

[Caliper_Mi]

I believe I have a right to own and carry a gun but that right does not trump property owners and business owners rights to post and to prohibit carry on their property.

I do agree with this. I actually agree with the later statements about a property owner denying anyone access to their property for any reason they choose. It is private property, after all and since denying access to it harms no one else, that is their choice.

However, in this case the private property is that of a merchant and they want our money. So, while I respect their choice, I do not have to patronize them.

Someone offered the possibility of a business forbidding people of a certain race from entering. I do believe that they have the right to do that. But, society would not tolerate it. Most people (myself included) would boycott such a store and likely drive them from business.

I think of the business owner denying me the right to carry in the same way. We can certainly respect their choice, but at the same time calmly inform them that as a consequence of our respecting their choice, we will be taking our money elsewhere. Sure, we may not get the same public outrage as a store that bans Jewish people or Hispanics, but we as gun owners and armed citizens can boycott the store and inform them of why. Think of it as your vote for what types of business you want around. This does work and if we stick to it it will change things.

 

[hso]

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=270671

General is the place to debate issues. Activism has a more narrow action oriented focus. See rellascout's thread in General if you want to debate the individual vs. property owner rights question.