Possible Walmart OC trespasser banned

Status
Not open for further replies.
Walmart has traditionally been one of the most agreeable locations to citizens doing things. They allowed people to do things in their parking lots many other stores do not like park or camp, until the homeless crisis in places made it too much for them. They allowed people to solicit for money or causes or other things in front of their stores. They also allowed open carry and other things.
Meanwhile many other retailers raced to restrict things.

The biggest things I could say bad about Walmart over the years is they put a lot of others out of business selling cheap Chinese products for less than the competition while driving a race to the bottom of hiring the cheapest employees possible, changing the landscape from mom and pop businesses run by people living a middle class lifestyle back in the day to giant retailers employeeing people barely getting by (and now face their own troubles against even less expensive to operate online retailers.)
As well as the fact that for some reason a portion of the customers of walmart often include the worst elements of society. If I want to feel like I am on Jerry Springer I could always walk through walmart.

Now they are not even banning guns, just saying we don't want people walking in with rifles slung over their back scaring people after a guy with a rifle came in and started shooting people in a well publicized attack because it scares the customers, creates a scene and reduces business.
I don't think open carry of handguns was on their radar but they created a policy that includes them now as well.

The real reason is probably because if you allow it but then some irresponsible ass comes into the store doing it you have nothing to ask them to leave over, while it causes problems. It then puts the employees choosing to confront them in an akward position, arguing with someone armed, and unsure if corporate will even back their decision to harass the customer or ask them to leave. Making it a policy simplifies all of that, the employees know the course of action allowed. This is a huge chain all over using the least expensive demographic for employees it does not want making policy decisions, not a mom and pop business that can pick and choose how to handle each person. A more impersonal giant corporation where the average employee is not even known to corporate and they need clear policies for people they do not trust the discretion of to act in accordance with.
 
Last edited:
Now they are not even banning guns
But why the handgun ammunition and short rifle cartridge sales ban and sale of handgun ban in Alaska (Where they need it the most)?

Which all makes sense when you take into consideration that Walmart is partner with Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown anti-gun operation - https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/w...ts-responsible-firearms-retailer-partnership/

From Walmart policies page - https://corporate.walmart.com/policies

"Walmart is a charter member of the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership, organized by Walmart and Everytown for Gun Safety."
 

Why did Shannon Watts turn it into a women’s issue?

“Your customers are American women”

What a broad over generalization. Some of you know I do leatherwork and upholstery. Not a week goes by that I don’t go to JoAnn’s.

I’m male by the way to be clear.

Also, why can’t women be pro 2A? The so called “victim groups” have been so brainwashed. If they even think a belief that is commonly related to conservative beliefs then they are somehow selling out their “group”. Like if a woman or minority voted for anyone but the Dem candidate then they automatically somehow set back their group’s social advancement. As such they seem to rigidly walk some party line who may or may not even care about their “group”.
 
Well I was not aware of that Lifelife. I guess they have jumped on the bandwagon too. They are no longer selling handgun ammunition for some political or legal reason which I do not agree with. But I guess not selling handguns in the only place they still did makes sense if they are so against handguns they won't even sell ammunition for them anymore and won't stock the ammunition for a gun a customer would purchase.
Also sounds like the ammunition for long guns in calibers of common short action rifles is what they are stopping, even though most articles call them short barreled rifle ammunition.
So no more 5.56 and similar rounds used in ARs AKs and other tactical rifles, the types of firearms best used for defensive purposes, preferred and used almost exclusively by law enforcement, and the most common in the United States.
That I can hold against them.
 
As the OP, as new details have emerged, this is not about Walmart's policies, this is about an idiot further hurting gun owners' image, and deserves what he got (if not more). As has been said, just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. While I take issue with Walmart policies (now, a different topic), I also have issues with this person, whether trying to promote OC, promote gun owners' image, or, most likely, promoting his FB image. It is sad that the drive for attention has replaced common sense.
 
