Open carry (courtesy savannaharsenal.com)

U.S. Army Vet Stephen Fry is not happy that Fresh Market caved to Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and “requested” that its customers refrain from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in their stores. He’s started a petition to reverse the curse [click here, text after the jump]. As of this writing, it’s garnered five signatures. So…what would it take for gun rights advocates to get Fresh Market, Starbucks, HEB (no open carry) and other gun-unfriendly companies to reconsider their policies? Boycott? Sternly worded email? A terrorist attack? [Not recommended.]

Fresh Market has now posted that they do not allow concealed carry in their stores due to a petition from concerned patrons. This is an attack on the Second Admendment and needs to be reversed. Gun Free zones have proven to be a major mistake and actually attract negetative responses. Please sign this petition demanding Fresh Market to change its Company Policy to allow Concealed Carry in their stores pursuant to state and local laws. Law abiding citizens are not the issue and law abiding citizens deserve the right to protect ourselves and our families even where we shop for food from those who ignore laws and store policies.

<a href=”http://www.desantisholster.com”><img class=”alignleft wp-image-394119 size-full” src=”http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/desantis-blue-logo-no-back-4-small.png” alt=”desantis blue logo no back 4 small” width=”140″ height=”72″ /></a>

Recommended For You

96 Responses to DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: How Do We Restore Gun Rights in Private Businesses?

    • I think that’s only going to happen when folks on our side adopt some of the tactics of the folks on “their” side. MDA can get signatures on petitions (maybe not actual signers, but perception is reality, and they have the perceived numbers of sigs.) At my signing, this petition sat at 14 signatures. If we can’t even be bothered to type our names, then how can we get businesses to listen?

      • While many of the stores play the legalese wording game of “recommended” vs outright ban, I suspect insurance and legal fees are a prime motivation for these companies.

        Hold them accountable for harm done to someone due to their no gun policy. [Inability to self defend.] Cost them tons of money. Then they will start rethinking their position.

        As for insurance costs being a prime motive, not sure how to address that one.

  1. As far as I recall Kroger did not cave to MDA and has supported 2A Rights 100% in their stores. They should be removed from your article as anti-gun. I believe they stated they would follow whatever state and local laws existed.

  2. I would say the first order of business, if you are that interested, would be to do what folks did to Target when MDA got them to “ban” guns–call management and ask them if they are in fact banning guns. In Target’s case, the answer was “no”. Likewise Starbuck’s. And eventually even the “news outlets” had to admit that no “ban” had been instituted, although a few hopeless die-hards choose to keep saying that Target has “banned” guns.

      • Gonna take a look at the target down the way here later on, but I’m sure that there is no “guns forbidden” signage, statute-compliant or otherwise, at the store. The “news” outlets did their work carrying water for the gun-grabbers pretty well, I guess, but like I said, they have lately been forced to admit that no such outright ban was ever put in place.

        • That’s very interesting, and I’m sure you’re right about the media carrying the ball for the Bloomberg crowd. I never go to Target or Starbucks anyway, so I haven’t really given it much thought recently. The only time I actually care about the ‘No guns’ signs is in places where it’s actually illegal like the Post Office and government buildings. On private property I just carry concealed and if they ever did catch on and tell me to leave I would with no argument. I don’t patronize anti 2A businesses, but some doctor’s offices are like that. Although, in many doctor’s offices I think it’s less and anti-gun thing than the fact that patients often have to get undressed which leaves their gun lying under a pile of clothes and no longer under their control.

  3. First, you don’t have rights on someone else’s property until they call in the police.

    Second, if you wish to change a company’s policy then you need show them that an anti-gun policy will cost them on the bottom line by bringing in a counter petition informing them about all the business they will lose. As an individual you can go talk to the store manager and let him know you will be going to the local Kroger affiliate from now on. In most of the places where Fresh Markets operates it means they will be going out of business if gun owners carry through on a boycot.

    • First, you don’t have rights on someone else’s property until they call in the police.

      Say what?

      My right to life does not end on private property. Nor do any other of my natural, civil rights.

      All the private property owner has over me is the right to permit my presence on that property. Welcome me or expel me; otherwise, all my rights remain intact.

      And TTAG: what’s with the Kroger FUD?

  4. No interest in begging anyone for permission to exercise my responsibility for my own safety. It’s their property, and they can do with it as they wish… and I won’t go into such places. But that’s just the way I am. If someone wants to give their money to people who would rather they be murdered than armed… that’s one time where “concealed is concealed” seems useful. Unless you are being strip searched at the door…. go for it.

    • I just ignore them. Their paranoia is not my problem. When you open your business to the public, you lose the right to dictate which members of the public patronize your business.

      A “No Guns” sign has no more meaning to me than a “Whites Only” or a “Muslims Only” sign.

