BREAKING: Target “Respectfully Requests” Customers Leave Guns at Home

Screen Shot 2014-07-02 at 9.04.43 AM

Target’s interim CEO John Mulligan has just released this official statement regarding firearms in his company’s stores:

Every day at Target, in everything we do, we ask ourselves what is right for our guests? We make all of our decisions with that question in mind. Questions have circulated in recent weeks around Target’s policy on the “open carry” of firearms in its stores. Today, interim CEO, John Mulligan, shared the following note with our Target team members. We wanted you to hear this update from us, too . . .

The leadership team has been weighing a complex issue, and I want to be sure everyone understands our thoughts and ultimate decision.

As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry” should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved. In return, we are asking for help in fulfilling our goal to create an atmosphere that is safe and inviting for our guests and team members.

This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.

[h/t GAP]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

391 Responses to BREAKING: Target “Respectfully Requests” Customers Leave Guns at Home

  1. avatarAllen says:

    Another OCT success story!

    • avatarGlenn says:

      Thank the asshat CJ Grisham & OCT for making it SO EASY for Bloomberg’s continued insanity.

      • avatarslammy says:

        Thank the asshat CJ Grisham & OCT for making it SO EASY for Bloomberg’s continued insanity.

        Please don’t forget the morons causing all this trouble at Open Carry Tarrant County, including high school educated part-time bartender and failed politician Kory Watkins:
        http://texansforkorywatkins.com/

        He’s the guy who always shows up in the weirdo hat. Impossible as it may seem, Open Carry Tarrant County is even more destructive to gun rights than Open Carry Texas.

      • avatarBob says:

        This new Target policy includes concealed carry. No concealed carry in Target. So who here will be giving Target their money by shopping there?

      • avatarMacBeth51 says:

        Rosa!, You get yourself back to the back of the bus, now. Y’hear?

      • avatarGuyFromV says:

        Why is it that everyone here blames OCT for the reduction of our gun rights, when it is really the enemies of the 2A that are the cause. I see this as roughly the same as blaming guns for “gun violence”. Its the wrong way to gain support and reactionary in the extreme, but ultimately the same way of thinking.

        • avatarDuke says:

          I’ve got to agree.

          How have we come to concede the idea that guns should be scary to families as a given? Isn’t that the other sides position?

        • avatarslammy says:

          Why is it that everyone here blames OCT for the reduction of our gun rights, when it is really the enemies of the 2A that are the cause.

          Because OCT has teamed up with “the enemies of the 2A” and is doing all of their media outreach for them.

          Why is it that people still defend these idiots, or can’t see how absolutely counterproductive their tactics are? You know why organizations like the NRA never organize open carry rifle rallies at Target and Starbucks? It’s because they know it’ll hurt the cause. OCT on the other hand, is just looking for attention. If they happen to get open carry, that’s great too.

          But just like the old saying about pharma companies not wanting to create a cure for cancer, if they actually got pistol OC, they’d be irrelevant. Look at the how they behave – the last thing they want is to be irrelevant. They’ll drag out the “battle for pistol OC” forever, because not only will people keep paying attention to them, but it’ll feed their persecution complex. Watch their videos – after they get kicked out of these places, they all complain how they’re victims. Woe is me kind of stuff.

          So yeah, they’re friends of 2A just like Moms Demand Action are. That’s why we blame them.

    • avatarBlinkyPete says:

      Bravo to that team of brilliant tacticians.

      Seriously – they’re working for Bloomberg, right?

    • avatarDisThunder says:

      Own Goal! We’re getting super good at this.

    • avatarg says:

      *facepalm*

      I’m really starting to believe that Bloomberg is funneling money to Open Carry Texas.

      • avatarC. Wesley Bryant says:

        One has to wonder.

        And I would add: *double facepalm*

      • avatarFoRealz? says:

        Hmmm……

      • avatarJustin_GA says:

        Why open carry???? I know you want to make a POINT, but this isn’t some 3rd world country where everyone carry’s an AK. OCT make themselves look and act like idiots. Personally I think they are as idiotic as MDA…….Arrrrr people who open carry just tick me off. Why? Because they create an issue that doesn’t need to be brought up in this current political climate. Individuals like myself who always conceal carry never had issue’s. Now when I reach to get something off the top self at Target and possibly expose they are not going to think I am an off duty officer. 15years of people just thinking i’m an off duty officer and no big deal to OMG citizen with a GUN!!!!

        • Are you required to have a license or permit to carry concealed? If so then there is your answer. Before a license was required to conceal our firearms in Ohio, many of us, myself included, rarely carried openly. Carrying under a license is exercising a privilege and not the exercise of a right. In Ohio, there are a different set of rules under the law when one carries in a concealed manner.

          Now that I open carry much of the time, I’m not likely to go back. It’s convenient and I believe that it has a crime deterrent value. It also has a Liberty inducing value. I sometimes don’t have a place to adequately stow my firearms while walking, horse and wagon, or riding some motorcycles and I don’t have an adequate cover garment. No, I’ll not go back to worrying about my sidearm being covered again. I’m a free man.

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      I’ve been ambivalent about OC for a while now. Getting less ambivalent, especially about OC of long guns.

    • avatarGerry Santo says:

      Another notch in the AR stock for OCT. Thanks for nothing, morons.

    • avatargloomhound says:

      “Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said the retailer will not post signs at its stores asking people not to bring guns inside. “It is not a ban,” she said. “There is no prohibition.”
      She said the company decided to make this statement after hearing from people on all sides of this issue.”

      • avatarJim Barrett says:

        And this is the nuance that many are missing. In some states, a retailer can post a proscribed notice prohibiting guns on site and it will carry the force of law for violators. Target has specifically decided not to do this. So, in spite of what they are saying to keep the dumbass moms happy, they are not in fact prohibiting carry. They don’t want people OC’ing guns, but if they really wanted to prevent all guns from coming on site, they could have done it.

        Fortunately, the dumbass moms and Bloomy-lovers probably won’t catch on.

    • avatarBurnout says:

      Want proof OCT works for Bloomberg? Watch as they change nothing and continue to do the same thing while bullheadedly ignoring advice from everywhere to change tactics. There is nothing else you have to do.. Ignore their words and childish internet posts, just watch their actions. These guys are the ones the gun grabbers have been waiting for; for they appear to be the same people.

  2. avatarGeneral Zod says:

    Cue self-congratulatory press release from Mothers Demand Disarmament And Creation Of Helpless Victims in 3…2…1…

    • avatarDave357 says:

      And why shouldn’t they.

      • avatarGeneral Zod says:

        Because their influence in this instance is negligible.

        • avatarDave357 says:

          In this instance their pressure is what caused Target to issue the statement. Nothing negligible here.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Is it negligible? The only way I heard about Target even being involved in this debate is when this site published MDA’s whining about people carrying in Target, using a photo that was, when MDA published it, over a month old. Then the cycle progressed inevitably: they whined, it got press from pro-gun sites, pro-gun folks reacted by contacting Target, Target said “we want none of this” and issued a statement.

          Seems to me like MDA got exactly what they wanted, and our side expended more energy in getting it for them than their side did.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          That’s pretty good analysis Matt, but what they wanted has a much lower impact than they’re saying it does. I think that’s what’s being called negligible.

        • avatarGeneral Zod says:

          Their “pressure” did not get what they want – an official policy banning firearms from the premises. Target took the same route Starbucks did – a “please don’t let us see your gun” request which effectively means “you guys leave us out of this”. They’ll still obey local laws on concealed carry (and probably open carry, too), but they don’t want political demonstrations on their property. This site has also highlighted at least two instances where MDA was asked to leave the premises because they were trying to get petitions signed in order to pressure Target into actually banning firearms on their property.

          This is not a victory for Shannon and company. It’s a major corporation trying to distance itself from both sides.

        • avatarDave357 says:

          If they only asked people to not open carry long guns, or to not open carry in general, one could see it as just distancing themselves, but they went further and asked for no carry of any kind.

        • avatarGeneral Zod says:

          And it carries with it no weight of law. It’s a “request” – not a company policy, and unless they post signage to that end (and in some states, it has to be very specific signage), it’s nothing more than a request.

        • avatarDave357 says:

          Yes, it’s a PR issue for now, not a legal issue. My point was that they went as far on the PR front as they possibly could, not half-way.

  3. avatarDan says:

    Open carriers shutdown another seemingly gun friendly business, to guns.

  4. avatarStatic NAT says:

    This should have no impact on CCW, right?

    • avatarBlinkyPete says:

      No. They’re trying to appease both sides of this debate because they’re in the business of business, not politics. Just carry concealed, which is the most logical decision from a tactical self defense and strategic political standpoint there is.

      • avatarRolling Stone says:

        I’m in CA and also CCW. When a company says, “we don’t want to see your guns” that puts you in a difficult position if you have to stop a threat.

        This just means yet another company I am now longer welcome in and choose not to support financially.

        • avatarBeazer78 says:

          I too am a “privileged” California CCW holder for many years. You show concern about what businesses can “demand” on their property. No matter what people believe about California CCW laws, here in this State or by others in other states, we are protected BY STATE LAW “similar” to that of Law Enforcement. Businesses here in California can post as many “NO FIREARMS ON PREMISSES ALLOWED” signs… but like Law Enforcement Officers, CCW DO NOT LEGALLY NEED TO OBEY. The most that a business can do is ask you to leave the premises. If you refuse to leave at that point, you can be charged with Trespassing. That’s it!
          Secondly, if you are concerned about protecting yourself, family or even others (public), do not be concerned. California has ironclad “Stand you ground law.” Unlike the States that have been in the news in the past years, California laws steam back to the 1800s, unlike the others that go back to the 1960s/ 1970s. Do not worry about protection.
          Remember, once you have that laminated piece of paper here in California, you are a “trusted” member of California. The State knows more about you than you know about yourself. It is harder to get a CCW in California than it is to become a Law Enforcement Officer… just ask one!!! Just “carry on” with no worries… be safe!!!

          -My information comes directly from the States D.O.J. Office and Law Enforcement.

    • avatarHannibal says:

      They are ‘requesting’ you not bring firearms into their store.

      There’s no legal weight, but you have to wonder if you want to support them or not, based on that wishy-washy response.

      • avatarBruce L. says:

        Yes, don’t support them. I mean those evil people “requested” you not bring a gun into the store they own. How dare they. Stop being stupid! Keep your gun under cover and everyone will be happy.Nothing more will be said, unless you actually need to use the gun. Then expect a thank you.

        • avatarpwrserge says:

          You’re either with us or against us. There can be no middle ground in the battle for liberty.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          And with your narrow definition of “with us” we’ll have no one to thank but you and your friends when everyone is “against us”.

        • avatarpwrserge says:

          Blinky… You will have nobody but yourself to thank when you compromise your way on to a cattle car.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Yawwwwwn.

        • avatarPeter says:

          Pwrsege, liberty is not the freedom for you to do whatever you want, wherever you want to do it. Liberty is a private company being free to operate how they choose. There is no government coercion here. Liberty is also a private citizen (you) being free to choose who to do business with. Sounds like liberty is still alive, at least at Target.

        • avatarFedupwithdouchebags says:

          we have the right to OC and to shop at the stores fo our choice. no support for OC rights gauranteed by our constitution, no need for me to support their store by spending money there.

        • avatarpwrserge says:

          A business open to the public waves most of their property rights when they invite customers in. They can’t pick and choose which law abiding citizens they want to do business with based of bigotry. Supporting “no gun” policies is the same as supporting “whites only” signs.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          “Supporting “no gun” policies is the same as supporting “whites only” signs.”

          You can keep saying that and citing laws and rights that only exist in your head as much as you want, but it doesn’t make any of it accurate. Equal access and accommodation does indeed (probably) prevent people from saying “no gun owners allowed” the same way they probably can’t say “no death metal fans allowed”. Saying I can’t wear an offensive death metal shirt in the same store still doesn’t violate my first amendment rights any more than saying I can’t carry a gun violates my second amendment rights.

        • avatarHannibal says:

          I certainly didn’t call them evil. But I don’t see why I should go into someone’s place of business and disregard their wishes for how I conduct myself there. Even more so when their wishes are absurd to me.

          I believe in conceal carry, but I recognize that it’s a loss every time one of these stores takes an anti-gun policy, toothless as it may be.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          pwrserge, liberty is the freedom of Target being able to say”I don’t have time for this adolescent sh!t. Take it elsewhere.”

          That’s exactly what they did. Neither “side” “won.” Again.

      • avatarIdahoPete says:

        Hey, it’s their store. You know, “Private Property”?

        I don’t think that this is an unreasonable request – you come trotting up to my house with an AR or whatever slung across your back, I’m not letting you into my house – at least not until you take it off your back, set it on the sidewalk, back off 20 paces, and let me clear it. And then put an open chamber indicator in the action. My house, my rules. Target is trying to tread a delicate balance on this issue and NOT alienate too many of their customers. Face it, the usual Target customer is not an Open Carry advocate.

        If you don’t like their policy, go somewhere else.

        • So, you’re cool with Target posting “no blacks allowed” or “no gays allowed” or “no muslims allowed” signs on their doors? They’re a private business, right, so they can dictate whom they will will serve or refuse service too.

          If you can’t see the difference between a private residence and a business that actively solicits people’s business…

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Simply scrolling up three posts would have saved you the trouble of kicking that dead-ass-horse again. If you don’t understand the difference between disallowing people and disallowing things or behavior then truly, debate is not your thing.

        • avatarPeter says:

          There isn’t a difference

        • avatarHannibal says:

          ‘If you don’t like their policy, go somewhere else.”

          Yeah… that’s sorta my point.

    • avatarA samurai says:

      If its CONCEALED they, and more importantly to them – their anti gun customers, won’t know. They are just asking people not to open carry. Just remember to check yourself in the mirror before you leave for printing.

      Further, Target is completely within their rights to ask people not to open carry on their property. The tragedy here is that gun owners forced their hand. When are open carry activists going to learn.
      Hey, NEWS FLASH GUYS! When you go to any business and say, “hey, hey, HEY! You guys like that we carry guns openly in your stores RIGHT!” The board of directors calls a meeting with the legal team and the PR team. The legal team says, “Well, you will end up getting sued if any one gets shot.” And the PR team says, “Well, anyone who doesn’t like guns or is afraid of guns will boycott if you say we do like OC. And there are a lot more people nation wide for gun control and afraid of guns then open carriers.” And board of directors has a statement issued saying, “Please don’t.”
      IT IS THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION. When you force a business to openly support Open Carry they will ultimately NOT support it, because they cannot risk alienating customers with the opposing political belief.
      Business aren’t politicians and most of them do not want to be polarized on any political issues because it limits their customer base unnecessarily. How many Targets would go our of business if only Open Carriers shopped their nationwide? Yeah, all of them in my state because there is no open carry. What percent of Hoplophobes would boycott Target if they put up “Guns Welcome” signs? Probably all.

      STOP FORCING the open carry issue all you are doing is winning battles for the gun control advocates! All you do is show hoplophobes that gun owners really are nuts with no concept of reality.
      Discretion is the better part of Valor.