Is there an actual video of the WHOLE EVENT out there that we all can see?? I don't do Facebook so I don't know.

I for one would like to see the whole thing from start to finish, not just the clip when there are 5 or 6 Police there.
 
Their house, their rules.
If any business owner or private property owner tells you to leave, for any reason, you do so.

er, No. A private business or person cannot ignore the law any more than a person carrying a firearm. For my Kansas friends here is the current law;


Chapter 75 .-- STATE DEPARTMENTS, PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

Article 7c - Firearms

75-7c24. Restrictions on carrying unconcealed firearms; exceptions; penalties; sign requirements.

(a) provided that the building is conspicuously posted in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general as a building where carrying a unconcealed firearm is prohibited, it shall be unlawful to carry an unconcealed firearm into the such building.

(c) It shall be a violation of this section to carry an unconcealed firearm if the building is posted in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general pursuant to subsection

(d). Any person who violates this section shall not be subject to a criminal penalty but may be subject to denial to such premises or removal from such premises.

The section goes on to describe the type of signage and the location where they must be posted.

I printed this section off and am carrying it in my wallet so that I can educate any person, associate or LEO that tries to deny me admittance in their place of business. I don't anticipate any problems with LEO as Kansas Open Carry has been legal for several years.
 
er, No. A private business or person cannot ignore the law any more than a person carrying a firearm. For my Kansas friends here is the current law;


Chapter 75 .-- STATE DEPARTMENTS, PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

Article 7c - Firearms

75-7c24. Restrictions on carrying unconcealed firearms; exceptions; penalties; sign requirements.

(a) provided that the building is conspicuously posted in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general as a building where carrying a unconcealed firearm is prohibited, it shall be unlawful to carry an unconcealed firearm into the such building.

(c) It shall be a violation of this section to carry an unconcealed firearm if the building is posted in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general pursuant to subsection

(d). Any person who violates this section shall not be subject to a criminal penalty but may be subject to denial to such premises or removal from such premises.

The section goes on to describe the type of signage and the location where they must be posted.

I printed this section off and am carrying it in my wallet so that I can educate any person, associate or LEO that tries to deny me admittance in their place of business. I don't anticipate any problems with LEO as Kansas Open Carry has been legal for several years.

What part of that makes you think a private property owner cannot require you to leave their property?

It's not illegal in most places for men to go shirtless, but a great many establishments will ask you to leave if you come in bare-chested. They don't need a law specifically authorizing that. They just need to direct you to leave; if you don't, in most states, that has just become trespass.
 
er, No. A private business or person cannot ignore the law any more than a person carrying a firearm. For my Kansas friends here is the current law;


Chapter 75 .-- STATE DEPARTMENTS, PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

Article 7c - Firearms

75-7c24. Restrictions on carrying unconcealed firearms; exceptions; penalties; sign requirements.

(a) provided that the building is conspicuously posted in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general as a building where carrying a unconcealed firearm is prohibited, it shall be unlawful to carry an unconcealed firearm into the such building.

(c) It shall be a violation of this section to carry an unconcealed firearm if the building is posted in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general pursuant to subsection

(d). Any person who violates this section shall not be subject to a criminal penalty but may be subject to denial to such premises or removal from such premises.

The section goes on to describe the type of signage and the location where they must be posted.

I printed this section off and am carrying it in my wallet so that I can educate any person, associate or LEO that tries to deny me admittance in their place of business. I don't anticipate any problems with LEO as Kansas Open Carry has been legal for several years.
Look up what criminal trespass laws exist in your state. If I own a business, or you are in my home, and I tell you to leave my privately owned property because I find you offensive in some way, or just because I don't want you around anymore, and you refuse, you are trespassing. I would call the police and have you removed. If your state laws say that a privately owned business or private property owner doesn't have the right to tell you to leave their property, then you have a point. Otherwise.