        • There are no “private property rights” in the United States. The minute the federal government started taxing private property, and the SCOTUS determined the Feds could decide how much food you could grow on it, it ALL ceased being private property. It’s now all federal property that you must pay rent to the government for the privledge of owning. Don’t believe me? Stop paying property tax and see what happens. Not saying I think this is cool- this is tyranny- but it’s true.

        • But not property rights?.

          Private property rights have absolutely nothing to do with a tool carried by a person. Private property rights authorize the property owner to trespass a person on his property; private property rights do not authorize the property owner to disarm that person.

      • There is no logical or philosophical basis for that stance. That unilateral “open to the public” exception is just more malum prohibitum nonsense. One could argue, and many do, that by your own presence in public you lose your individual rights because now they’re impacting the public at large.

        Walk around naked in your home all you want. In public? Not so much.

        Walk around armed in your home all you want. In public? Not so much.

        Why? Because WE say so! See how that works? Never mind that nudity predates and is even more natural than self-defense.

      • Businesses are being forced to cater too/serve “the public” even when they object for specific and Constitutionally protected reasons (freedom of religion). Won’t bake a cake for a gay wedding – hundreds of thousands in fines. Won’t cater a gay wedding or allow it to take place on your property – see you in court, etc.

        So why can businesses be forced to serve gays and Muslims and Jews (oh my), but they can put up signs and chase out anyone who is legally exercising their natural, civil and (supposedly) Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? Are they open to all the public, even the public they dislike, or not? What is the rationale behind legally prohibiting legal 2A activity when that same business cannot discriminate on race, religion or sexual orientation?

        As mentioned above, I concur – sue the bastards. Force them to prove, in court, that they have a compelling interest in restricting the Constitutionally protected rights of the public/their customers.

        We should not be ashamed of our support of the RKBA and we should use every tool that the homosexuals (LGBT) brought to bear to force our rights to be respected wherever we are and wherever we go. In the meantime don’t just stop shopping there, make sure they know who you are and why you have stopped shopping there.

  5. store owners can request all they want. As long as they don’t post that carry is prohibited, it is simply a request. Post no carry and I’ll find another place to shop. Private stores have every right to do so, just as I have every right to go somewhere else.

    • Do they also have a right to post “Whites Only” or “No Muslims” signs? A business open to the public needs to be open to all the public. Make the left wing play by their own rules.

    • Depends on how and where they request. A request made in a press release, op ed piece, or media interview, addressing the general public, means little to nothing.

      However, an individual with apparent authority to act on the owner’s behalf (read: basically any employee, certainly a manager), in Texas, who makes a verbal request directly to you or provides written no-guns notice directly to you, carries the force of law. Continued armed presence in defiance of that request is trespassing. Legal signage is irrelevant in this case.

      • Yep, refusing to leave after being asked to do so moves your class C misdemeanor for violating the 30.06 (basically a traffic ticket) to a Class A which = bye bye License to Carry.

  6. I’m torn between petitioning businesses to block random other rights or walking up to store managers with a copy of the Bill of Rights and asking them to mark the ones that apply in their store. Either would make a good video.

        • I wasn’t aware that you got to vote on a business owners policies. /sarc

          So tell me, you think you have a right to get up on a soapbox and rail against Fresh Market’s business policies in one of their stores?

        • The Bill of Rights is only the first 10 Amendments, and those Amendments don’t affirmatively guarantee rights to individuals. Rather, they deny the federal government (originally only the federal; mostly applied to states now by a legal fiction known as incorporation through the 14th amendment) the power to infringe on already existing rights. So it’s technically impossible for a private business to violate the Second Amendment. Not that I think businesses should ban people from carrying guns; my point is only that the Bill of Rights only restrains government, not private, behavior.

          Edit: ninja’d

        • >> So the 15th amendment doesn’t apply to private businesses?

          15th amendment is the right to vote. How would it even apply to private businesses?

  7. Well, speaking from a Texas point of view, unless Fresh Market posts 30.06 or 30.07 signs, their “request” means very little to me. Of course, if you’re open-carrying, than can give you verbal notice. Otherwise, “concealed means concealed”.

    I’m surprised to see Kroger on the list in the article. To my knowledge, Kroger has rebuffed any requests made by MDA, and allows open or concealed carry per state statute in all of their stores. EDIT: A few others beat me to it on that point.

  8. As far as I know, Kroger has stayed out of the gun dispute despite pressure from MDM. Their policy is to follow the law — no more, no less. Kroger is now the owner and operator of a highly successful local supermarket chain in my city. Even though “no guns” signs have the force of law in my state, none of the stores is posted.