      • avatarpwrserge says:

        Except that they have no more right to ban guns than they do to ban black people. When you open your business to the public, you give up the majority of your property laws.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Says what law exactly? Responding with “the second amendment” doesn’t answer the question. The black people = black guns thing is ridiculous, and no one with even a modicum of logic in their heads is going to buy it.

        • avatarpwrserge says:

          Civil rights are civil rights. I don’t care what sheep think. My rights are not subject to regulation, legislation, or the democratic process.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Cool beans pwr, but you still haven’t answered the question. You don’t have a right to enter Target, period, and you certainly don’t have a right to bring whatever you like into it. You also have a right to not shop there, which I gather you’ll be exercising. More pwr to you. It still doesn’t validate your point of view or the idiotic actions of Open Carry Texas.

        • avatarpwrserge says:

          Actually, when they opened their store to the public, the gave up the right to be selective on their clients. I have just as much right to shop there as anyone else. Carrying or not.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Are you talking about the Civil Rights Act? Can you point me to the section on firearms? I can’t seem to find it.

        • avatarPeter says:

          Huh pwrsege? Open to the public doesn’t mean government run. It’s private property, and you shop there on their terms. Don’t like it? Don’t shop there.

          I would argue the Civil Rights Act with regards to private entities is unconstitutional as it is a gross overstep of government regulation of private property.

        • avatarpwrserge says:

          So you guys support “whites only” and “no gays allowed” signs?

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Your comparison is ridiculous and makes no logical argument (as I already said), but I’m still glad you asked. Yes, in this day and age, I would love it if people were allowed to post such signs. In fact, I think it would be great if they had to. If racists are forced to accommodate minorities they’re going to find other ways to abuse the law and probably their minority customers, and a bunch of people will be supporting a racist business owner. If they have to make their bigotry known, everyone but the tiny fraction of idiots who agree with them will avoid that business. Building owners will refuse to rent to them, banks will refuse to lend to them.

          But again, your analogy makes no sense. Target isn’t saying “no gun owners allowed”, they’re saying “please leave your guns at home”, with a sub text of “we really don’t care, please just leave us out of this debate”.

        • avatarPeter says:

          Absolutely. I support the private property rights of business owners. Is that sign distasteful, bigoted? Maybe, and I probably would exercise my freedom of association and contract to do business elsewhere. But I support any private person’s right to be bigoted. The 14th amendment applies only to government applying the law equally.

        • avatarMatt in Idaho says:

          That’s incorrect. I would liken this more to banning offensive language or asking people not to hold a pro or anti abortion rally in the middle of their business.

          The idea that a private business owes you constitutional rights seems as silly to me as the idea that your boss owes you birth control.

        • avatarWyfaggro says:

          Incorrect in so many ways. Asking people not to openly carry firearms is no different, and no more illegal, than a “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service,” sign.
          And no matter how many times you say “my rights are not subject to your laws,” that doesn’t make it true. I realize the Clinton technique of, “repeat the lie and it becomes the truth,” is fairly well established by now, but I thought we People of the Gun were supposed to be better than that.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          What Matt in Potatoland said. There are so many parallels from the pro-choice/pro-gun to the pro-life/pro-control side it’s astounding, and no one on any of those sides would ever admit it.

        • avatarrichard says:

          Logic and debate are kinda lost on you, aren’t they?

          Let’s say, I run a business.
          Someone comes in, takes their clothes off, and starts dancing to the PA system music.
          Yeah, I can kick them out.

          I can’t however, ban a stripper from coming into my business.

        • avatarA samurai says:

          Pwrserge,
          You are very wrong. Target has the right to ban anyone from their stores at any time. As long as they ban people for doing something they don’t like and not say, for being a certain color. If you go in to Target and pull down your pants and take a crap on the floor (because you disagree with them asking people to leave their guns outside), they are completely within their rights to ban you from any future Target by name, AND to ban anyone else who takes a crap in their store. DOING something against Targets policies CAN get you thrown out of Target. And banned from ever coming back if they are pissed enough. They can even take out a restraining order against you to stay off their property. Being a business does not erode property rights.

        • avatarEATENG says:

          Banning guns (which isn’t even what Target is doing anyway) in a private business is absolutely not the same as banning a black person. There is no equivalency there. Now if said business banned gun owners, now you have an argument.

        • avatarStephanie says:

          They are entirely within their rights to ask customers to not open-carry on their premises. Business can still retain the right to refuse business to anyone they wish – especially if that person is causing a disruption, which I can assure you, seeing an open carrier would for me. If I were to see a person – no matter WHO that person was – in a store with a gun, I would be afraid and I would not do business at that store probably ever again. I have a right to shop without fear. This is not infringing in any way on your right to carry a weapon nor to own a gun. All they are asking is that if you carry, you carry a concealed weapon.
          That is all. Just don’t flash your gun around in everyone else’s face. The second amendment protects the right to own a gun, not to flaunt that you own a gun.

        • avatarDerryM says:

          The flaw in your logic is that you fail to grasp that there are tens of thousands of ways to do serious bodily harm to another person without any involvement of a gun. If you are so afraid for your person, you should try this the next time you are in a Target Store. Walk down any aisle and ask yourself “What do I see around me that could be used to hurt me?” For example, any heavy object, soup can, frying pan, claw hammer, wooden bar stool, baseball bat – could be used to strike me in the head, abdomen, back or limb causing severe trauma. Electrical cord, towel, clothing article, pillow – could be used to garrotte or smother me. Straight “BIC” writing pen, screwdriver or other long stiff article – could be used to pierce an artery or jammed into my eye socket and into the brain. Solvents, drain openers, cleaning fluids – could be thrown in my face to blind me.Failing any of that, another person’s hands, feet and teeth can be used to inflict grievous harm – ever hear of “The Knock-out Game”?

          So, you focus on one thing, an openly carried firearm, and ignore the thousands of other things that you also ought to be afraid of that can spoil your “shopping experience” at Target? Not to forget the extreme danger posed to you by the act of driving an automobile to and from Target. Can you see how fatally flawed your thinking is?

          What makes any and all of these objects, including legally carried firearms, innocuous is not their presence in our lives, but the intention of the person carrying them, which by your kind of thinking, apparently, makes EVERYONE ELSE a danger to you…THAT is the egregious flaw in your thought system. You know that the vast majority of people go about their business intending no harm to you, or anyone else, and that is proven to you every time you go shopping at Target and return home unharmed. If that paranoid take on everyone else IS your belief, you need professional psychiatric help. If you believe you and the vast majority of other people intend no harm to anyone else, then get over your folly where guns are concerned and understand there is no substantive difference in the harm intended to you by another person peaceably open carrying a firearm and peaceably going about their business, as you are, than anyone else not carrying a firearm and peaceably going about their business, as you are. Stop manufacturing and projecting a paranoia on everyone else that is absolutely groundless in logic, everyday experience and fact.

          And don’t bother to come back at me with some sort of whining about the “risk” that some person with a gun in the Target Store “might go 51/50″ because statistically you have a far, far greater chance of suffering grievous injury in far, far, far, far more ways than that every minute of every day. The “exception” does not trump the “rule”, except perhaps in the case of all-out Nuclear War.

        • avatarMark says:

          My question Ma’am is:
          How many police officers/armed security personell have you told that to? How many have you asked not to openly carry a firearm around you? What was their response? Why should we as Federally vetted ccw licensees be treated any different that a police officer or armed security officer?
          Most of us are less stressed, better trained or at least more practiced, familiar with firearms laws, and verified to have been a somewhat competent shooter on a range!
          Your argument and statement hold no reasonable validity!! If you are that scared or afraid of a firearm please refer yourself to the nearest mental health professional for treatment of hoplophobia.
          Or just realize that the tool(firearm) is safer in our hands than in a criminals hands and that one of these days one of these millions of law abiding firearms owners may just save yours or a loved ones life!!
          BTW: having extensive hand to hand military training and Muy Thai training I could probably, even at 52yrs old, hurt you faster with my hands and feet than I could with a gun.
          Just food for thought and personal opinion.

        • avatar2hotel9 says:

          COMMENT MODERATED. I DON’T CARE IF YOU DISAGREE, FLAMING IS NOT ALLOWED. REPEATED OCCURRENCES WILL RESULT IN A BAN. -Matt

        • avatarMark says:

          And you are helping our cause how? By stopping to their level with the name calling!! Makes you no better than them. We have to maintain a higher standard and remain above their level regardless of what they call us!
          I don’t like the names they call us, the accusations they make and so on but I look at where it is coming from and I know I’m better than that!!
          I’ve had death threats, my family has been threatened and I’ve been called every name in the books by the rabid anti gun crowds for organizing and pushing for no more new gun laws, more enforcement of current laws on the books and for pushing for trained and armed volunteer guards in our schools.
          We have to maintain our decorum and higher level of intelligence at all times! We can and will defeat them with logic, knowledge and strength in numbers!!
          Be patient, be polite and when the time comes be ferocious and steadfast in our beliefs!

        • avatar2hotel9 says:

          “Be patient, be polite” That is precisely what has gotten America where we are, in the sh*tter. But hey! Keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I am sure that will save us all.

        • especially if that person is causing a disruption, which I can assure you, seeing an open carrier would for me. If I were to see a person – no matter WHO that person was – in a store with a gun, I would be afraid

          This is the same nonsense that the antis try to use against any carry in public. ;)

          I have a right to shop without fear.

          Oy Vey! Nobody has a right to feel something or to not feel something. This is just more anti rhetoric.

          All they are asking is that if you carry, you carry a concealed weapon.

          And many of us are answering, “No!” If a free, armed people aren’t welcome then we won’t be there. I tend to conceal in places like Target but don’t take kindly to Target’s statement on the matter. I won’t enter Target. I won’t spend money with Target. I will remind Target and any potential customers every chance that I get.

          Just don’t flash your gun around in everyone else’s face. The second amendment protects the right to own a gun, not to flaunt that you own a gun.

          This is more emotional anti-gun rubbish speak.

  5. The most successful gun ban organizations in the country are Open Carry Texas and their associated organizations. Bunch of Drama Queens and losers.

    • avatarHannibal says:

      Which makes sense as the biggest salesman for guns for the past few years has been Barack Obama.

    • avatarS.CROCK says:

      Just as Obama has been Americas greatest gun salesmen, OCT has been its own worst enemy. Congress may have been defeated (at passing some anti freedom laws), but OCT did what they would have liked to have done. So far open carry has turned Chipotle, Jack in the box, Starbucks, and target (am I missing any others?) into anti gun businesses.

      If concealed carry is legal where you live, please do!!!

    • avatarDeadeye says:

      Wow! I did not realize OCT was so powerful.

  6. avatarJon in NC says:

    No big deal, I don’t open carry anyway.

  7. avatarJuliesa says:

    “Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.” In this statement they seem to be excluding ALL firearms, even concealed.

    I have brought my firearm (concealed) to Target many times. If they don’t want me bringing my firearm then I shall no longer bring myself and my wallet to Target. I enjoy shopping there but I have many other stores to choose from. No need to go where I’m not wanted.

    • avatarA samurai says:

      If its CONCEALED they, and more importantly to them – their anti gun customers, won’t know. They are just asking people not to open carry. Just remember to check yourself in the mirror before you leave for printing.

      • avatarpwrserge says:

        With us or against us. They chose. They chose poorly. When you choose poorly there will be consequences. Consequences such as any reasonable gun owner realizing that a business that will sell their rights down the river should not get their money.

        • avatarBob says:

          Geez, give a rest dude. How many times do you have to post the same thing?

        • avatarrichard says:

          People who spout that fallacy “if you’re not part of (my/the final) solution, you’re part of the problem” nonsense have no place in a rational debate.

          I have always had a very strong interest in firearms, I like many things about them.
          I’m “pro gun”.

          But I’m also “Pro do whatever the fuck you want with what is yours”.
          If I open up a business where I require that everyone must wear a bow-tie and cross their eyes, that’s more than fine. No one is forcing anyone to come to my business.

          I believe that governments and other people should NEVER tell you what to do, as long as all parties are consenting. I know you’re a little logically challenged, so I’ll spell this out for you, before I get a “lol i dosen’t consent to gun control” line of BS. If you go to a place of business, which is private property, they agree to let you in…. under the condition that you follow their rules. If you choose to enter that place of business, then you consent to their rules. Otherwise GTFO.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          I’ll bet his application for a Target Credit Card was declined.

      • avatarJuliesa says:

        Agreed, but why should I go to a store that doesn’t want my business, when I have other stores I can go to? If Target were my only choice, I’d keep going there with my concealed gun, but here in the big city I have many other choices of stores that haven’t asked me to leave my gun at home.

        • avatarrichard says:

          Until an open carry group shows up, raises a fuss, and the store makes a noncommittal response like Target did.

          If a store thinks they can make more money by being anti gun… they will.
          If they think they can make more money by being pro gun, they will.

          However the most likely max profit situation is a middle of the road wishywashy response that tries it’s best to not alienate anyone.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          richard, you have just passed Risk Management 1: Crisis Management 101 – Reputation Protection and Recovery. Congratulations!

      • avatarSteveInCO says:

        In no part of the statement are they restricting it to open carry. They don’t want your gun in their store. Period.

        So they will have to do without my business. That’s the only sensible attitude here; saying you will simply defy (or misinterpret) their request violates their right to be jerks.

    • avatarBruce L. says:

      Juliesa, how would you feel if someone you don’t know would come to your house with their finger on the trigger of a loaded AR-15? Again, how would you feel if you noticed that same person (without the AR) had a pistol tucked under their shirt? My feelings, I would have a nice conversation with the latter, and ask the first to leave.

      • avatarBlinkyPete says:

        This. I love guns. I love AR’s. I love gun rights. None of that changes the fact that if I see 1-3 dudes just carrying them into a story apropos of nothing I’m going to keep and eye on them and the exit. It’s absolutely no wonder Target wants nothing to do with it.

      • avatarpwrserge says:

        Except that the former never happened. The weapons were in condition 4 and slung. Texas law does not permit condition 1 open carry so your example is moot.

        • avatarSertorius says:

          Great. So in addition to providing ammunition for the antigun crowd, these goofballs are carrying slung ARs without even a magazine in them? So they are useless? The commenter, above, who said these OC activists are cosplayers is dead-on.

      • avatarScot says:

        A private home and a business open to the public are not equivalent.

        The whole open carry thing is silly, but…..to the extent that the hoplophobes can get various companies to go along with them on open carry in stores, they will move on to asking the same companies to ban concealed carry as well (after all, just the idea that someone *might* be carrying a gun is icky) and to press for bans in public places.

        The ‘in your face’ of the OT crowd may not be your cup of tea, and it may be bad tactically, but it’s worse strategically for the POTG to act as if an attack on one sub-group of gun owners (OT people, those who enjoy modern sporting rifles, etc.) isn’t an attack on all gun owners.

        • avatarPeter says:

          Open to the public does not mean operated by the government as a public entity. It’s private property, and you are allowed use of the property if you agree to the owner’s terms.