Being told to leave may have nothing to do with a firearm, and my statement wasn't even involving firearms. It was about trespassing, and staying within the law.

A public place is a different matter.

If you feel personally discriminated against because you were asked to leave a privately owned property be it a business or home, you could certainly file a civil suit, and you may win. Being asked to leave due to open carry prohibitions not being adequately posted is a good example. But you still leave.

I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure any judge and law enforcement officer is going to enforce the will of the private property owner for removal of a trespassing individual.
 
What part of that makes you think a private property owner cannot require you to leave their property?

It's not illegal in most places for men to go shirtless, but a great many establishments will ask you to leave if you come in bare-chested. They don't need a law specifically authorizing that. They just need to direct you to leave; if you don't, in most states, that has just become trespass.

I guess you and 460Shooter did not read section (a) did you?

Kansas is not "in most states" category. (Unfortunately sometimes). The law is very plain and clear.

A person can be banned for other reasons but Open and Concealed Carry when it is not posted in accordance to Kansas State Law is not one of them.

Using your argument businesses can legally refuse service to minorities, color of their hair, people of certain lifestyles, their sex among other things.
 
Using your argument businesses can legally refuse service to minorities, color of their hair, people of certain lifestyles, their sex among other things.
They can legally tell you to leave. Again, it may not make it right, and it may be a violation of your civil rights if someone told you to leave for a reason that isn't legit. But there is nothing there that says an individual has the right to trespass when told to leave. That's when you sue if someone is discriminating against you for no reason. Even if they are upheld, it's unlikely they will be in business long when it gets out they discriminate based on gender, or hair color, or whatever ridiculous thing.

Section a) is specifically addressing posting of a prohibition on open carry. The posting must be in compliance with the state. Ok, simple and clear.

Section b) says if posted in compliance, an open carrier is in violation of the law. Right?

Section c) says it's a violation of the legal section you quoted if someone is carrying in a posted locale. Ok, that gives the judge a specific section to quote if someone is breaking the law and carrying where posted they shouldn't. Again makes sense.

Section d) says anyone who violates a legally posted location will not be subject to criminal penalty, but this is in the context of open carrying and saying they won't be specifically charged with a crime if they break that law.. Then is says they may be subject to denial of entry or removal, because they have posted no open carry, and someone is choosing to do so. So all that means is the state or local courts won't prosecute you for violating this law, but they will enforce your eviction. Why else would a person carrying in a posted prohibited location be subject to denial of entry or removal?

No where in anything you've posted does it say as a store patron or visitor to a privately owned home, that you are not required to leave if directed to do so by the owner, or their agent. If you refuse you are trespassing. If you have been ejected for open carrying in a non-posted location, I think you'd have a pretty good law suit to pursue.

Can you find anything in your state laws that says someone open carrying in a non-posted location and told to leave will not be removed by law enforcement? If so, post it.

Businesses CAN refuse service to anyone they like and ask you to leave. If they are violating your civil rights or discriminating against you for no reason than personal preference, you sue them. You don't stand there and refuse to leave. That's how you get charged with trespassing.

If a business is ready to close and a customer refuses to leave the store because they aren't done shopping, and the store owner or operators are refusing to complete the transaction because their business hours are past, they will ask you to leave. They have that right.

A private home owner, I'm not even going to bother with. Obviously they can tell you to leave if they just don't like you.

So I say again, look up laws about criminal trespass and see what it says.
 
Last edited:
I guess you and 460Shooter did not read section (a) did you?

Kansas is not "in most states" category. (Unfortunately sometimes). The law is very plain and clear.

A person can be banned for other reasons but Open and Concealed Carry when it is not posted in accordance to Kansas State Law is not one of them.

Using your argument businesses can legally refuse service to minorities, color of their hair, people of certain lifestyles, their sex among other things.

We reserve the right to refuse service to any person, for any reason.