  9. Sure enough–what’s Kroger doing on that list? AFAIK they have consistently and publicly told MDA to go pound sand.

      • I kinda thought he was implying that she had ordinary tastes. I didn’t notice that he specified open carry and I don’t remember other posts from him though. Paul, which is it?

  10. Concealed means concealed. Plus if anyone actually thought for a second that one of those stores wouldn’t be the first to deny any kind of liability all the way to the supreme court for injuries related to an attack, stabbing, or other personal injuries committed on forcefully disarmed patrons, we would all need to have our collective heads examined. They would fight to avoid paying off a nickel. None of those stores would assume any kind of responsibility for damages resulting from being attacked in one of there stores. Want to change their minds, we need those good cases for a lawsuit and once they realize that they take on added liability they will drop the Mom’s like a hot potato.

  11. For concealed carry, just shut up and carry anyway.

    If the right to open carry is trumped by property owner’s rights, then the right to open carry does not actually exist in many places.

    Personally, I do not believe that your property rights trump my right to self-defense, however in order for the Supreme Court to see it my way anytime within my lifetime will require the Republicans winning the election and nominating strict constitutional conservatives to the court.

    I would say those are very long odds indeed.

    • The only issue of “concealed is concealed” with regards to this issue is that it is a bit antagonistic. My worry is that if MDA gets wise to that’s how gun owners roll, then we will see a push for 30.06 (Texas)-style regulation in other states.

      • … and it will still be unconstitutional as hell. Those signs have no more standing under the law as “No Muslims” or “Whites Only” signs. Make the lefties play by their own rules, either the 15th amendment applies to private businesses or it doesn’t.

        • Quit arguing this, it’s just not true. “Whites only” is racial discrimination and “no Muslims” is religious discrimination both of which are protected classes under the civil rights act.

          Until gun ownership becomes a protected class you HAVE to respect the property owners right to make decisions for his property. So, write your senators, circulate a petition, become a lobbyist and make that happen…. Or just go shop somewhere that doesn’t hate gun owners. They’ll learn eventually.

        • A “no Muslims” sign is not unconstitutional. It would be a violation of federal law, yes, but not of the constitution.

        • Actually, Florida Gun Supply successfully defended their “No Muslim Zone” signs for their store and range based on the requirement that no FFL holder sell guns to anyone they have a reasonable suspicion might be intending to use them to commit a crime.

          From USA Today: “I have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure the safety of all patriots in my community, and so effective immediately, I’m declaring Florida Gun Supply as a Muslim-free zone,” Andy Hallinan said in a video posted to his Inverness, Fla., gun shop’s Facebook page Saturday. “I will not arm and train those who wish to do harm to my fellow patriots.”

        • Making a public statement is not the same as “successfully defending”. Show me a court decision saying that they can do that.

          Last I heard about that store, there was one lawsuit, and it was tossed out by the judge for the lack of legal standing by CAIR (which filed the suit). A proper suit would require an actual customer getting turned down and suing, just like the gay wedding bakery case.

        • Get what you’re saying, but their policy is still in place after one unsuccessful court challenge and both the local and national media attacking them over it.

        • It would be interesting if a Muslim Police Officer, Soldier, or Federal agent was not served in the Florida Store.
          There was a Store in NC that posted that they would only sell to US citizens.
          Kroger used to post “No guns”, Not anymore.
          Fresh Market “suggests”, The Cary NC sore is not posted. Their Irish sausages are excellent.

    • Again, strict constitutional conservatives would not apply strictures against government overreach to private individuals. They would not answer government overreach with yet more government overreach.

  12. None of these businesses honestly care one bit about any of this. Hence all the specifically chosen pacifying yet wholly uncommitted language they use.

    All they want is for people to shut the hell up and buy stuff from them. Any group on the anti side or pro side is a nuisance and belly ache for them.

    • They want their cake and they want to eat it too. They make a stance on guns in their stores, but it’s very non-committal.

    • You are very mistaken and missing the point that the liberals running these business’ actually care a great deal and will use their influence by any means possible. If they only cared about making a buck the many corporations harassing and pressuring every state standing up for religious freedom would have very little reason to do so. Gun control is no different. They are using their influence wherever possible to push their agenda and the end always justify the means.

  13. Def take Kroger off the list. In the face of the MDA ad campaign they still haven’t changed their policy. One of their brands Fred Meyer actually sells a decent selection of firearms.

  14. Businesses have web sites and customer feedback forms. They pay attention to individuals who make the individual effort to individually communicate with them.

    If enough of us individuals make the effort to do that, they will eventually get the message.

    There are only a handful of businesses in my local area with victim disarmament signs, which carry the force of law here in Illinois. They have each received a personal letter from me, noting that I will do business elsewhere.

