Texas Open Carrier’s Letter to Walmart

TTAG reader and open carrier Tyler London’s letter to Walmart regarding his interaction with store personnel in San Antonio:

On April 20, 2016, at approximately 2:00 PM, while shopping inside the Walmart at 1200 SE Military Dr, San Antonio, TX 78214, I was approached by two employees (manager Adam and grunt worker Rob) who demanded to see my license to carry a handgun. I asked them why they needed to see it and they incorrectly informed me that they were legally required by TABC to check my license. I informed them they were both wrong about that . . .

The TABC website clearly says on the front page: “There is nothing in the Alcoholic Beverage Code specifically requiring TABC license/permit holders to ask a person to present his/her License to Carry a handgun (LTC), nor do we encourage them to do so.”

They then claimed it was Walmart policy. I informed them they were wrong about that as well (I have an email from corporate to prove this). For the sake of diplomacy I showed them my LTC anyway.

Afterward, in the hopes that since I respected their wishes, they would respect mine as well, I told them they needed to call TABC and get clarification on the issue since many people, including myself, consider being asked to provide paperwork to be an invasion of privacy.

This prompted the manager to walk away and talk into his radio. I couldn’t hear everything he said, but did hear the words, “Carrying a gun,” “Send the officer at the front,” “Call SAPD,” and “Uncooperative.” Considering I was being more cooperative than legally required, I felt this was done purely out of malice for being corrected in front of an employee. At this point for my legal protection I pulled out my cell phone and began recording.

Manager Adam then approached me again and (contradictorily) told me I had to conceal my weapon. I told him there were no signs outside banning open carry. He again got on his radio and told me there are signs at all entrances banning open carry. He is again completely wrong, as these are the signs posted on the doors:

walmart_gun_sign

I explained that the posted sign simply says that anyone carrying a gun must be licensed, and does not meet 30.07 verbage. I asked for him to get clarification on whether or not I was being given 30.07 verbal notice. He had no idea what I was talking about. Shortly after a female manager named Nellie showed up. She asked me to stop recording before she would answer my questions. When I told her I was filming for my legal protection, she told me to leave the store.

As I was leaving I asked Rob what the female manager’s last name was and he refused to answer, which shows a complete lack of professionalism and accountability. He then shooed me out of the store as though I were a common criminal. This was an assault on my dignity.

I did absolutely nothing wrong or illegal and was treated like trash because the managers had no clue what they were talking about. To add further insult, on the way out, I was stopped by a law enforcement officer and questioned. To his credit, he was completely professional about the situation and allowed me to go when I informed him I simply wanted to leave rather than suffer further interrogation.

There is no law or Walmart corporate policy requiring LTCs to be checked. I am a 33 year old father of three, honorably discharged veteran, 3.9 GPA honor student, and law abiding citizen. I say this not to brag, but to clarify that I am the last person in the world who should be treated in such a revolting manner, especially when you consider I spend thousands of dollars at Walmart every year.

This is hardly the first time I have been harassed by employees who were quoting laws and policies which don’t exist. This specific problem has also happened before, as seen here.

Whatever training programs Walmart has in place for their employees are completely inadequate. I would appreciate a letter of apology signed by Rob, Adam, and Nellie. I will be happy to pick it up in the store at your soonest convenience.

comments

  1. avatar Larry says:

    What a waste of everyone’s time.

    What did he prove? Nothing. What was the end result???? Way to entice more people to push their elected officials to take away more gun rights and create even more useless laws and at the cost of our tax dollars going to lawyers to write them.

    My advice for what is it worth, CARRY CONCEALED. You wont offend the nanny’s of the world and you will retain a tactical advantage, which I would think would be more important to you.

    1. avatar JohnF says:

      This ^^^

      1. avatar 10mm says:

        “… is what a whiney CC elitist projecting his insecurity sounds like”.

      2. avatar Kevin says:

        Sowing defensiveness and confusion with the manager results in being asked to leave.
        Reassuring, explaining the law clearly and building trust with the manager results in finishing your shopping trip.

    2. avatar Dev says:

      I’m pretty sure this guy didn’t go to Walmart to “prove” anythin, just to shop. If we’re going to let the antis scare us into hiding when open carry is perfectly legal we will lose the entire war.

      1. avatar That's right, your not from Texas says:

        ^ This +100
        Cue the Fudd’s and concealed carry commandos…
        You carry your way and I’ll carry the way that the law allows and suits me!

        1. avatar Big Jim says:

          These stupid ass people at Walmart didn’t even know what their own signs said. And then they act like they’ve got Crazy gun-toting man in the back of their store And the one that kid tried to act like a tough guy. Mental midgets!

        2. avatar Ceefour says:

          Fudd…………that was also my first thought…right on. Intelligence/common sense clearly not a requirement for Walmart store management

    3. avatar Gman says:

      I could not disagree more sir. OC in VA is NO BIG DEAL. That didn’t happen because everybody CC’d. It happened because a few good folks OC’d where no man has gone before. Danladi Moore was arrested twice and successfully sued the city of Norfolk, twice. That prompted our AG to write an all hands training bulletin for all LEOs and that basically put an end to police harassment. Our Wal-Marts have no issue with OC, NONE. Texas will grow up eventually.