I have tresspassed dozens of people off city property. I ask them to leave and if they don't I call the cops. The only question the cops have ever asked is "Did you ask them to leave?" As soon as I say yes they cite them. Not one ever asked why.

It might not even be the store that calls. It might be some panicked soccer mom or someone who just doesn't like guns (Google John Crawford) who calls you in as an active shooter. How do you think that might work out?
 
Last edited:
I guess you and 460Shooter did not read section (a) did you?...
Using your argument businesses can legally refuse service to minorities, color of their hair, people of certain lifestyles, their sex among other things.

I did read it. It does NOT say what you seem to think it says.

The reason that people cannot refuse service on the basis of the protected categories you list is because of separate laws specifically saying so.

You really need to talk to a lawyer in your state before you pick up a charge because you think you “know your rights.”
 
On the pragmatic side, you do not want to interact with the police about an issue of carrying a firearm. You might be theoretically correct, but a misinterpretation of movement or refusal to comply to a command can go bad rather quickly. If you wish to be on the end of a possibly incorrect or what you think is a violation of your rights that leads you to be a martyr, suffering from a bad physical outcome, that is wholly up to you (note the pun). Once you resist a suggestion or order to disarm and/or leave, you crank up the response to potential physical action against you. If the officer is not cognizant of the law, having a bad day, doesn't like some characteristic of you - take it from there.

The Civil Rights movement successfully resisted the actions of police enforcing racist laws. It worked for them and they knowingly suffered the violent actions as it was righteous and part of a plan to engender sympathy as the country (for the most part) realized the laws were wrong. Will your resistance action (if it makes social media) accomplish the same? The Civil Rights folks figure their actions would move the average American in their favor. Will a gun carrier do that today, given the history of rampages?
 
Last edited:
As a general proposition, all property owners have the right to decide who comes onto their property, with certain exceptions. So regardless of whether WM's signage (if there was any) had the force of law, it could ask him to leave and ban him.


This.

Property rights trump 2A rights. My house my rules your house your rules. In Florida there is no duty to obey "No Firearms" signs on private businesses.... but....

What you need to ask yourself is one, why do you feel you have the right to impose your will on someone else on their property, and two, why do you want to financially support folks that don't agree with your views?
 
The Civil Rights movement successfully resisted the actions of police enforcing racist laws.?

A big part of that was accepting beatings from cops, eating criminal charges, and doing time in jail.

Anyone who isn’t up for that stuff needs to have an approach other than “resisting the actions of police.”
 
Walmart has made their position clear, they have specifically asked that people not open carry in their stores. Why would anyone feel the need to flaunt their disregard in Walmart's face? Why would you feel the need to make some minimum wage greeter's day that much harder?

Disregarding Walmart's rights as a property owner is not going to win any hearts and minds. In fact, as I've said multiple times it will probably cause Walmart to ban all carry (with correct signage) on their property.
 
Publix just came out against OC. Folks, you are seeing a major loss in the cultural war. It is on the order of no smoking signs. We are lucky that businesses, for the most part, are not banning concealed carry. I note that the OC wave in San Antonio, did have businesses not banning CC in the past, to ban both. I will go out on a limb against some purist ideology and say we should be positive to businesses that make the distinction.
 
I anticipated this reaction and lecture about the law in Kansas which is why I posted exactly word for word what the stature says.

I dunno but as a career LEO along with a lot of training and experience I know what these statutes mean. I have given no trespass warnings and even arrested a few. I have assisted with going to businesses and presented workplace violence training and compliance with firearm laws.

Some folks are confused about their rights as a private property owner vs. the rights of a business that sells to the general public. There is a lot of difference that is outside the scope of THR.

Bluster and scream all you want but unless you are a LEO in Kansas or are a lawyer licensed to practice law in Kansas you need to stay in lane.
 
Oh it may still be legal. It’s legal in Georgia. There’s just nowhere that won’t kick you out. You can OC right up until you want to do any of the things that got you to leave the house in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top