  15. You don’t, it’s a free market and (thank God) there is still some preservation of private property rights. Like it or not, the ability of a private business owner to decide for themselves on an issue like this is crucial to the preservation of all of our rights.

    You don’t have to agree with their own decision, and the only real way you can express this is to not patronize any place that takes a stand you don’t agree to. It’s a free market, if enough people stop going and make it clear that the “no guns” policy is why you stopped going then maybe there will be change (unless there are more people who say they will no longer go IF guns are allowed).

    Unless of course you are ok with the government being able to dictiate everything allowed on your own private property. In which case by all means lobby for forcing private business owners to allow guns on their property, just remember that it cuts both ways.

    • Well, we’re going to have to disagree. Caving on this is simply refusing to force the lefty’s to play by their own rules. If you can force a baker to make a gay wedding cake, you should be able to force them to not discriminate against gun owners.

      • Then you have to lobby to have “armed status” to be protected under the civil rights act, it currently is not, so you can’t equate the baker who refuses gays with the store owner who refuses to let people carry a gun in their store.

        You are allowed to disagree with the store owner, and no longer patronize his establishment (you can feel free to tell him that’s the reason of just not go there anymore, your choice).

        • Or we can engage in a little judicial activism of our own and treat it as if it already is.

        • Civil Rights Act is federal legislation. It doesn’t include any protection for gays, either. State and/or local laws do in some places.

          (The whole kerfuffle with North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” is that it prohibited cities in the state from enacting such laws in their own jurisdiction, while also not enacting any on state-level. As a result, several cities that had provisions regarding discrimination on sexual orientation had those stricken down with no substitute – no law on city level now, no law on state level as before, and no law on federal level.)

        • Then you have to lobby to have “armed status” to be protected under the civil rights act…

          The very concept of “protected classes” is an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection clause.

  16. I’m not giving specific advice here. Carry at your own risk-or boycott and make ’em pay. Or put ’em outa’ bidness. One reason I try and shop in Indiana-a scant mile away. Rarely do I see no guns signs-plenty in Cook Co,IL.

  17. None in San Antonio so its a non-issue. They are confined to the libtard enclaves in Dallas and Houston. I would simply deny them my business. I still concealed carry in HEB and they are fine with it.

  18. I work for a Kroger company. Kroger is very “follow state laws”. We have open carriers in my store daily. Nobody complains, nobody has issues. The few “he’s scaring me, he has a gun” customers complain, we tell them it’s state law, and they have a right to do so. If they aren’t brandishing or assaulting someone, there’s nothing we’re going to do about it.

    The carry restrictions in their stores only apply to current employees. No carry, open or concealed, on or off the clock, ever. Doesn’t stop me, but nonetheless, bad policy.

  19. The question of the day is this: why is DeSantis and almost everyone who comments on this site forgetting what freedom and the Federalist Papers taught us? Rights must exist in harmony.

    You cannot restore rights on private property. How would you like it if the government decided to “restore anti-terrorism surveillance rights” on your phone? Your computer?

    No.

    What you’re asking is for one person’s rights to trump another’s. That is wrong. That’s not freedom. That’s bullying and trying to get your own way. It’s shameful. It’s childish.

    “Your right to swing your arm ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

    Be an adult. Don’t like the rules they enacted on their own sovereign property? Don’t shop there.

    Don’t make this an attack on your gun rights. It’s not. It’s their property, and their freedom to conduct their business as they see fit. Vote with your wallet: don’t shop there.

    • Sorry dude. Sometimes they are the only game in town. This is not a libertarian paradise. What they don’t know can’t hurt them. Property rights are not absolute.

        • The fact that property rights are not absolute is obvious from the existence of eminent domain. Which is explicitly allowed by the Bill of Rights. Obviously, the Founders were dirty socialist hippies.

  20. I know around here, Crest and Walmart allow legal OC. No problems.

    I wonder how many people who are upset over stores banning guns support laws like Mississippi’s pro-discrimination law? Looking forward to the spin-tastic justifications.

  21. They have every right to not want guns in their stores and you have every right not to shop there. Hit them in the wallet !

    • The gun stores I frequent say firearms must either be unloaded and cased, or concealed and remain that way.

      And range safety demands that weapons be unloaded unless at the firing line. That is a sensible rule, I have no problem with it.

  22. As far as Kroger goes, I have lived in CO all my life. CO is an open carry state. I’ve never seen OC in any urban store. When I lived in ranching country, it was a different story of course. Four legged predators…

  23. A large crowd of picketers with signs saying “Unarmed Victim Zone” attention all would be criminals, you can rob, rape and murder in this store at will because the store does not allow concealed carry of weapons.

    Of course law enforcement would arrest everyone on various trumped up charges like “inducing panic’ etc. etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *