Trying to get Bi-Lo stores "un-posted!"

[Green Lantern]

Anyone shop at Bi-Lo? Or would LIKE to, except that they're "posted?"

I don't know about state requirements for "signage" in other states where they operate, but in NC (which spells out no precise requirements, unfortunately) I daresay they're just BARELY "visible" in the location of the "gunbuster." To quote a poster on another gun board:

What they have is a window decal divided up into aproximately 2 dozen sections each measuring 1" high by 2" wide. In almost all of the little rectangles are the various EBT, credit, debit, and ATM logos but one of them has a crosed-out handgun that says "no weapons allowed". You really have to look for it to see it.

I used the "normal" means to contact them, the website. Got an e-mail back from the District Manager for my area:

>Mr. ________
>I have read a memo referencing your concern for the signs we have on our
>store in ________ concerning not carrying guns into the store. Please
>allow me to explain why we have these and what our company's expectations
>are:
>
>1) Guns are not a real issue, but bringing them into our store could place
>us at great risk should something go wrong with an individual carrying one
>into one of our operations.
>
>2) We could potentially place our customers and teammates in harms way if
>someone wanted to be a 'hero' and used their firearm if we were being
>robbed or such.
>
>3) Lastly, why would there be a need to carry a firearm into one of our
>stores unless you are with the state or local law enforcement agency? If
>the gun is in plain view it terrifies many folks, especially mothers.
>
>Mr. _______, please understand that we appreciate your shopping with us
>and taking the position you have concerning guns, but everyone who carries
>weapons are not as responsible with them as you most likely are and this is
>the reason we don't care to have guns in our stores. It would be nice if
>everyone who carries firearms are licensed, but we both know this is not
>the case. Therefore, we can't govern those carrying guns, with licenses,
>and those without. Our position is to take the lesser risk by asking that
>NO guns enter our stores.
>
>Please feel free to call me if you have further questions.
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Clayton Bishop
>Asheville District Manager

Yeesh - number 3 in particular makes me want to Some people REALLY don't get it. Especially trying to ASK the armed robber to leave his guns at home. Imbecile.

So...I moved on up the chain and wrote an actual LETTER to the CEO. Got a reply that may have actually NOT been a form letter. Says the signs went up (at least in NC) when CCW was passed. Thank you, Bradyites! He says that he's gotten only a few comments about the signs, most of them compliments. And that he still thinks the gunbuster is a good way to ban accidental or INTENTIONAL acts of violence!

We may not be able to cure his delusion that criminals actually GIVE a crap about obeying "no-guns" signs, but we can sure change his tune that people aren't complaining about them!

BI-LO, LLC ATT: Dean Cohagan, CEO
P.O.Box 99
Mauldin, SC 29662

 

[Erinyes]

Good luck changing Bi-Lo's antigun stance considering they're owned by the Dutch.

 

[carterbeauford]

If the gun is in plain view it terrifies many folks, especially mothers.

Reminds me of when I ran into a mother with a young child, standing in line to pay my bill at a restaurant. She was obviously uneasy after having seen the .45 on my hip, then her son, who was maybe 5, walked right in front of me. She looked as if she was about to grab him, then I said something like "hey look out little guy" and smiled. Once she realized I was not there to rob the place, rape all the employees, plunder the salad bar and kidnap her son, she smiled back.

Here's what I'd do: carry there, if asked to leave, do so and don't shop there again.

relevant NC code:

A permit does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun in the areas prohibited by G.S. 14‑269.2, 14‑269.3, 14‑269.4, and 14‑277.2, in an area prohibited by rule adopted under G.S. 120‑32.1, in any area prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 922 or any other federal law, in a law enforcement or correctional facility, in a building housing only State or federal offices, in an office of the State or federal government that is not located in a building exclusively occupied by the State or federal government, a financial institution, or on any other premises, except state‑owned rest areas or state‑owned rest stops along the highways, where notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a conspicuous notice or statement by the person in legal possession or control of the premises

I don't know if this means signs carry the weight of the law or not. I carry concealed in NC and have never had a problem.

 

[lamazza]

Its their right to post that and your right not to go there. Obviously its their intention to discourage gun toters. Bad business to alienate certain "groups" of consumers. Business practices like that have a way of biting you in the hind quarters eventually.

 

[Waitone]

I've been told there is a sign and posting format somewhere in NC code. Haven't seen it though.

When I move to the south far too many decades ago BiLo had an armed security guard sitting on a little platform that could look down the row of cash registers. He was armed with a shotgun and a pistol. His job was to sit there as security over the cashiers.

My, my how things have changed.

BTW, the grocery bidness is insanely competitive. If BiLo wants to lose bidness, fine. Go to Food Lion, which IIRC has no optout signs. Then tell BiLo where you've gone and why, then tell your new grocer why they now have your bidness.

 

[Firethorn]

Not only what waitone said, but given the tone of the message, I'd reply back emphasising the potential lawsuit if a CCW holder(or anybody in his/her presence) is injured in a situation where they potentially could have stopped the harm through the usage of their firearm. This is doubly true as some examinations(I don't think there's been official studies yet) have found that posted stores have higher crime rates.

Second would be that 'government officials' have displayed some of the most appalling lack of gun safety going. Officers leaving firearms in bathrooms, discharging a weapon into their foot while teaching a gun safety class, etc. CCW permit holders

Third I'd point out that the only people they really have to worry about having weapons are the criminals, and does he think that a 'no weapons allowed' sign will be any more effective than a 'no robberies allowed' sign? I mean, most criminals with guns are already commiting a felony by simply having them!

Fourth I'd point out that their sign doesn't explicitly exempt police officers/government officials, so if they allow uniformed police officers to enter the store without asking them to leave they're not enforcing the policy as displayed.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

but everyone who carries
>weapons are not as responsible with them as you most likely are and this is
>the reason we don't care to have guns in our stores. It would be nice if
>everyone who carries firearms are licensed, but we both know this is not
>the case. Therefore, we can't govern those carrying guns, with licenses,
>and those without.

Wait a second. Basically that segment states they have no issues with licensed carriers. However they have problems with "those without" and everyone gets canned because of it.

Those without a license and carry concealed are violating established laws to begin with, so what makes them think they're going to follow some rinkydink store policy when they aren't following state/federal law to begin with?

The same (anti)logic can be used to ban automobiles from parking lots because they don't condone unlicensed drivers or drunk driving. Laws already exist to prevent this stuff. Its completely asinine to think they'll stop all those evildoers with a tiny stickered store policy where federal and state laws failed.

 

[Green Lantern]

I do my shopping at Ingles now, no "gunbuster" there! When I posted at another board of how Cohagan shot me down, it was sugguested that I save my receipts from there and send THOSE to the Bi-Lo CEO to drive home the fact that he's losing money.

Didn't realize Bi-lo/Bruno's was owned by the Dutch...But since the CEO and corporate HQ is situated in SC, I don't really see how that should have anything to do with it...

The only thing that worries me about praising a store for NOT being posted is that I may find out that it's not so much "pro carry" but "ignorant that people DO carry." Then the wrong person at Corporate will get his knickers in a wad over the thoughts of a lawfully armed customer, and BOOM - now THAT store is posted! AFAIK, Wal-Mart is the only place I know of that says that they will NOT forbid any lawful activity in their stores, including CCW.

I think I drove home some pretty decent points, too bad they fell on deaf ears - here's a copy of what I sent to him in the letter:

Dear Mr. Cohagan:

I see that your stores are posted that weapons are prohibited - even if you have a permit issued by law enforcement to legally carry a concealed weapon. The District Manager in my area, Mr. Clayton Bishop, did give some valid reasons to have such a policy. But also some less valid ones, which prompts me to move "up the ladder" as it were to again appeal my case for allowing law-abiding Concealed Weapons Permit holders to exercise the privilege they have earned inside of your stores.

First and foremost would be that if anyone was intent on using a firearm (or any other weapon) to commit a crime, then at the very least a sign that says "weapons not allowed" will not deter the criminal in the least. At the most, seeing such a sign might actually encourage the criminal to prey on the employees and customers of such a store. With more and more people getting licensed to carry handguns legally, criminals see these "gun-free areas" as soft targets that they can prey upon while placing themselves at the minimum risk of harm.

You may protect yourselves somewhat from liability by posting "no guns" signs, but by doing so you also open yourselves up to a different liability - that you create an attractive target for armed robbers or other criminals that seek out victims that are less likely or able to fight back. If a permit holder is assaulted in your store - could he not try to sue on the grounds that if he was not obeying your policy he might have been able to deter the attack? Even someone who does not have a permit or even own a gun could possibly make a case that the criminal would not have attacked her in your store if he did not see the sign saying that all within were unarmed.

Another important reason to reconsider your policy is that you alienate a portion of your customer base. Holders of concealed firearms permits have submitted their fingerprints to both State and Federal Authorities. State Law Enforcement Agencies and the FBI have found their backgrounds and training to be sufficient to license them to carry a concealed weapon. How much do you know about the rest of your customers? Permit holders are held to a higher legal standard when carrying. Starting a fight, or doing anything that could lead to one is absolutely out of the question. So naturally people like me feel a bit insulted by a store more or less saying "we don't serve your kind here," and we make it a point to not send any of our hard-earned money to businesses that do not respect us. And also to let others know of businesses that have this policy.

As I told Mr. Bishop, the odds that I will actually need to use my weapon are slim. But the chance is there, the world seems to grow more violent and unpredictable every day. Maybe you are willing to go to bed every night in a lavish home with a large neon "Gun-Free Zone!" Sign in the yard? If not, then why should your customers and employers expect to have to shop work under the same conditions?

Until you change your policy, I will spend my money elsewhere and encourage everyone I care about to do likewise.