      • avatarJuliesa says:

        I’m only addressing the CEO’s final statement, that “bringing firearms” harms their family friendly atmosphere. He’s not actually banning anything, but his statement implies that he doesn’t want me there if I bring my gun. Perhaps he should clarify, since I have many alternative stores from which to choose.

        • avatarBob says:

          My bet is that they are not going to post “No Firearms Allowed” signs but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          Perhaps he should clarify, since I have many alternative stores from which to choose.

          He’s being purposely ambiguous in a calculated move to keep both your business and the handful of Moms’ business. On the advice of a very-well compensated lawyer and a Disaster Recovery professional, no doubt.

          Same as Starbuck’s and Staples.

    • Exactly, Juliesa! By making that statement, they are publicly announcing their belief that firearms create an environment that is not family-friendly. I vehemently disagree and my family will not spend a dime at Target.

      • avatarSteveInCO says:

        + frigging One Thousand.

        I don’t understand this attitude of people that say they’ll just go shop there anyway.

  8. avatarGeorge says:

    A losing checkers game against an opponent playing 3-dimensional chess.

    Nice work on the part of the long-gun open carry folks.

    And now I have to move my prescriptions…..

  9. avatar7.62x54r says:

    Ms. Watts hasn’t twitted this yet?

  10. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    reads just like Starbucks. . . . whatever.

    • avatarTheBear says:

      Pretty much…

      Although at least Starbucks serves a broad spectrum of clientele. I have to question the wisdom of OCT going to a business that serves almost exclusively women, including soccer moms.

      I mean… what did they think would happen? Target can’t come out as pro open carry or they’d alienate a large portion of their customer base.

  11. avatarH-Dizzle says:

    The low ready open carry crew strikes again, nice job guys! Freaking out big chain stores one at a time with your juvenile nonsense.

    Thankfully it is a request not an actual ban, so Bloomberg’s Mom Who Demands Attention get to claim total victory, but it won’t chance things for us CCW folks that don’t act like lunch-bags.

    If the Open Carry Low Ready Mall Ninja crowd keeps this up, I’m going to start to wonder if they might not have some Mayor Mike funding coming in on the sly, they might not even know it is him funding them, but they are doing FAR more damage to our cause than Mayor Mike and his Mommy.

  12. avatarJeff says:

    I’ll be glad to not carry at Target, because I won’t be at Target. Happy now?

  13. avatarMark says:

    Although I respect targets decision to do what they feel is right in keeping their customers safe and happy I don’t agree with their decision to ask that No Firearms be carried into their store.
    It’s not at odds with anything other than they are trying to appease the Antis.
    If local law allows it then they should, as they say, follow local laws. If they have issues with customers carrying then perhaps they should hire an armed guard or two!! Once you cave in to one “hot topic” item then it’s downhill from there.
    JMHO!!

  14. avatarDave357 says:

    The title of this post is misleading. Target doesn’t request customers not to open carry, Target requests the customers not to carry altogether. The fact that one can still conceal carry doesn’t change what they have requested.

    Open carry of long guns only belongs at organized rallies on public property, otherwise only handguns should be open carried in populated areas.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      Didn’t catch that at first. Headline amended.

      • avatarDave357 says:

        They do talk about “open carry” at some point in their release, so perhaps it’s somewhat ambiguous, but elsewhere in their release they are not being specific about open carry.

      • avatarBlinkyPete says:

        Can you actually amend the headline to read “Open Carry Texas kicks ball into own net again”?

        Credit to DisThunder for that gem, which I will be shamelessly stealing from here on out.

    • avatarLeadSlinger says:

      +1. Target is saying “But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.”

      While it might still be legal to conceal carry in Target with a permit, we are now in a grey area with the law. While I firmly believe in the right to conceal carry, I am also a firm believer in private property rights.

      Nice going OC people.

      • avatarRichard says:

        There is no grey area. If it is legal in the state and carry is not BANNED by the store, then carry away; All they can do is ask you to leave, which you must do or risk a possible trespass complaint. In most states, a sign on the door saying no firearms allowed does not carry the weight of law but once again, if asked to leave, you gotta leave.

        • avatarJR_in_NC says:

          “In most states, a sign on the door saying no firearms allowed does not carry the weight of law but once again, if asked to leave, you gotta leave.”

          And even in this state, where the sign DOES carry weight of law, they have to post the sign. The law is very specific on this point…the sign MUST be plainly visible at the entrance one used to enter the premises.

          Announcing a “request” is meaningless under the law. I suspect they know this, and are playing the pandering game.

          When I start seeing signs in all these businesses making this “request” is when I’ll take the “request” seriously.

        • avatarLeadSlinger says:

          I would think a business publicly stating not to bring firearms is in fact a ban.

          My concern is that if we continue to carry, there is a possibility that we could have an encounter with law enforcement. They will be reminded of Target’s new policy. Depending on state law we might still have the right to carry, but how will the LEO on site interpret the law? Do you feel comfortable that the LEO will handle the situation properly and just ask you to leave?

        • avatarJR_in_NC says:

          “I would think a business publicly stating not to bring firearms is in fact a ban.”

          Bull squeeze. How can they prove you heard their press release?

          In NC, the law is very specific. You can carry everywhere except…and the exceptions are clearly codified in the statute.

          One of those exceptions is a private property owner that has conspicuously posted at the entrance in such a manner that the sign is seen.

          The statute says nothing about “corporate requests.”

          At most, this may mean that employees might be instructed to ‘ask carriers to leave’ if a weapon is observed. THEY are the ones that have to follow corporate policy.

        • avatarLeadSlinger says:

          “At most, this may mean that employees might be instructed to ‘ask carriers to leave’ if a weapon is observed. THEY are the ones that have to follow corporate policy.”

          I disagree. More likely the store will call the police reporting a man with a gun. I doubt that a store would want their employees to confront someone carrying a weapon. Now you get to make your case to a LEO. Encounters with a LEO always go well, right?

          BTW – I just heard the announcement on radio news.

        • avatarMatt Richardson says:

          “In NC, the law is very specific. You can carry everywhere except…and the exceptions are clearly codified in the statute.”

          Actually many of the laws regarding carry in our state are rather ambiguous. Restaurant carry, for example, is permitted. That said can you read the statute and definitively tell me whether or not I (as a CCW holder, because that much is specific) can open carry at my local diner?

          What about schools? We can’t exit our vehicle armed, and the weapon has to be enclosed/secured in a locked vehicle, but does a holster qualify?

          Lastly, “clearly defined” isn’t so clearly defined. My local gas station has a bizarre “no weapons” sticker in a window near the door which is covered in stickers and other signs. It’s inches from the door hinge (though not on the door itself) but surrounded by other advertisements and “noise” as I like to call it. Easily missed, and it doesn’t specify firearms, but I know the intent.

          I’m no lawyer, and have neither the desire nor the means to keep one on retainer for silly shit like that so I don’t push my luck (most of the time.) Long story short, NC has made great strides over the last few years, but our firearms legislation is still a disaster.

          BTW, my local Wake Forest Target will get one last visit from me so I can file a complain in person to go along with my hand written letter. I have open-carried there since we moved to the area some years back and have NEVER had an issue with my sidearm.

        • avatarJR_in_NC says:

          “That said can you read the statute and definitively tell me whether or not I (as a CCW holder, because that much is specific) can open carry at my local diner?”

          Tell me why not. OC is not illegal in NC. Are you conflating laws?

          Some discussion on the topic, but bear in mind some of that was written before last year’s changes (in regard to ‘places that alcohol’, etc):

          http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4132

          “What about schools? We can’t exit our vehicle armed, and the weapon has to be enclosed/secured in a locked vehicle, but does a holster qualify?”

          Doesn’t the statute say “container?” If so, then a holster would NOT qualify. We need a lawyer’s input to be sure…but my CCW class teacher explained “closed container” was the way it was explained at “how to be a teacher” classes given by the State CJ folks.

          “Lastly, “clearly defined” isn’t so clearly defined. My local gas station has a bizarre “no weapons” sticker in a window near the door which is covered in stickers and other signs. It’s inches from the door hinge (though not on the door itself) but surrounded by other advertisements and “noise” as I like to call it. Easily missed, and it doesn’t specify firearms, but I know the intent. “

          The statute says:

          “the posting of a conspicuous notice or statement by the person in legal possession or control of the premises.”

          If you can see it and properly interpret it…I sure would call that a conspicuous notice or statement. It does not have to specify firearms. The law says nothing about required wording.

          It all seems pretty clear to me. {shrug} If they post it…no go.

        • avatarJR_in_NC says:

          “I doubt that a store would want their employees to confront someone carrying a weapon. Now you get to make your case to a LEO. “

          What are you saying? That if I am in violation of no laws, the cop is going to arrest me for violating Target’s corporate policy or some press conference request they made?

          Hint: he can’t do that. He MUST have a State Statute under which to charge me. Target’s policies and request are NOT LAWS.

          Good grief. This defeatist thinking is getting kind of ridiculous.

          First, if I’m carrying concealed, how would they know? Ok, let’s say I print. NC is an OC state, so that’s not even illegal, either.

          Let them call the cops. As soon as I present my CCH and show them no posted sign on the premises, the conversation is over. What else is he going to do?

        • avatarSteveInCO says:

          Target can assert that they asked you to leave and you refused. That’s trespass.

          And when that happens you will get zero sympathy from me. They don’t want you on their property. So don’t go there.

      • While I firmly believe in the right to conceal carry

        Does your state require a license or permit to carry concealed? If so, do you have a license? A right to carry concealed would not require a license or permit. In some states, the only way to exercise the right to bear arms is open carry.

  15. avatartjlarson2k says:

    “Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.”

    Hypocrisy and no thank you. CC is perfectly fine. OC, where legal, should also be fine. If you don’t like it (Target), leave that state.

    But they do have a point about the OC “at the ready” tards — no one wants to see that and that’s not what “bearing arms” means.

    If you must OC, sling that rifle. Don’t have your hand near the trigger unless you have a reason to — like engaging a threat. Otherwise you’re just being a jackass and asking for unwanted attention and causing alarm. A firearm is not a toy or a prop for a selfie.

    • avatarBlinkyPete says:

      “If you don’t like it (Target), leave that state.”

      Um, no. Just because something is legal, and even constitutionally protected, doesn’t mean privately owned and operated stores have to allow it. Should Target also leave every state where sex is legal?

      • avatarAnother Robert says:

        I see your point, but that’s a bad analogy. In most states, if not all, having sex in public is indeed illegal.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          It’s the first thing I could think of. Offensive clothing, first amendment rights and property rights would be a better example, but sex is higher on my list of things I’m usually thinking about.

        • avatarAnother Robert says:

          Had to laugh at that…

  16. One more reason that “open carry” is not right for everywhere you plan to be going. OC has a time and place but that time & place is not long guns inside private businesses. (unless you own that business) OTOH demonstrating out on the street with signs, and nicely dressed protesters IS the correct time & place. Come on folks, let’s keep it classy and not give the gun grabbers anything to use against us AGAIN!!!

  17. avatarGlenn says:

    I’ve posted the link to Target’s release on OCT’s Facebook page. Watch them disavow their complicity in putting a “win” in Bloomberg’s column. The ultimate “Negligent discharge of the day” award should go to CJ Grisham & the OCT & all w/o firing a shot.

    Original Target link here:

    http://abullseyeview.com/2014/07/target-addresses-firearms-in-stores/

  18. avatarmark_anthony_78 says:

    Being in NJ, this request has less than zero impact on my life…

    But it pisses me the hell off that we’re here fighting for our right to even OWN guns (let alone carry them ANYWHERE) while a-holes in Texas and other open carry states are screwing this up for everyone else.

    I absolutely think that if open carry is legal, then *carrying* a rifle should be OK too. But like a lot of others have stated, open carry does not mean open brandish.

    • avatardwb says:

      ^this. While we are fighting for our rights in MD, OCT is busy taking them away.

    • avatarMatt Richardson says:

      Kindly don’t equate open carry on the whole with these smacktards in OCT. A holstered sidearm while you are out with the kids at the store isn’t exactly an AR flashmob, if you catch my drift. These people are looking for a reaction and they’re getting it.

      That said, I’m sure a lot of folks said some nasty stuff about blacks who sat at white-only counters in diners, ya know? These OCT people have their hearts in the right place, and they aren’t even breaking the law (unlike the sit-in protests of yore.) They can be an ally and an asset, but we definitely need to get a handle on them…

  19. avatarJill says:

    I don’t open carry anyways but you just put your stores on the lists that people will use for other shootings etc great job. I will no longer be shopping at any of your locations

  20. avatarSouthernPatriot says:

    Just conceal carry in Target. (but don’t shoot the Target!).

    I am surprised Target took so long on this one, and the “respectfully requests” is a nice touch…ha.

    • avatarSteveInCO says:

      Did you miss where they don’t want ANY guns in their stores?

      Why do you want to shop in such a place?

      Tell me my gun isn’t welcome, and the correct response is “You’ll never see a dime again” not “Ha, hah hah, I’ll just go there anyway and feel clever because I am breaking your rule and you don’t know it.” They will laugh all the way to the bank.

  21. avatarDano says:

    Thank you OCT. On to hobby lobby….

  22. avatarBlinkyPete says:

    This is the equivalent of giving the babies on both sides their bottles. Shannon and her idiot friends will cheer over nothing, our ‘friends’ in OCT will move on to the next ‘look at me’ stage show and concealed carries will be affected not at all.

    • avatarDave357 says:

      I am not sure it is nothing. Their long-term goal is to deligitimize bearing arms socially so that they can eventually roll back shall-issue concealed carry laws. This is definitely a step in the direction they want the country to go in. And once they have a string of successes they may move on to stage two and start pressuring businesses to post no-guns signs.

      The pro-gun side needs to fight for the right to open-carry with more finesse, that’s for sure.

      • avatarBlinkyPete says:

        Sure, that’s fair. I just meant their going to make a mountain of a mole-hill. Target doesn’t give a damn about open carry, concealed carry or anything else. They don’t want to be in the middle of a divisive issue, and they’re looking to calm both sides down.

        In terms of normalization, we need to look no further than the gay rights movement. You can be for it or against it, but you can’t deny the effectiveness of calmly stating “we’re not a threat, we’re just like you”. In the 70′s and 80′s mainstream gays tied their wagons to extremist stars and held loud, boisterous, in-your-face explicit rallies and parades. It wasn’t until the 90′s that they shifted to more straight forward, grass roots tactics. That’s a lesson we should learn.

        • avatarDave357 says:

          Sure, but enough mole-hills will make for a bigger-size hill. At the present time, open carry inside city limits is for handguns – it’s not how it should be, but we can’t change social attitudes overnight. And in States where folks have to open carry long guns to advocate for the right to open carry handguns, they should limit themselves to attending organized rallies on public property. Everything else seems counterproductive.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          No, they used ten years of an out of control epidemic of an incurable and deadly STD to tug at the heartstrings of the gullible people to generate unwarranted sympathy fo their plight. Then they used the death of a gay meth dealer at the hands of one of his customers and occaisional sex partner to further gain sympathy. (See gay journalist Stephen Jimenez’s “The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard,”)

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Dave – I agree with all of that.

          Tdiinva – Roughly none of that. I agree that the Matthew Shephard case exposes the staggering hypocrisy of ‘hate crime’ laws, but that’s all. The rest of your statement has no historical merit.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Blinky:

          How old are you? Are you old to remember how the gay community used poor Ryan Whate and Arthur Ashe to gain sympathy for gays who attracted aids by saying “see it happens to little boys and straight tennis stars too.” I would say getting the federal government and the private sector to spend $100 billions on treating a sexually transmitted disease pretty much confined to 1.5% of the population is the successful garning of support for gay rights.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          31, but I have the internet and can read, so memory isn’t super important. I do remember Ryan White, though; he contracted HIV and died at a time where a large portion of the population thought it was a disease confined to drug addicts and drug users. I don’t see an ulterior motive in their public outreach, nor do I think it was related to an effort to gain support via sympathy.

          In regards to your second point, if you can point out an infectious disease that’s killed 600,000 or more people in the US in the past 20 years – hell, 50 years, that hasn’t instigated that kind of inflation adjusted spending please do so. Bonus points if said infectious disease just suddenly appears, is 100% fatal and stumps the world’s greatest scientists for almost a decade.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Blinky:

          The last such sexually transmitted disease was called syphilis which is making quite a comeback in the gay community these days. With antibiotic resistance going the way may it soon return to the death sentence it was before penicillin. The gay community got the government and industry to spend a massive amount of money on a cure or at least a control so they could hit the bathhouse without fear of death. That is quite an accomplishment. Ryan White and Arthur Ashe are just two prominent examples of people who were infected through tainted donated blood from drug users and gay men. You might be interested to know that the AIDS activists are pushing the Red Cross into allowing gay men to donate again. I always thought that the real Libertarian position on dangerous behavior was that you get to do what you want but we don’t have to pay for it. I think that makes sense. There are lots of medical problems to solve that affect people through no fault of their own. Let’s spend the money on them and those who get fatal illnesses from their own behavior.
          This little sidebar proves my point about how successful the gay community was in parlaying a fatal behavioral disease into acceptance of their agenda.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          It doesn’t really prove anything, beyond your Olympian skill level at logical gymnastics. You’ve got from gays to AIDS to syphilis and personal responsibility without really offering any actual evidence for your original thesis – that gays manipulated their way into acceptance. I certainly believe in the mantra that people should be held responsible for their behavior, but I don’t see any evidence that indicates AIDS/HIV was given special treatment because of a gay lobby. If anything, it was ignored for being associated with gays, and only given due attention when it came to light it was affecting the general population. I also don’t understand what syphilis has to do with this – antibiotic tolerant bacteria affects everyone.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          I will connect the dots for you. Syphilis is a behaviorally acquired disease. If a group of libertines in the 1930 demanded that the government develop a cure they would have laughed at. When the gay lobby began its propaganda campaign they used AIDS as way of garnering sympathy. Hollywood made movie called Philadelphia starring Tom Hanks to raise AIDS awareness and by the turn someone who contracted it into cultural icon and the changed the way that people viewed gays.

          Yes drug resistance affects everyone but unless you are a sexual libertine of any persuasion you aren’t going to get and your comment my friend shows how much you have absorbed of gay propaganda concerning AIDS.

        • avatarLC says:

          tdiinva,

          we seen this sort of thinly veiled homophobia before, and it is simply bullshit

          Supporting AIDs research is anything but inadvertently supporting homosexual rights. That is similar to saying that supporting rape awareness is just focusing on women.

          Astoundingly ignorant. Now go away and have some tea with Fred Phelps.

  23. avatarClark says:

    I’d like to see where OC created an unsafe environment at Target? Did any mis haps happen…I’m guessing no…That being said..thanks alot OCT…you’re continued “demonstrations” just keep adding companies to the list who no longer respect our rights…

    • avatarSteveInCO says:

      A behavior doesn’t have to actually result in a mishap for it to be unsafe; it just has to have a higher probability of the mishap happening.

      • avatarHannibal says:

        How can you know if something has a higher likelihood of happening when it’s… never happened?

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          I’m confused by the premise – are you saying something unsafe happening specifically as a result of open carry? It’s reasonable to assume that hasn’t happened, but I know of at least one incident where some jackass took his drawers down to drop the kids off at the pool in a store bathroom, tried to reach for his gun so it wouldn’t touch the floor and loosed a round through the wall. No one was hurt, but for a split second they were certainly less safe.

          Back to the OC argument though, I think the better description is “feeling less safe”, which someone who sees a person or group carrying rifles most certainly would. Customers who feel unsafe don’t buy shit, and stores want you to buy shit.

        • “Customers who feel unsafe don’t buy shit, and stores want you to buy shit.”

          That goes both ways, Pete. I can’t tell when or where a crime or violence may occur, so I feel safer with my XD on my hip.

        • avatarSteveInCO says:

          Depends on the circumstance.

          But it’s just flat out stupid to argue “well nothing happened, so it must not have been unsafe to do that” as Clark seems to think.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Randall – awesome dude. Keep in on your hip until it’s needed. Just do the smart thing, from a self defense and 2nd amendment defense perspective and cover it up.

        • avatarClark says:

          I wasn’t clear enough. I was responding to Target’s premise of their customers wanting to feel “safe” in their stores. I’d like to know if anything “unsafe” happened or if they just considered open carry in itself “unsafe”…It was a vague criticism of Target’s reasoning…all that being said, OCT’s tactics are awfully stupid. Everywhere they go comes out soon after asking us not to bring firearms into their stores, open or concealled from what I’m reading. It’s a dumb tactic that’s costing me some of my favorite retailers (as I choose not to shop in a “gun free zone”)

        • avatarSteveInCO says:

          With that, Clark, I think we are in accord. Thanks for the clarification.

  24. avatarJames says:

    alk about a convergence of cognitive dissonance and Einstein’s theory of insanity.

    First the cognitive dissonance. Supposedly the point of OC is to get the public used to the sight of guns so it is no big deal. Instead of advancing that goal, they have pushed to far and now several national chains have requested that you not open carry, in essence,they have made the sight of the gun a bigger deal. 2 steps back anyone.

    Second Einstein’s theory; insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Sonic, Chipotle, Jack in the Box, now Target, partially Starbucks. Don’t be surprised when Home Depot follows suit.

    • avatarJR_in_NC says:

      “Supposedly the point of OC is to get the public used to the sight of guns so it is no big deal. “

      Since the blame for this non-news (Target’s ‘request’ is empty … ) is being leveled at Open Carry Texas, it is very important to understand that your statement above, for them, is incorrect.

      They are very specifically protesting the absence of legal open carry of handguns in Texas. They carry rifles to draw attention to this fact. If people freak-out over the rifles and say, “carry a handgun instead, it’s less scary,” the answer to that is, “Yeah, but handgun OC is illegal, rifle is not.”

      Agree with them or not…and most do not…but it is important to get it right what and why they are doing it.

      • avatarAnon in CT says:

        Then they should do that protesting in the public square, so to speak, not on private property. Freaking people out by carrying ARs across your chest is idiotic and demonstrably counter-productive.

        The law should protect people who accidentally “print” or reveal while stretching, but OC in urban areas makes no sense. Maybe it should be legal, but it’s still unwise and a stupid fight to have, since it is now forcing stores to take a stand we don’t want to them to take.

        And sorry, but I don’t want my kids around a bunch of mall ninjas with ARs in the low carry.

        • avatarJR_in_NC says:

          All fair points.

          It helps to define the ‘better’ way to do it when one has the correct reason they are doing it what “it” is that they are doing.

        • avatarDave357 says:

          OC in urban areas is OK, just not for long guns. Of course, social acceptance of open carrying a handgun varies from one part of the country to another, but a blanket statement seems unfair.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          That depends on the urban area. OC in Boston is a decent way to suicide by cop. I say decent because they’ll be aiming for you, but there’s only a 1 in 14 chance they’ll hit you.

  25. avatarShwiggie says:

    I’ll just do what I do now…concealed carry when and where I legally may (including Target as long as I’m in-state: I love MS Enhanced Carry permits) and avoid everywhere else. Nobody gets their hackles up, and I don’t have to worry about being accosted by either muggers or employees or police.

    But I’m going to have to have an overriding reason to go in any Target ever again.

  26. avatarGreg says:

    And I respectfully give my money to another buisness. Thanks.

  27. avatarMike says:

    I gotta agree with Target on this one. Open-carrying a PISTOL, in an open-carry state, is about as far as activists should take it, IMHO. (I understand TX doesn’t allow open carry of pistols, but that should be resolved in the Legislature.)

    Basic situational awareness tells me that if I see someone carrying a rifle into a store, then I need to take me and my family the hell out of there. I’m not sticking around to figure out whether he’s “one of the good guys” or a psycho strung out on Prozac and ready to go out in a blaze of infamy. Rifle-carry elicits reactions that pistol-carry does not. My experience with open carry of a pistol has been that the vast majority of people are NOT paying enough attention to notice it. The same is not true for rifle carry: it WILL be noticed and it WILL induce near-panic. It’s stupid: politically and tactically.

  28. Though the gesture is purely symbolic, it is symptomatic of a growing trend (also seen with Starbucks). Open carry demonstrations might do well to think about restricting their activities to well-coordinated and pre-planned (with ample prior notification) events before this starts yielding actual gains for the anti-gun side.

  29. avatarDon says:

    They didn’t prohibit it, they just “asked”. They a business and trying to stay out of the argument as much as they can. Just look down a few stories where Target tossed the “Mothers” out of their parking lot that were trying to have a anti-carry petition signed.
    Everyone needs to lighten up a bit. Most of these business aren’t trying to get themselves into the gun debate. They are just trying to sell their merchandise, keep shareholders happy, and piss off as few customers as possible while outsiders are trying to drag them into an argument they didn’t ask for.

    • avatarEd Cardoza says:

      Bingo! I think the reason Target told the Mom’s to vacate is because Target doesn’t allow demonstrations, protests, or anything of that nature in front of their stores.

    • avatarHannibal says:

      If they wanted to stay out of the argument they could have (a) not done anything or (b) prohibited open carry as a means to end pro-carry demonstrations\exhibitions.

      Instead they chose to ‘request’ all evil guns stay out.

  30. avatarMecha75 says:

    I conceal carry in target all the time. Nothing’s changed as far as I am concerned. It’s not like toys r us which clearly doesn’t want my money. Their loss as I have small children with lotsa friends.

  31. avatarTim U says:

    Does anyone in the gun world still believe these activists are trying to promote guns? I’m convinced they’re on Bloomberg’s payroll to give his organizations ammunition against gun owners in the court of public opinion.

    • avatarDon says:

      Rebels without a clue, is what they are. They are the gun version of the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
      While they’re at it, they’re screwing everyone else too.

  32. avatarbusaboy757 says:

    As a business owner I respect the wishes of other business owners on their property. I can simply conceal carry in target and buffalo wild wings and starbucks and whatever other business doesn’t want guns in their establishment because I am a responsible gun owner I’m not going to take my weopon out unless some psycho comes in shooting the place up and then guess what, I’m prepared to be there and prove that the outcome of a bad situation is always better when there are “good guys” withh guns. I doubt if I save the life of some innocent people I’ll get into trouble for having my gun and if I do could you imagine the shit storm of pro 2nd amendment organizations that would be there to back me up? The thing I don’t understand the most is all these companies and mom organizations not ralizing that the last person you should be worried about having a gun is the one who is willing to open carry and show you he has a gun from the minute he walks in the door. I feel safer in places when I see others open carrying but thats just my opinion and we all know what opinions are like. ……….

    • avatarSteveInCO says:

      Given that target has asked you to leave your gun at home–not your openly carried gun, but your gun, however carried, do you plan to abide by their request?

      Concealed carrying into Target is NOT complying with their request. You should now take your business elsewhere, if it’s your policy to abide by other business owners’ requests.

  33. avatarDerryM says:

    I was splitting my shopping between Target and Wal-Mart, but now I will not go to Target anymore, even though we cannot Open Carry in California and getting a CCW is very difficult just for “personal protection”.
    I am going to find contact information for Target and tell them so, and cancel my Target VISA. I don’t patronize Starbucks any longer either.
    This “caving” to Bloomberg has got to be resisted, however we can.

    • avatarRichard says:

      It does no good to protest by cancelling anything unless the company knows about it and why.

      • avatarDerryM says:

        Which is why I will be writing to Target, as I stated, “I am going to find contact information for Target and tell them so,…”.
        Kindly bother to read the comment before posting some pointless remark, or don’t bother to read my comments at all…suits me either way, Richard.

    • avatarDerryM says:

      I just sent this message to Target Stores Corporate. They don’t exactly ask for Customer Comments, so I picked “Target Corporate Information” under “stores&company”

      I am writing to advise you that your decision to “respectfully request” that Target Customers no longer bring their legally carried firearms into Target Stores, in response to pressure from the Michael Bloomberg anti-Second Amendment Lobby, meets with my complete disapproval. While I understand you have some right to make this decision, please be assured I will exercise my right to choose whereshop in the future…it will NOT be Target Stores.
      I have carefully patronized Target in balance with Wal-Mart and other discount retailers for many years, but Target is now excluded from this effort.
      Further, upon processing payment I just sent, I will be closing my Target Red Card permanently.
      While some of our Constitutionally Protected Civil Rights may not be fully understood and appreciated by all Americans, it is, nevertheless, the right of every Citizen to exercise those rights whenever and wherever he/she chooses irregardless of the opinions of others. Giving-up or infringing any lawful right is a loss of Liberty that I will not tolerate. Therefore your decision to “respectfully request” that law abiding Citizens give-up their Constitutionally Protected right to be prepared to defend themselves and their families wherever they go has caused me to determine Target Stores is no longer a retailer I will patronize or support.

      Here’s a link to the contact page if anyone else wants to express their displeasure with Target. You can e-mail them through the link.

      http://www.target.com/HelpContent?help=/sites/html/TargetOnline/help/contact_us/contact_us.html

      • avatarMatt Richardson says:

        *regardless

        • avatarDerryM says:

          Oh yeah I get it. Bad proof reading on my part. Wrote it in the little box Target provides and missed that one. Although non-standard and a double negative, most people construe it as an emphatic version of “regardless”, which does not by any means make it correct. Thanks for catching it and pointing it out to me. Much obliged! :-)

  34. avatarLeonidas says:

    The OC folks only have other OC folks to blame for any store not wanting law abiding gun owners to be carrying firearms inside their stores. I could go into public perception of OC folks but it would take too long and end up being offensive when not meant to be.

    As for shopping at Target or Starbucks I may or may not be concealing a firearm. Only I know plus the wife if she is present.

  35. avatarGreg says:

    Open Carry Texas has done more to advance gun control than Moms, Brady, and Bloomberg. Are we sure OCT is not a shadow group funded by them? Can they really be that ignorant of the damage they are doing.

    • avatarBlinkyPete says:

      “Open Carry Texas has done more to advance gun control than Moms, Brady, and Bloomberg.”

      I’ve said that myself, so very many times. If the 2nd amendment falls it would be because of us, not our opponents.

      • avatarJR_in_NC says:

        Okay. I’ll bite.

        What specific gun control statutes has Open Carry Texas helped to get passed?

        Corporate PR “requests” are not “gun control.”

        Don’t answer with platitudes or emoting on how you “feel” they’ve done this or that. Statute numbers of laws that have been passed due to OCT’s activities is the only reply I’ll read.

        • avatarDeadeye says:

          Lets not bring facts into this. This is an emotional argument, OK!

        • avatarS.CROCK says:

          A law doesn’t have to be passed to hurt our gun rights. Many large businesses have now become anti gun because of open carry.

          Conceal carry on.

        • avatarJR_in_NC says:

          “Many large businesses have now become anti gun because of open carry.”

          I disagree because “no signs.”

          Corporate requests are empty words. It’s PR shilling. Pandering. No teeth.

          They get to LOOK like they are ‘anti gun’ without having to actually BE anti gun. Symbolism over substance, as the saying goes.

          They know what it takes to legally and properly “ban” guns in their stores…they say they will obey all local and state laws. I’m willing to bet they’ve read the statutes and know what it takes, and making a ‘Request’ in a press conference is not it. Without taking that action, it’s just hot air and empty words.

        • avatarraw_toe says:

          ahhh come on… Target has made their announcement that they don’t like guns. Standby for proper signage (30.06 in TX, prohibits firearms, concealed or not.) to be quietly placed on stores in the coming months. They won’t make a big announcement. Just watch and see. The percentage of legally carrying gun owners is tiny compared to the number of people that shop at these places. Which side do you think they will try to appease?

          The sad fact is that OCT is playing a PR game in what is a PR battle and doing it badly. If you think that shouting 2nd Amendment makes any difference to the people that want to ban carry, then you are living in blissful ignorance of the true nature of this fight. But hey, go ahead and be confrontational and see how well that (continues) to work for ya…

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          JR, your criteria here is ridiculously limited. Ignoring the effects of OCT’s demonstrations outside of actual laws being passed is beyond obtuse. At least two formerly neutral organizations they’ve demonstrated at have taken a side… against us. I agree the request has no ‘teeth’ – it isn’t designed to, but it certainly gives something for Shannon, Bloomy and their legions of idiot followers to trumpet, and it makes us all look terrible to fence sitters.

        • avatarDave357 says:

          It’s not entirely without a practical effect though. I bet many of those who open carried a handgun at Target will not longer feel comfortable doing that.

        • avatarAnother Robert says:

          @ rawtoe; whatever will or will not happen, Target stores in Texas aren’t about to bindingly, legally ban CCers by putting up the appropriate signs. Maybe in some enclave in Austin, but I’ll eat my hat if it happens anywhere else in Texas. The local managers are probably cringing at what the “interim CEO” has said, which as noted above, amounted to just a bit more than weasel words. Too many CCers around. And if it did happen, it certainly wouldn’t be “quietly”.

        • avatarEATENG says:

          JR, I can’t say for Open Carry Texas, but after a wave a open carry protests at Starbucks several years ago here in CA, AB144 was immediately passed in 2011, banning the OC of handguns. Undeterred the OC’ers proceeded to protest with longguns. Guess what, in 2012, they passed AB1527 to ban the OC of rifles and shotguns.

        • EATENG: Perhaps there is a different relationship between the People and State government in CA than there is in OH. I assume that the State of Ohio is smart enough to know that if they did such things they would be violating the State Constitution and that we would be engaging in mass acts of civil disobedience. If it were to happen here, large groups would probably violate the law openly and often in protest.

  36. avatarTITAN308 says:

    Some of you are such drama queens.

    I’ll continue to shop at Target on occasion and I’ll be concealed while doing so.

    Target is a business, not a political faction. Their goal is to appease both sides. They are between a rock and a hard place.

    So either shop there or don’t – but some of you act like a bunch of nancies.

    • avatarMack Bolan says:

      It’s like the vagina monologues…but with guns.

    • avatarmark_anthony_78 says:

      It’s not just about Target…

      It’s about the actions of folks in Texas, getting their picture taken with guns being held irresponsibly, that people in OTHER states send around to say “See, THIS is why we don’t want open carry here”… (in NJ for example).

      In Texas it may only affect a few people in a few stores, but in other states it slams the door shut on the ENTIRE right to carry.

      Some people (OCT included) need to think outside their little bubble for a moment…

      • avatarJR_in_NC says:

        Don’t blame OCT for what is happening in your state.

        They are activists trying to effect change in their own state legislature; they are not responsible for other states.

        If your state sucks, that’s on you. Get out there and get active yourself.

        • avatarAnon in CT says:

          If they are not Mobys then they have the worst tactics since the French Army in WW II.

          Scaring people does not normalize anything. They are acting out for attention, and it’s hurting all of us.

        • avatarJR_in_NC says:

          “it’s hurting all of us.”

          They have not hurt anything here in the real world aside from the fragile feelings of gun owners who disagree with what they are doing.

          I ask again. What law has been based that limits firearms freedom that can be put squarely on OCT? What of these big stores in Texas has put up 30.06 signs?

          Show me a sociological study of some kind that shows that “popular opinion” of guns is on the decline and that it can be mathematically correlated with the actions of OCT.

          Stow the emoting and look at facts.

          The proof will be in whether Texas gets OC of handguns legalized. That’s their test.

  37. avatarGarrison Hall says:

    You can bet Shannon and the Mom’s are touting this as a monumental win, mainly because it’s a TEXAS win. To the rest of the country, especially in the Mom’s country on the east and west coast, Texas is, rightly or wrongly, as a gun-rights bastion. The Mom’s are a professional outfit, funded by a media giant, and managed by an experienced PR operative (Shannon) who clearly understands the importance of a carefully polished image and staying on message. OC Texas (and I won’t even mention OC Tarrant County)? Not so much.

    I’m all for open carry, but the Texas legislature is currently led by a guy named Joe Strauss who is a thoroughgoing RINO. If his past record is any indication, he will be looking for any excuse to derail an open-carry initiative long before it comes up for a vote. The Mom’s speak his language and are speaking directly to him. You can just bet he’s listening.

  38. avatarDaniel says:

    So, hostility toward firearm owners IS family friendly?
    So long, Target. I’ll use Amazon.

  39. avatarRichard says:

    Alright OCT, you did well. You got your point across. Shove your ‘rights’ down someone’s throat and they may regurgitate on you. I am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter but with the current climate, you gotta win the hearts and minds of the people and you just don’t do that by shoving yourself in their face.

  40. avatarSteve says:

    If I “respectfully request” that Target CEO John Mulligan s*ck my d*ck, will he do it?

    This is nothing more than meaningless PR drivel.

    • avatarJR_in_NC says:

      “This is nothing more than meaningless PR drivel.”

      + 1 Million

      All the hand wringing over these corporate ‘requests’ is comical. Until they post legal signage, they are no more restricting firearms in their stores than they did yesterday.

      Pandering to both sides is all these statements are. I agree with those that are saying they are just trying to stay out of the fight, but good grief…all the panty twisting over this makes me shake my head.

  41. avatardh34 says:

    I’ll say it again and again. OC in TX is ours/yours to lose. Abbott, providing an upset occurs, will sign it if it gets to his desk. Thus is the crap that will keep it from getting there.

    If….if Wendy pulls it out, she said she’ll sign it, but I don’t have alot of faith in that promise.

    • avatarDave357 says:

      The bill has to get to this desk first, and if enough voters start having second thoughts about open carry, it may not happen. So, it’s best to do the PR right and only open carry long guns at organized rallies on public property.

      • avatarUnknown Prosecutor says:

        Exactly — It got killed last time without even making it out of committee because of the Homeland Security chair was too freaked out by Sandy Hook. If we want open carry (and I do just out of convenience and preserving my belts), we just need to line up in the victory formation and avoid fumbling the snap.

        • avatardh34 says:

          Public open carry is not something I personally am likely to do, other than to/from hunting, range, etc. I prefer public CC, as a matter of discretion. I do frequently open carry on my property.

          I do support OC, both out of principle and to preserve that option should I need to exercise it. That’s why I don’t want these guys to piss it away for all of us. If we don’t get it this upcoming session, it will be two more years of playing BS games with MDA and Co.

          From an expectation management point of view…I think the OC’s need to realize that there will be limitations to it, most likely similar to the CC rules. This battle of wills will continue with MDA trying to get every business to commit one way or the other. Gun owners will simply have both the moral and legal leg to stand on this time.

  42. avatargloomhound says:

    The simple truth is open carry of a long arm in public is a rude action. When you do it you look like some kind of “tool” and people respond accordingly.

    Open carrying a rifle or a shotgun is to the 2nd amendment what burning the flag is to the 1st.

    • avatarMatt Richardson says:

      People rolling their car windows down and blasting music loud enough to rattle the windows on my house is rude too. We need more laws, right?

      People being pissy because something offends them is hysterical, get over yourself. Yea, I don’t think OCT is doing us (or themselves) any favors either, but your gripe isn’t that they are trying to effect positive change. Your gripe is open carry. Anti open-carry pantywaists are just a step shy of being anti-”carry.”

      • avatarBlinkyPete says:

        Jesus dude, pour yourself a soda over ice, sit by the air conditioner and chill the hell out. The comment said nothing about laws, it was a reference to pissing people off. I don’t know of any other group of individuals who have ever won hearts and minds by goading the general public. This isn’t about laws, this about allowing idiots dictate public opinion of all gun owners.

  43. avatarMack Bolan says:

    And with all requests that run contrary to my rights and the law…..I will ignore said request and continue to do my business as usual.

    It’s PR static, nothing more…lets un-bunch the panties and move on.

  44. avatarCasey says:

    Let me put on my tin foil hat for a minute. Has anyone considered the possibility that OCT is actually anti gun and acting crazy to effectively strip everyone’s rights?

  45. avatarRockOnHellChild says:

    This game is getting old…

    OC at some business, MDA protests, business is forced to take a position, business acts in the best interest of the company (surprise, surprise), the business “respectfully requests patrons to leave guns at home.” MDA claims victory, wash, rinse, repeat.

    I get it, I really do, I’m on board with OC, but this method of protest is not working in our favor…

    “Tactical” isn’t just a dumb name companies put on gear to justify doubling the price.

  46. avatarThe Brotherhood of Steel says:

    Funny, the only time I’ve ever had to pull my gun, (for a human encounter of violence if course, plenty of times with a rogue animal) was actually in a target, not too long ago.

  47. avatarDelmarva Chip says:

    *sigh*

    If the folks in Texas don’t realize that OCing a rifle is not remotely close to the same as OCing a handgun, we’re going to continue to have problems.

    I am all for open carrying … of handguns. Properly holstered. During which YOUR HAND NEVER TOUCHES THE GUN (unless it is required to for self-defense). This long gun OC demonstrating does not show typical, normal open carry. It shows the public something much different, and it is backfiring badly.

    If you want to demonstrate for open carry and show the public what open carry is, then show them what open carry would ACTUALLY be like. Buy a rubber/plastic training handgun ($15-$50 on eBay). Secure it in a holster and attach it to your hip. Walk around with the training gun in the holster without ever handling the gun. That’s how open carry normally works. Show them that.

    Open carry of a long gun may be a legal right, and I would never advocate a prohibition of it, but that doesn’t make it politically smart. As a strategy, it is alienating way too many people. Other than in rural areas with wild animal issues, I don’t see long gun OC as a normal, reasonable activity.

    And for #*@%’s sake, don’t do demonstrations in a business unless that business is ok with it.

    Open carrying a long gun is NOT open carrying a handgun.

    • avatarJR_in_NC says:

      But that’s EXACTLY what they are protesting FOR…to get the right to OC handguns.

      They are trying to show the law as it is now (rifles ok, handguns not) is as stupid as you think it is for the purpose of getting the law changed.

      • avatarSteveInCO says:

        That is their INTENT, sure, but the fact of the matter is the RESULT is a lot of large national businesses have now asked everyone in the entire United States not to bring ANY firearm, concealed or open, into their locations.

        Their INTENT doesn’t change the fact that they are f*cking everyone else over with their demonstrations.

        • avatarJR_in_NC says:

          “f*cking everyone else over with their demonstrations.”

          Data please?

          What business has posted 30.06 signs due to OCT?

          What gun control laws have been passed due to their actions?

          Sociological survey data showing a decrease in firearmes acceptance with correlation with OCT’s activities?

          Seriously. I’m open to seeing the data.

        • avatarSteveInCO says:

          There doesn’t need to be a sign. They don’t want a gun in their store. It’s their property. They are the boss. You are morally obligated to comply.

          Or are you the sort of person who does whatever he wants on other peoples’ property? if so, then stay off mine.

        • Is there not a difference between a business actively soliciting people to come into their building, and a private residence?

        • avatarSteveInCO says:

          Not really.

          Before bringing up the “no blacks allowed” argument, the civil rights prohibitions against discriminating against people apply to physical characteristics, not behavior. Carrying a gun is a behavior, and they are allowed to forbid it on their premises, under law and morally as well. (And if the law happens to disgree on this in some jurisdiction, the law is wrong.)

          So again, I ask people, do they think they have the right to do whatever they want on other peoples’ property?

        • Steve, I don’t think anyone’s arguing that “they have the right to do whatever they want on other peoples’ property”. They’re arguing that they have the right to to exercise a Constitutionally-protected legal activity, and that the business has a duty to respect that.

        • avatarDave357 says:

          Are we talking about a moral right or a legal right? It seems like a fair bet that Target employs competent laywers. So, if they really wanted to ban something they wouldn’t just be posting a “request” on their web site. So, both legally and morally, it is OK to conceal carry there. Whether one wants to set foot in any of their stores again is the real question.

        • avatarPeter says:

          Randall, the Constitution doesn’t apply to interactions between private entities. It’s a framework for government.

      • avatarDelmarva Chip says:

        JR, I don’t disagree with the objective of changing the law, and I see the point they’re trying to make. But I disagree with the tactics they are using.

        To make a long story short, the demonstrations that involve open carrying of long guns at businesses are causing collateral damage (or, as SteveInCO described it, “f*cking everyone else over”).

        The objective in Texas is to change a stupid law (long gun OC legal, handgun OC illegal). I understand that and I support that objective. The problem is that because of the long gun OC demonstration tactic, various corporations (Starbucks, Chipotle, Target, etc.) have issued statements against the carrying of firearms on their property.

        Yes, the statements made by some of these corporations may not have been as strongly worded as they could have been. But the fact remains, these tactics have resulted in corporations posting a statement against firearms carry.

        Getting a nationwide corporation to issue a statement against firearms carry affects EVERYONE, not just those in Texas. That is simply not helpful to the cause of gun rights or to gun culture.

        I suspect that this is what a lot of people will remember:

        * A bunch of people openly carried rifles in Target / Starbucks / Chipotle / etc.
        * As a result, Target / Starbucks / Chipotle / etc. banned guns on their premises.

        It is effectively perceived as a victory for the anti-gun side.

        Long gun OC is not the same as handgun OC. Like it or not, that’s how it is. There is more than one way to draw attention to the fact that handgun OC should be legal. Their tactics are causing problems, and I think they should change tactics.

  48. avatarbob jones says:

    when i was in korea ,army,in 1951 to 53 during then war most of korea we were required to carry a gun,we hated having to carry a rifle or carbine all the time even with a possibility of an occassional enemy,,if up, near the front was different we carried ,but in safer areas most guys tried to obtain pistols to carry, and was a great market for pistols for sale,over there mainly 1911 45′s stolen from army by korean vandals and hooligans . others had their friends and relatives back in states to mail them pistols even though illegal in the mail they did it anyhow ..so many carried pistols by choice ,even in areas far more dangerous than usa stores and public.
    myself i will continue to conceal carry,to not arouse attention to self and be low key, feel more comfortable that way. and no one knows youre carrying in places where banned and they dont have right to search you. so to hell with them.just be sure well concealed with no lumps or bulges under clothes . and dont drop when go to bathroom!!!

  49. avatarpwrserge says:

    All you cowards advocating the “well they didn’t ban concealed carry” position make me sick. You’re basically saying that your right to effective self defense is proportional to your ability to conceal a weapon. So, by your logic, a 5’2″ 110 lb woman has less of a right to effective self defense than a 6′ 2″ 250 lb man. Or do you plan to pretend that said woman can conceal an effective handgun in summer clothing without printing like crazy?

    • avatartdiinva says:

      Yes I do believe that to be the case. My wife is 5’4″ and 120lbs. She can conceal an M-9 without printing.

      • avatarpwrserge says:

        Maybe in December in MN, no way in hell in July in TX. I call BS. I can barely conceal an M9 in shorts and a t-shirt. (and I’m half a foot taller and almost twice the weight.)

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Well Serge my wife doesn’t dress in shorts and a tank top when she goes out. And I don’t dress that way either. She dresses like an adult in Virginia where today it is 95 and 90% humidity.

        • avatarpwrserge says:

          Well, if it works for her, that’s her business. I tend to wear a T shirt and shorts when I go out in 80+ degree heat because my ancestry is not well suited for hot climates.

        • avatarGene says:

          +1 tdiinva. Also, when I do go out, it is jeans and tshirt and I really don’t care if I print because I’m in Virginia.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Gene:

          I keep telling people LL Bean for Carry. The nice cool short sleave shirts I bought from them do not print.

          Serge:

          My wife is Polish and grew up in Northern Wisconsin. Not exactly the inferno. Hate to say this don’t be so wimply. Last week I walked 18 holes of golf in pants and shirt in 90/90 conditions. I am 64 and from the Chicago Lakefront. Real men can take the heat.

    • avatarDev says:

      You’re so wrong with your comments it’s comical. Target did not, and I will repeat did not ban anything. They made a public request for public relations reasons. Target is a business that is interested in making money. It makes sense for them to issue a non-binding statement with all of the news stories circulating recently. If someone does not want to shop at Target anymore because of this statement they absolutely should not support Target anymore, that is their right. No one is a coward, as you put it, for preferring to conceal carry while they shop there. Your statement about a smaller person not being able to conceal is just ignorant.

      In the areas that are very friendly to open carry I bet no Target employee, manager or shopper will bat an eye because they are already used to seeing people open carry. There won’t be much of a change.

      • avatarpwrserge says:

        What you call ignorance, I draw from personal experience. My description was of an ex who could barely conceal an LCP. As I pointed out elsewhere, if I handed her an actually effective handgun, like my G19 or P99, it would stand out on her like a third boob.

        As for cowardice… You don’t win a war by compromising and retreating. Just ask Neville Chamberlain. Compromising with MDA or even refusing to call out others who compromise with them is no different than handing the sudetenland to the Nazis.

    • avatarBlinkyPete says:

      I seriously don’t think that’s what’s at issue here. I see people open(ish) carrying handguns frequently, and I’m in the NH. I’ve never seen anyone bat an eye or make a scene. The only reason I’ve ever had occasion to even look is to think “nice heater”. My guess is that someone printing or obvious CC’ing wouldn’t get a second glance.

      Slung AR’s – that’s another story.

  50. avatarWiow says:

    How is having firearms at odds with a family friendly environment?

    Looks like I’m done shopping at Target…forever. I never liked them anyhow. Employees from their store once tried to hack my credit card.

  51. avatartdiinva says:

    For those who see OCT as a false flag operation I recommend reading about Felix Dzershinky’s creation of something called “the Trust.” The Trust was obstensively an organizaiton of anti-Soviet exiles. It was really a Cheka operation where key individuals organized the oppositon abroad with the mission of directing and controlling anti-Soviet exiles. Castro replicated the Trust in the early 1960s to control and use Cuban exiles. So I supsect what we have here is an organizaiton set up by a couple of Bloomberg plants to attract and manipulate gullible members of the gun community. I doubt you will ever be able to convince the OCT followers to abandon this organization. They have bought the con and will not be able to withdraw from it.

    • avatarFug says:

      Interesting theory, the founder of OCT is a currently serving Army Master Sgt. who had received prior media attention when he was filmed by his son being arrested for open carrying a rifle on a trail.

      Yep, that guy! It is the same dude who started OCT! What a coincidence!? Here he is with Bush 43: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cj2.jpg

      I have said before here that I don’t trust the likes of Adam Kokesh and I have also come to the conclusion that Snowden and his pal Glenn Greenwald are also part of a limited hangout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout).

      The spooks are getting desperate in their attempts to manipulate us. If this kind of crap is the best they can muster, well, that is pretty sad considering the resources at their disposal.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        The leader is never the guy. It someone a little lower down. The leader has to be credible to the gullible.

  52. avatarAnother Robert says:

    I swore off Target for awhile when they ran the Salvation Army off from their stores, haven’t had much occasion to go back anyway. I will say–again–that if some scruffy-looking guys toting ARs came to my precious-metals dealership I would be extremely nervous, certainly at first sight. Can’t really blame some Target customers for feeling the same way. And I can’t really blame Target for trying to weasel into the middle ground. It’s annoying that the Bloomberg crowd and Dem politicians will start crowing that Target has “banned guns” from their stores, which will be dutifully and uncritically–not to say intentionally–parroted by the anti-gun suck-up mass media. Some folks need to consider that before they drag third parties into a dispute they don’t want any part of.

    • avatarGarrison Hall says:

      Cass Sunstein, Obama’s “regulatory czar”, suggested just such a tactic in ’08. This sort of thing is not new. The Left has a long history of infiltrating legitimate organizations and then subverting them. OC Texas and OC Tarrant County give the impression of being so poorly led that they aren’t able (even worse don’t care) to know if they’ve been infiltrated or not. Lambs to slaughter.

      Certainly the gun-controllers have people (Bloomberg, Shannon, etc.) who are sophisticated enough understand this tactic and how to put it to use. But whether or not they’ve actually done it is beside the point. OCers are doing a pretty good job of undermining gun-rights issues all by themselves.

  53. avatarbrentondadams says:

    Oh boy. Big surprise here…

  54. avatarformer water walker says:

    It won’t change anything for me. I quit shopping at Target after rude and abysmal customer service last year. That and their prices were way too high. Are we gonna’ call the open carry doofuses Target ninjas now?
    Unless they have the Beretta 92 on door this carries no weight where I live in Illinois.

  55. avatarCCWGuy says:

    Concealed = Concealed

  56. avatarRT says:

    Way to go OCT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    F’tards, every one of them.

  57. avatarScot says:

    I read the thread with interest.

    Elsewhere I’ve noticed many complaints about FUDDs who to some extent are defined as those who support gun rights for themselves (hunting, whatever) but are worried that any emphasis on ugly black rifles will impact their ‘sport.’

    Here I see the same division, lots of people who disagree with OCT about open carry making the same arguments about open carry that the FUDDS make about modern sporting rifles.

    • avatarJR_in_NC says:

      Excellent point.

      Our side is quite proficient at eating its own with “Rights for me, not for thee.”

      It is amazing to witness.

      • avatarDave357 says:

        Carying long guns into Target has resulted in a “request” for no guns of any kind to be brought to Target. That’s rights for no one, while one should use tactics that expand rights for everyone.

  58. avatarJames Miller says:

    Meh. Until I see a 30.06 sign in the window, I’m going to continue to conceal carry at Target.

  59. avatarPhil says:

    I have a conspiracy theory. These open carry folk work secretly for mda and bloomy
    And are effectively geting every big box store and chain to ban all weapons
    Just a thought

    • avatarJR_in_NC says:

      The only big problem with that theory as often as it is stated is that there have been ZERO bans by ANY of these stores.

      They make a “request.” Their corporate request carries no legal weight whatsoever. And they MUST know this since they all always emphasize that they will obey all state and local laws. They know what is required to properly “ban” firearms from their stores, and they ALL stop short of that taking that step.

      No bans. Just talk…empty, meaningless talk.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Congratulations on having the single most original thought to have ever graced these pages. I’m amazed that no one else has ever come up with that.

  60. avatarMark Lloyd says:

    This is the fault of the open carry dorks. I don’t like to see cops let alone drool monsters running around open carrying because they can. Unfortunately, even for someone who supports this right, the people that do open carry, so many times come off as baffoons.
    I have witnessed it first hand many times. The mind set of the many open carry folks is one to cause me to question the deep rooted desire to OC, and I don’t like it.
    Open carry for the purpose if demonstration is NOT helping the cause. Organized event do, but not showing up at Target in the baby department carrying ARs. That’s retarded.

  61. avatarMatt in Idaho says:

    It seems like OC’ing could benefit from a strategy that stopped including private businesses. There’s nothing to prove there except that the private business has the right on the final say.

    I believe the main point of OC’ing is “look how many guns were here in this one area! and nobody was hurt as a result! in fact, everyone ended up being much safer than a lot of people have been in gun free zones”.

    You don’t need a private business to prove that point and what you want, in terms of 2a protection, is to put your local, state, or federal government in a position to show just how far they’re willing to go to deprive rights from peaceful demonstrators.

    • avatarMark Lloyd says:

      Your point is so very valid, but as I pointed out above, so many of the OC folks are douche bags.

      • avatarMatt in Idaho says:

        H. L. Mencken said “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels.”

        That seems frequently appropriate in relation to open carry. I would consider myself a huge advocate of open carry but OC’ers are frequently only proving that a private businesses has a right to ban things.

        It’s the gov that needs to be pressed on this. Why not organize oc events in a state where OC is not legal but all the firearms are demilled (or most of them are) and it’s done in a PUBLIC, government run place.

        • avatarMark Lloyd says:

          Honestly, I just can’ wrap my head around open carry period. From a tactical standpoint, it’s ludicrous.
          I’m not going into all the reason why OC is not tactically sound, but for general purposes, a person carries for self defense. One increases his defensive posture by blending in and not drawing attention to himself in an potentially lethal, dynamic and fluid situation.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          I LIKE that! OCT comes to DC! Just the handful of them that showed up so far. Let’s see how long that lasts.
          /sarc

    • avatarDelmarva Chip says:

      What open carry will benefit from is folks in Texas realizing that RIFLES ARE NOT HANDGUNS.

      That said, I agree. Private businesses are not asking to be political demonstration zones. In fact, that’s one of the last things they want. They just want to sell their coffee / burrito / t-shirt / hammer / etc.

  62. avatarAaron says:

    No

  63. avataremfourty gasmask says:

    So is this one of those things where, like Starbucks, I continue to open carry my gun into the store on a daily basis despite a so-called ban and nobody has yet to even blink at the fact that I carry a gun into the store openly? I can’t ever remember a time when anybody even commented on my firearm, outside of the clerk asking me if I had a different handgun than I normally carry on a day I was off and going hiking.

  64. avataresitue says:

    Another business not to support, BTW the nearest Target,100 miles distant, has started to look like a run-down K-Mart not that I care anymore

  65. avatarSteve says:

    Business owners, it’s VERY easy: Don’t want to be involved in politics? Don’t make a statement one way or the other and eventually it will be forgotten. Choose a side, and it won’t ever be forgotten.

    Target refused to comment for what, several months? Nothing changed in the past week and they decided to make a comment. Bad move.

  66. avatarAnother Robert says:

    OK, I re-read the statement, and I’m a bit more annoyed at Target for that last bit about “boils down to a simple belief: [guns are bad]“. A successful weasel would have left that part off. And I’m being torn on the issue by another thought–maybe some wiser cooler head hereabouts can get me around it. Many of the “just carry concealed and nobody will know” remarks kind of remind me of the folks who react to banning prayer in any public venue by saying “just pray in private and no one will know”. Which reminds me that Nero never burned any Christians who just stayed in the sewers to worship and didn’t try to live their faith openly. The RKBA really isn’t much of a “right” if you have to hide it from everyone to exercise it, is it? Someone talk me outta this, quick…

  67. avatarMark Lloyd says:

    Not being able to edit for a longer period sucks.

  68. avatarbryan1980 says:

    Concealed means concealed. The only thing that MIGHT stop me from carrying in Target is a 30.06 sign (I’m from Texas). Notice the emphasis on the word “might”.

  69. avatarjon says:

    I respectfully request that Target doesn’t ever harass me about my basic rights as an American!

    • avatarJames Miller says:

      Problem is “your rights” get trumped by “their rights” as owners of a private property.

  70. avatarJim R says:

    The squeaky wheel gets the grease–and MDA are doing an awful lot of squeaking.

    This decision says “FINE. We’ll ASK them not to do it. Are you happy? Now SHUT UP and LEAVE US ALONE.”

  71. avatarS.CROCK says:

    It would be cool if OCT members would carry pink Crickett rifles. They would be getting their point across that they are exercising their right to carry and they might get better publicity.

    • avatarMatt in Idaho says:

      Agreed. Why not a loaded beta mag all by itself? Those are banned in places for the enormous amount of danger they posses but if carried around by themselves it would make the mag bans seem pretty silly.

      The big issue here, imo, is the demonstrations occuring at a business instead of a public place controlled by state, local or federal government. The second amendment wasnt really intended to protect americans from store owners, but from “government” infringement.

  72. avatarBob Watson says:

    The Mother of All Hysteria and her cat loving minion must be getting an extra special tingly feeling as they monitor TTAG today. This post has generated some good hysteria.

    Chains like Target and Starbucks have issued press releases asking, pretty please with sugar on it, do not bring artillery into our establishments. Some vocal critics of open carry insist no one strut around chain stores with firearms in plain view. It would appear open carry critics and the public relations people at the big chains are in full agreement. So, why all of the sturm und drang?

    • avatarDave357 says:

      The critics say open carry a handgun into a private business, but not a long gun. Otherwise, sooner or later you won’t be carrying either.

  73. avatarStacy says:

    You guys are funny, thinking this has anything to do with open carry protestors. MDA was at a Target in Austin the other day, where the manager asked them to leave. Just like they’ve been at other stores a week or so before those stores made an announcement similar to the above. MDA is Bloomberg’s pet project. It makes a lot more sense to figure that these stores get a visit from some photogenic moms, and then their boards get a private call from the Bloomberg-Soros cohort, and then they come out with a statement nominally on the gun control side. MDA gets to claim victory, and we chase our tails blaming OCT and whomever else.

    It’s a setup. They get enough places to play ball, and someday it starts to look like they’re right when they claim gun owners are a tiny minority.

  74. avatarMichael in GA says:

    Hooray for WalMart!

  75. avatarMaineuh says:

    Guh. It’s the “even in communities where permitted by law” part that causes a moment of pause. If they’d stopped at open carry, no sweat. I would have yawned and moved on to the next story. As it is, I won’t think about this much if I need something in their store. EDC in its little IWB and hidden beneath a shirt. I’ll still try to get in and out of the store as quickly as possible because I don’t like to shop very much. I’ll still get distracted by pretty girls on my way through the store. I’ll still experience that inner debate over whether I should stop for popcorn. Unless they start frisking at the door, this really won’t impact most of us very much. Hell, if it resolves that inner conflict for you, take satisfaction that you’re pulling one over on everybody by carrying concealed. Whatever gets you in and out of the store without drama.

  76. avatarTheOtherDavid says:

    This, from the Moms Demand Action webpage:
    “Exactly one month ago today, Moms Demand Action launched a campaign asking Target to stop allowing open carry around our children and families. This morning, Target announced that it heard our concerns and will no longer allow firearms inside stores. This huge change made by one of our country’s largest and leading retailers is proof that when women and mothers collectively use our voices and votes, we will change the culture of gun violence in America.”

    Whether they technically “banned” firearms or not, whether you carry concealed on the down low, whatever – the second amendment is in the constitution, but firearms issues are a political one. And politics is all about beliefs and image. The more that MDA can run press releases (expect Bloomberg to fund some big newspaper ad spreads on this one) saying “see, another big family-oriented corporation says guns are bad” the more that the low-info voter will start to get, for lack of a better word, brainwashed into the same belief.

    They’ll think “I like Target and Starbucks – they banned guns. Guns therefore are obviously bad” and it goes on from there.

    Watts and Bloomberg know this doesn’t mean a damn thing when it comes to legal carry – it’s all about image and messaging heading into the election season. And that’s where it will start to mean a damn thing- as more voters get swayed by the gun control propaganda.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      This morning, Target announced that it heard our concerns and will no longer allow firearms inside stores.

      Pretty good – two lies in one sentence. And the high school alumnus editor of the Gooberville Weekly Intelligencer will print it as is, because journalism as a working profession is dead.

  77. avatarJuliesa says:

    Local talk radio WOAI just blurbed it as Target says no to guns.
    I don’t think this is good pr for Target. I’m not going to go there anymore, and I typically spend a lot of money there. They say they don’t want anyone carrying there, open or concealed. I think this is a really dumb move.

    • avatarSteveInCO says:

      Thank you, thank you, thank you!

      A number of people (well, one really tireless one plus a few others) have been pointing out that none of these places has posted a legally-binding sign. Therefore this is meaningless, they claim.

      Dead wrong! A property owner has told you not to carry your gun onto his property. Some people vow to do so anyway. Do these people just think they have the moral right to do whatever the heck they want on someone else’s property? Do they have this much lack of respect for others’ property in other facets of life too?

      It doesn’t matter whether they post a sign. They have asked people not to carry a gun onto their property, and to do so is a violation of their rights. Some states don’t actually *have* a sign that has the force of law. But you can still be told to leave, and if you don’t leave, guess what, Scooter? You are trespassing!

      Yes, carrying a gun into Target is now trespassing. Just because they don’t catch you doesn’t mean you aren’t a trespasser. Yet we are assured that this is “meaningless” just because a sign doesn’t have “30.06″ at the bottom of it. (which by the way is only meaningful in Texas.)

      • avatarfoggy says:

        So, in your libertarian fantasy world private property rights trump all others. I’d rather live in the real world, thank you very much.

        • avatarJames Miller says:

          That IS the real world. The owner of a private establishment can determine what can be said, worn, brought, etc inside their property. You have the right not to go there if you don’t want to.

        • avatarMack Bolan says:

          Sure tell that to the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for the gay couple.

        • avatarJames Miller says:

          @Mack,

          However your take on it, we have anti-discrimination laws that businesses have to follow which separates them from residential private property rights. What we don’t have are laws that tell businesses to forcibly apply the protections given to individuals by the Constitution. If anything, we have just the opposite.

        • avatarPeter says:

          This country was founded on the idea of private property rights as sacred. I don’t know what you’re talking about that is “trumped” by private property rights? If you mean the rights mentioned in the Constitution, those aren’t directed towards interactions between private individuals — they are restrictions on what kind of laws the federal government can make.

  78. avatarGregory says:

    So, open carry proponents, how is that “in your face” approach working for everyone? Are you getting what you want. The only thing you are doing is alienating gun owners. You walk around inside of businesses holding your rifles like you have your peckers in your hands and cannot control your urges. It is like ” look a me and my big dick and see how proud I am”! When will you learn? Every action has an equal opposite reaction. When you push, the anti gun people will push back. Use some common sense you idiots. We must use the same tactics as the left. The tactic is incrementalism. For those open carry people that came up short on their education let me explain. It is called baby steps.

    • avatarS.CROCK says:

      Gregory in 3…2…1… prepare for the “give me data that OC is bad for us, these signs have no legal implications, you are as anti gun as Bloomberg” comebacks.

    • avatarYellow Devil says:

      You are wrong, the left doesn’t win by incrementalism alone. The left also wins by using, what I call “political arson” (setting fire to so many different facets of our society so that response is overwhelmed), framing the narrative, and of course frequent and persistent noisy demonstrations.

      Most importantly, however, is that they never perform a circular firing squad. They will always circle the wagon. This is something which advocates for individual liberty rarely do, or do right. We always have a tendency to turn on one another, as indicated by the number of commentators casting the entirety of blame on OCT.

  79. avatarYellow Devil says:

    First of all Target could of just kept their mouth shut and stayed out of it. Regardless of whether or not we agree with OCT, anything that gives MAID (Mothers Against Individual Defense) and Bloomberg ammunition something to crow about generally doesn’t go well. That being said, even if MAID loses, (like Staples) they will still spin it as a propaganda victory. As someone who did PSYOPS work in the Army and took classes in art propaganda in College, the Statist left still has the ability to amaze me with their work.

    Frankly I don’t go to Target that much anyways, but if they want to make a request for me to leave my firearms at home, than I request that they get their security for physical and credit card transactions revamped.

  80. avatarAnon says:

    I’ll still CHP in Target. They are trying to appease everyone. This is all about money.

    Also, I’m in North Carolina and MANY places have a very uncolorful, small sign that says no weapons. In many cases they are hard to see. I think these places are on to something from a marketing point of view. No guns but it’s okay. It’s all about the money.

    Time to start identifying Gun Free Zones as Free Fi9re Zones.

    • avatarSteveInCO says:

      Target requested no guns. They didn’t limit it to OC.

      Do you honestly feel you are entitled to ignore property owners’ wishes?

      • avatarStacy says:

        There are certainly different valid points of view around this issue, but the idea that Target can impose literally any rule they want on their property is facially false. Target is not a private home, it’s a public accomodation, and it must respect the rights of members of the public. That includes not discriminating on race or religion, and since keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutional right, it also includes that.

        Let the left repeal the 2A, if they can. But until that time, the idea of pressuring businesses to “request” people leave even just one of their rights at the door is questionable at best.

        • avatarSteveInCO says:

          Free speech is also a constitutionally protected right. Does that mean you can hold a demonstration inside a Target?

          Constitutional protections are restrictions on governments, not businesses acting on their own property.

  81. avatarmirgc says:

    I think, besides the OC movement being more tactful, we can learn a thing or two from MDA. They probably had between a few hundred activity pressuring Target. While they don’t have numbers, they do have some organization to their campaign. Something for the pro-2nd amendment side could do better.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      They also had a TON of publicity, because they know how to spin up the media to their side. And they have a billionaire who has a phone and a checkbook behind them.

      Money DOES talk.

  82. avatarlabman57 says:

    Whenever these gun-toting knuckleheads see the Target logo, they get all moist in the loins and have an uncontrollable desire to whip out their weaponry for all the world to see.

  83. avatarRalph says:

    Don’t be hating on Target. Not too much, anyway. Target doesn’t hate guns, it just loves money. As it should.

    The company just came through a financial and public relations disaster of the first order (the security breach involving credit and debit card info of millions of customers). It’s still a disaster.

    The chairman and CEO — a 35 year Target employee — was forced to resign. The CIO quit too. The Feds are investigating. The company is defending at least 70 huge class action lawsuits. Target profits fell 16% in the first quarter. The company is in disaster control mode.

    Target was never pro-gun. It does not carry any shooting supplies or realistic toy guns. And let’s face it — guys with guns are NOT their targeted demographic. Bargain-hunting women with a little cash are.

    Target isn’t looking for a fight. It has enough on its plate.

    • avatarDave357 says:

      Yes, it’s about money. And if we believe this article and the MDA – http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28132468 – the MDA “had gathered 400,000 signatures on a petition to persuade Target to ban guns.” Could the pro-gun side muster 400,000 signatures to oppose such a move? Would we bother if we could?

      If this march of “requests” not to bring in guns continues, and we don’t start responding, sooner or later it will become an avalanche that will bury all carry in the US.

    • avatarJuliesa says:

      I love Target and spend a lot of money there. I go in for the econo-size TP and wind up buying a vacuum cleaner or a TV as well.
      But they no longer want me there, so I’ll just use other stores.

    • avatarCLarson says:

      When a company makes a policy decision for purely political reasons it has entered the arena and is looking for a fight. Target did not have to do anything, instead they went full retard and declared themselves a gun free zone. Thousands of gun owners have to decide for themselves to shop at a place that does not want them. Personally, I think Target can go to hell and I won’t spend another penny at their stores until they rescind this discriminatory policy and apologize.

  84. avatarGunr says:

    I think that Target feels that to allow O.C. will frighten some of it’s customers, and cause them to shop elsewhere.
    O.C. is a fairly new thing, and it’s going to take a while to get folks, “Not of The Gun” to accept it. To try and force a store to adapt an O.C. policy may only have the effect that they will just bar concealed carry as well.
    Personally, I don’t know why someone would want to open carry in the store, except they take the chance of their gun being stolen, if they leave it in the car.

    • avatarSteveInCO says:

      I believe that OC helped trigger this, but in the end, Target did indeed bar concealed carry as well as open.

      • avatarDave357 says:

        Target requested that guns not be brought in, but it barred neither open nor concealed carry. That’s a fact. Unfortunately, even so, this is still an important negative development.

  85. avatarLarry says:

    My conversation with Target customer service chat:

    You are now connected to Matt.
    Matt:Thanks for shopping at Target.com. My name is Matt. How can I help you?
    Larry:Hi Matt, I live in Texas and have questions about your request for no weapons in your stores.
    Matt:Hi, Larry.
    Matt:I will be glad to help you with the information.
    Larry:I am a retired police officer and have a permit to carry concealed in all 50 states. I carry concealed and do not open carry. My wife is a concealed weapon lic. holder and she carries concealed. Are we welcome in your stores?
    Matt:We respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

    Larry:If I do what will you do?
    Matt:This is a request and not a prohibition. We ask that guests respect this request.

    Larry:My family and I will no longer shop at your stores. Thank you for the information.
    Matt:I can understand your concern. I will share your feedback with my leaders.
    Matt:Can I help you with anything else?
    Larry:No
    Matt:Have a good day!

    • avatarJuliesa says:

      Excellent. I’ll have a similar chat with them later today.

    • avatarJames Miller says:

      Larry:If I do what will you do?
      Matt:This is a request and not a prohibition. We ask that guests respect this request.

      Pretty much clears it up right there. Thanks.

  86. avatarGregory says:

    S. Crock, me, anti-gun, I think not! I just have a mental capacity that obviously exceeds the limited captivity you have. Remember, we have everything to loose, the anti-gun people have everything to gain. If you keep smacking someone about the face, you will get hit back. Remember, the left has done a superb job of portraying gun owners as societies monsters. This being said, if people keep running around engaging in a behavior that is foreign and upsetting to the masses, said people will be the subject of rejection. We are trying to attract friends to our cause and only making enemies. We have a right to bear arms and unfortunately that matters little to those making decisions that affect our lives. If we keep pissing people off, we will lose.

  87. avatarAccur81 says:

    Thanks again, to all the dumbasses who enter stores with ARs and 30 round mags at the low ready. Posing for photos and posting them on social media is also a nice touch. Great work documenting your simultaneous lack of judgement and trigger discipline.

    /sarcasm

  88. avatarpod says:

    It stinks in a sense that it’s going to give Bloomberg’s Moms something to crow about on social channels for the next six weeks. Hashtags ensue. Wonderful.

  89. avatarCLarson says:

    Just another misstep by a terribly run company that loves alienating customers. Thank God there are so many other places to shop. It will be my pleasure to give Target a miss on principle.

  90. avatarPW in KY says:

    I totally understand where Target is coming from. Would my business want people bringing political protests INSIDE? Absolutely not. If you’re going to make an Open Carry point, go do it in the public space where you aren’t forcing anything on businesses. They FORCED Target to respond with their foolish act.

    Target won’t keep my business if they put up no-gun stickers though. Hopefully some ambitious anti-gun managers don’t get carried away…

  91. avatarTheOtherDavid says:

    Lots of national and international media attention, even the BBC, talking about the “big win” for gun control activists and crediting Moms with the policy change. And quoting Moms press release. A lot.

    Right now, nationally, the anti-gunners’ public face is Moms and Everytown. They get quoted in every anti-gun story it seems.

    If only there were a national organization that was well organized, with a well-paid media relations department, lots of political savvy. That would help to frame the message for our side instead of thousands of website commenters. Hmm… National, um, National Rifle something-or-other….

    The Moms are controlling the media message perfectly. It’s what Watts has been paid millions to do for General Electric, Monsanto, and now she does it for Bloomberg. Where is our national media message?

  92. avatarAnon says:

    SteveInCo: yes I can ignore their wishes. If they post no weapons signs, I won’t be shopping there and will cancel family scripts.

    Many retail establishments request customers not bring in dogs (unless service), keep control of kids and be quiet and thoughtful of other customers. Many customers ignore these WISHES without getting any consequences.

    OCT started this and I wouldn’t be surprised if Bloomie is funding them.

    TARGET reacted just like STARBUCKS, cause it’s all about $, not safety, the Constitution, concern for customers, or love of little children. I’ll still go there till I see the sign, after that F@@K them.

  93. avatarAjc says:

    OCT = Epic Ongoing FAIL -

  94. avatarCowboy T says:

    The problem is the folks who are walking into these establishments holding rifles and such at port-arms. I’m very pro-2A, and even I would wonder, “what’re they doin’?” for a moment.

    Disagree? OK, think about this: how would you feel if you saw a bunch of Black people standing there on the street with shotguns at port-arms, “exercising their Second Amendment rights”? Oh, wait, we already know, ’cause that DID happen in the 1960′s. The Black Panthers did just that in response to White cops delivering Rodney King-style beat-downs for simply being Black and doing 10 miles over the speed limit, or a busted taillight, or something equally minor. White people’s reaction? California Penal Code Section 12031, better known as the “Mulford Act”, written by Don Mulford, passed near-unanimously by the California General Assembly, and hurriedly signed in to law by Gov. Ronald Reagan (by that time he’d made his philosophical switch from Liberal to Conservative).

    Now, were the Panthers right? HELL, YES!! They had no choice, given the circumstances.

    BUT….

    The Open Carriers referenced here (going into Target, Chipotle, etc.) are NOT in that situation of getting pulled over and facing beat-downs for how they were born. Rather, they’re trying to shove something in people’s heads in a way that is scaring the hell out of some of the patrons. It’s turning people against the 2A when we do this.

    If you want to get people on your side–and we definitely need more people on our side of the 2A–as boxing legend Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini says, “you gotta come off presentable.” Scaring people with firearms held at port-arms doesn’t further our cause. Rather, if you’ve got, say, a handgun IN ITS HOLSTER and you’re not bothering anyone, there’s nothing wrong with that. Another option for OC’ing long guns would be a scabbard slung over your back like they used to do back in the old days. Wouldn’t hurt to have a levergun there instead of an AR while we’re still building support for this. Something that looks “cowboy” instead of “police/army”. That’s Public Relations 101, folks, and we’ve got to remember that.

    Here’s an example. I remember carrying an old Mosin-Nagant slung over my shoulder when protesting against the Code Pink folks. This was at a gun show about a year and a half ago. I was in a suit ‘n’ tie, the Mosin’s bolt was open, and the rifle slung over my shoulder–that is, not in my hands. My *loaded* firearm was discreetly tucked away concealed, so as not to frighten people. I was nice, polite, gentlemanly, all that Boy Scout stuff. Would you believe I actually had some good conversations with these Code Pink folks as a result? Yes, it’s true. Maybe gave a few of ‘em a little something to think about. WE GOTTA COME OFF PRESENTABLE, folks. This is a must, especially when we’re doing our advocacy work.

    - T (San Francisco Liberal With A Gun)

  95. avatarFoRealz? says:

    I don’t get the logic of the Open Carry Texas crew.

    Open carry of pistols is banned in Texas. But, long guns aren’t. So, to make the public more acclimated to seeing open carry guns, they open carry long guns into places. In order to get the public to support open carry of handguns. Oke-doke.

    From their web page:

    Our Mission:

    1) To educate all Texans about their right to openly carry
    rifles and shotguns in a safe manner.

    2) To condition Texans to feel safe around law-abiding
    citizens that choose to carry them.

    3) Encourage our elected officials to pass less restrictive
    open carry legislation.

    (4) Foster a cooperative relationship with local law enforcement
    in the furtherance of these goals with an eye towards
    preventing negative encounters.

    Yeah. F those guys.

    Newsflash: To us it might be no big deal to see a guy open carrying a Barrett, or an MP5K. To a lot of other people, it freaks them the hell out. No matter how friendly you look. That’s just a fact.

    I don’t think open carry of ARs, while wearing chest rigs is going to change that. I expect to most folks they see them as resembling fat white versions of the Taliban dudes or narco-soldiers they see on the news. If I had to make a guess, I’d say these types of shenanigans (yeah I said shenanigans) turns off more people than it will ever win over to being pro-2A

    Way to go open carry retards! :thumbsup

    Derp gonna derp.

  96. avatarJoel says:

    Watts, Bloomberg, et al can just take off their shoes, kick back and relax with a cold one, OCT and similar groups are doing their work for them. Dumbasses! After shooting themselves (and, by extension, the rest of us) in the foot enough times even the stupidest of the stupid should be able to puzzle out that their approach just may be proving to be counter-productive. Maybe not. Like mama said, stupid is as stupid does.

  97. avatarGuairdean says:

    This is just another publicity stunt to placate the hoplophobes. I’ll be at Target, armed as usual, the next time I need something.

  98. avatarPashtun6 says:

    Great f@@@@@@@ job OCT. Is there a way we can call these clowns? I wish to ask them if they’re really pro 2A.

  99. avatarPashtun6 says:

    Just sent OCT a message via those contact us tab on their website. I will comment on the most recent article when / if I get a response.

  100. avatarMike says:

    Look, if this causes you not to shop at Target, write them a respectful letter or email and tell them that. I hope everybody on here that said I’m not shopping there tells target that. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of hot air, keyboard commandoing. All the press release seams to be saying is we don’t want to be caught in your shit storm, so we are doing something so we can say see we did something.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      Correct.

      But you left out the “Please leave us the Hell alone and shop here” part.

  101. avatarjustamom says:

    Can you believe these idiots!!I am a huge 2nd Amendment supporter but seriously why would anyone want or need to carry a semi automatic rifle into a store and walk around looking like your ready to open fire and laying out rounds. Because of people like these gun carry rights are and will continue to be taken away!!

  102. avatarGarrison Hall says:

    I grew up in a decidedly open carry environment. Like others of my generation it wasn’t at all unusual to bring a gun to school for a history class, etc. Open carry was an accepted part of our community life. Nobody thought to even consider if the action was against the law because it was considered normal. But what made open carry normal was the way people open carried. In those times, people routinely placed their 12 guage. bird gun or 30.30 lever gun on the gun rack in their pick-ups. Nobody thought anything about it. Likewise, you’d regularly see people opening carrying a long gun into a sporting-goods or gun store. But you did not see people openly carrying weapons outside other kinds of business and never ever inside restaurants. The purpose of open carry back-in-the-day was that you carried a weapon openly because you were going some place where weapons belonged. It was considered improper and downright rude to open carry just for the sake of proving that you could. Walking around saying lookit-me-I-got-a-gun was just wrong. It’s just as wrong now. When open carry has a purpose, people readily agree with the practice. But when it doesn’t . . .

    • Garrison, society itself is quite a bit different today than “those days”. Weapons “belong” anywhere that a person might need protection. We’re not quite at a “Minority Report” level yet, so saying where a crime or violence might occur is voodoo. Unreliable. Unknowable.

      Lumping the OCT asshattery–”carry just for the sake of proving that you could. Walking around saying lookit-me-I-got-a-gun”–in with honest, responsible, law-abiding gun owners and carriers is just a red herring and does nothing for the discussion.

      “When open carry has a purpose, people readily agree with the practice” is disproven by MDA, Bloomberg, at al. My OC (or CC, depending on the situation) has a purpose–a great purpose–to enable me to be the first responder in a situation that may put myself, my family, or even strangers in harm’s way.

      • avatarGarrison Hall says:

        Sorry, but I’m not doing the lumping—they are. OC in Texas started off with with great credibility when they were known for civil gatherings on public property where they spoke about the value of open carry.
        But then the movement got hijacked when pairs and small groups of OCers began going into private businesses. Once the loons started putting up Facebook photos of themselves carrying weapons in stores their credibility began to plummet. The civil gathering protests could effectively claim the moral high ground while carrying guns in businesses can’t. Had the OCers continued with this strategy, they would not be vulnerable to the Mom’s propaganda. Now they are and they’re doing damage to the entire gun-right movement as a result.

  103. Combined with Target giving MDA the boot, this translates:

    “Keep us out of your pissing match.”

    And who here is really surprised? I still can’t help but start to wonder if some of these OC groups are getting funding – maybe even covert – by Bloomberg?

    • avatarSteveInCO says:

      Yes, *supposedly* they are doing this to tell people not to bring their disputes into their place of business.

      But if so WHY did they lash out at ALL gun carriers (not just the long gun exhibitionists) and NOT say anything to the anti-gunners?

  104. avatarJus Bill says:

    Does anyone know if Target ever found out who left the pistol in the Toy Department?

  105. avatarBob says:

    The press release includes concealed carry. Target will lose 100% of my business forever until they repeal this inane policy. Am I the only one here that’s going to boycott them? Email them and let them know.

    Walmart will be getting my money.

  106. We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved.

    This tells me that they’ve bought into the erroneous notion that individuals have a “right” to certain feelings. The right to keep and bear arms is a protected right. The mythical “right to feel safe” and “right to not feel fear” are imaginary. In reality, they aren’t respecting the protected rights of anyone except those of Target as the property owner or lease holder.

    But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

    At least there is no exception for law enforcement in this request. Law enforcement officers, if you carry in Target then you are not honoring the request of your host.

  107. avatarwhatever says:

    [deleted]

  108. avataroldgreyguy says:

    According to the Glenn Beck program with Dana Loesh, the Target spokeslady said there will NOT be any “no guns allowed” sign posted at Target stores.
    We did NOT lose.

  109. avatarChris says:

    I will continue to carry concealed in every place it is not illegal.

    With this “request” it just means that I will do exactly the same…ignore their “request” when needed but in general shop at other places.

  110. Andrew Napolitano explains a “public accommodation.” Because these businesses are inviting the public to be on their properties, they may have limited their ability to disarm that public while patronizing their businesses. Some interview comments by the Judge a while back began changing my view on this. I can’t say that I’m completely onboard but my opinion does tend to lean in the direction that he is arguing. If we are going to have any “protected classes” then I believe that his interpretation is the most just. If we are not going to have these “protected classes” then the absolute property rights interpretation is just, IMHO.

    • avatarJR_in_NC says:

      Wow. Everyone commenting on this page needs to watch that.

      Thanks for posting it.

      • You’re quite welcome. Thank you for taking the time to watch it and comment.

        I posted it in the main body of comments with the hopes that all here might watch it and and at least consider the argument being made.

        Perhaps RF or somebody will make a separate TTAG post about this video and viewpoint. (They may have in the past but I missed it.)

        • avatarDerryM says:

          I watched it and considered Judge Napolitano’s statement. I was unaware of the concept of a “public accommodation” and its apparent legal meaning to Retailers. It was a valuable learning, which I won’t forget. So, thanks for posting the video. Hope others view it and learn, as I did.

    • avatarPeter says:

      “Public accommodation”…Sounds like bologna to me. A business invites the public to do business in their store as a willing participant in a transaction. If either party doesn’t agree to the terms of the other, they choose not to proceed with the transaction.

      The concept of “protected classes” sounds like a violation of the 14th amendment to me.

  111. avatarJohn says:

    What happens if you do carry a firearm into Target? Do they refuse to serve you? Legally they can not single out a specific group.

    Do they call the cops and violate your civil and legal rights?

    Isn’t this the same as refusing to serve homosexuals, for example?

    What’s he significance of this beyond PC?

  112. avatar2hotel9 says:

    And exactly who gives a f*ck? Tomorrow, July 3rd, I will be walking into Target in Butler PA with a weapon on my hip.Why? Because no one, NOT F*CKING ANYONE, has ever said a word about it before this c*nt John Mulligan spewed his anti-American sh*t.

    No.
    One.
    Period.

    So John Mulligan will suck sh*t out my a$$. F*ck his America hating sh*t spew and f*ck him. F**king c**t.

    Flame me.

  113. avatarGregory says:

    John, In florida it is trespass with a firearm.

    • avatarJR_in_NC says:

      I’m no lawyer and certainly don’t know squat about FL laws, so I’d like an interpretation from someone qualified to give it.

      It’s not trespass until they actually ASK you to leave, right? Having a corporate policy or making a ‘public request’ does not trigger trespass, does it? How could they know all their customers heard the presser request?

      • +1

        There is certainly a problem with notification. Undoubtedly, someone could argue in defense that if Target truly wished people to not carry on their property, they would simply post a conspicuous sign notifying all before they enter the premises. That coupled with the latest statement by a Target representative that they are not prohibiting firearms would provide a pretty strong defense against a trespassing charge based upon the “request” alone.

      • avatarJus Bill says:

        I’m not a lawyer either, but I think the way “trespass” in that instance works is that it doesn’t happen until you refuse to leave. I’m sure Ralph could elaborate or correct me.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Only if they ask you to leave and you don’t, and even then only if the cops get involved.

  114. avatarRalph says:

    Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said the retailer will not post signs at its stores asking people not to bring guns inside. “It is not a ban,” she said. “There is no prohibition.”

  115. avatarJohn says:

    I like Judge Napolitano’s answer to the question.

  116. avatarLance Farago says:

    So now where as I suppose to go shopping, I haven’t been in a Walmart in 12 years and now Target goes and does this crap.

  117. avatarRock says:

    It’s sad that Target caved in to threats and intimidation by groups of people that openly hate gun owners (or anyone not bloodthirstily opposed to the 2nd amendment). Ultimately however, it’s their decision, and that’s the extent of how restrictions on carrying firearms should function. just like we are not guaranteed the right to “freedom of speech” in these comments (because the TTAG website is privately owned and funded, and the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to it any more than facebook or your neighbor’s fence).

  118. avatarAaron says:

    Target doesn’t need to know if you,are carrying or not.

    And if you carry a Kahr P380 in an Uncle George or Talon pocket holster, they won’t know.

  119. avatarJumbie says:

    Given the comments from Molly, the Target spokeswoman, I think what Target is saying isn’t ‘leave your guns at home,’ it’s ‘leave your politics at home’ and I agree with them.

    There is no ban on guns, according to Target itself, they just want you to stop making their store a forum.

    • avatarSteveInCO says:

      Then why the hell didn’t they say so? They basically not only asked the LGOC people to stay away; they asked ANY gun carrier to leave it at home or stay away. They made NO such request of the other side of the dispute.

      Don’t give them too much credit.

      • avatarJumbie says:

        It’s not in the excerpt from TTAG, but if you dig a bit, you get this clarification that was issued after:

        “Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said the retailer will not post signs at its stores asking people not to bring guns inside. “It is not a ban,” she said. “There is no prohibition.”

  120. avatarMark says:

    This is a Dumb debate and policy Target has fell into. Target says their goal is to create an atmosphere that is safe and inviting for our guests. Now with all the criminal minds knowing there will be no guns How is that safe? Does Target really think criminals will abide by that? What about fat people? or homeless, or those people that didn’t have a shower that day? If their in target, that’s not inviting is it? See how dumb this debate really is. These people need to leave others alone. stop trying to tell others how to live. stop judging others. Just because a person has a gun doesn’t make them uninviting. No matter if there fat, skinny, short, ugly, smelly, homeless, rich, black, Mexican, white, None of that really matters. what matters is that all people are excepted NOW THATS INVITING. Maybe that’s why Walmart does so much better than target.

  121. avatarMark says:

    WOW my first post didn’t make it after all that typing. Bad target, Bad, bad. I’m surprised Target is still in business after this.

  122. avatarTed says:

    I guess the bad guy who wants to do harm will leave his gun at home also!!! What a dumb ass thing to do.

  123. avatarJoseph says:

    Sometimes I believe it is necessary to keep the open carry laws out there and keep the viability of the option to do so, but to always open carry is non-sense in normal areas. If target asks, then don’t open carry. I haven’t heard of a spree of shooting at target stores. Conceal if you have the ability. I am a 2nd Amendment supporter, but I feel this is reasonable.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.