      1. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

        As a former Virginia resident and a current Wisconsin resident I am tired of hearing how gun friendly Texas is. Texas is basically Minnesota which also requires a license to open carry a handgun but is less restrictive when it comes to carrying in posted no carry zone.

        1. avatar Jon in CO says:

          Agreed. Come down to CO, you can open carry and get your weed on. (If that’s your thing…)

        2. avatar Shane says:

          And obtaining a carry license in Texas is more troublesome and more expensive than in many states. Trying to obtain a driver’s license here is even worse. The obstacles are designed to prevent the unimaginable hell that would be unleashed on the Lone Star State if an undocumented immigrant obtained a drivers license.

      2. avatar Mecha75 says:

        Different scenarios. VA has had OC for quite some time. It is not a shock to the average citizens because it is the norm. Texas has had it for 4 months. People have not been normalized to seeing normal people walking with a gun on their hip. They are still shocked and dont fully understand the law (or the Bill of Rights). Now i am not stating i support those so called 1st or 2nd amendment “audits”. I dont. But normal people doing a perfectly legit activity should not be harassed by those ignorant to thier rights. And in full disclosure, i am in florida and most like would not OC if and when it becomes legal here, again.

        1. avatar Frank in VA says:

          “It is not a shock to the average citizens because it is the norm”.

          In most of the Commonwealth, maybe. I doubt that holds true in Arlington County, though. That is a whole other ‘Virginia’.

      3. avatar JJVP says:

        I OC on a regular basis at the Kemah and League City, TX Walmarts. I have never been bother by any employee or manager, nor I been asked to provide my CHL. I am not required nor are they allowed to ask for my CHL. Only one I would show my CHL would be a LEO and even that is iffy. Case law has ruled that a LEO can’t ask for “your papers” only because you are OC’ing. They need probable cause. When the OC law was being debated there was an ammendment proposed that would have codified that into the law. I was taken out in part because there was legal precedent, so they saw no need to codify it.

        League City had a town hall meeting after the law was passed. The following question was asked.

        “Question: Do business owners have the right to request identification or CHL from patrons?
        Answer: No. However, you do have the right to ask anyone to leave your property. We suggest you establish procedures with your staff as soon as possible.”

        http://www.leaguecity.com/index.aspx?NID=2685

        1. avatar Brainman says:

          Actually, they are allowed to ask anything they want. You can refuse. But in Texas, if they ask to see your chl and you refuse, they can demand that you leave. If you don’t, they can have you arrested. Its private property.

          If you’re going to refer to that posting from League City as evidence otherwise, you can just as easily find a posting from the Houston PD with the opposite info.

        2. avatar Jon says:

          In Texas it is Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon PC 46.03. Your carry license exempts you from that law. So, yes you do have to show your license upon demand by a Texas peace officer. Failure to produce the license is probable cause that you might be in violation of 46.03. The case law you are referring does not cover Texas and is out of the 6th federal appeals courts, Texas is covered under the 5th. There is currently no case law in Texas concerning this subject no matter how many time people repeat it on the internet.

    4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      ” You wont offend the nanny’s of the world”

      That simply empowers them to become more nanny-like in other aspects of life.

      Seriously, think about what you are saying. This man committed no crime and violated no company policy. Yet you are comfortable labeling him as the ‘bad guy’ in this incident.

      There’s something very wrong about that degree of acquiescence. Very wrong.

      “you will retain a tactical advantage,”

      Hogwash and FUD. Pure nonsense Geezer Science….”So and so said it, it sounded good to ME, so it MUST be true!”

      1. avatar Larry says:

        Hogwash?

        Many reputable sources will say that carry concealed is an advantage for many reasons. For example, had this guy concealed his weapon, he could have shopped there without hassle and be armed at the same time.

        Or should we just believe “JR_in_NC”?? Let me guess, OC scares away the bad guys away? Or does just make you the first target they shoot? Maybe they would like to have your nice gun they can see so they sucker punch you and take it.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Many reputable sources will say that carry concealed is an advantage for many reasons.”

          This is what is known as an Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

          I don’t care what “reputable sources” say. I care about what data and observations in the real world says.

          So, do these ‘reputable sources’ provide data showing one method of carry is a clear tactical advantage, in all scenarios, or do they just spout opinions?

          For example, had this guy concealed his weapon, he could have shopped there without hassle and be armed at the same time.

          Shopping is not a ‘tactical advantage’ so I’m not sure why you include this as a “For example” for how concealed is tactically superior.

          “Or should we just believe “JR_in_NC”?? “

          Nay, don’t take my word for it. Firstly, I did not say CC was inferior or OC was superior. I merely said that the CLAIM that you made that one was superior is FUD, because it is.

          Look to the real world for your answer, not to JR_in_NC. Observation of real incidents lead to the conclusion that no one carry method is “better” in all, or even a provable majority, of circumstances.

          By allowing your focus on the carry method, you have let the anti’s set the terms of the debate.

          Carry method is immaterial and irrelevant. This man was a law abiding citizen, committing no crime, violating no company policy and to our knowledge was doing no threatening action.

          Yet he was singled out solely on the basis that his firearm was visible. As troubling as I find the actions of the WM managers in this story, I am moreso troubled by your acceptance that visibility of an inanimate object is some great social problem…

          “Let me guess, OC scares away the bad guys away?”

          I did not comment on that, but since you brought it up, it has happened:

          https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/robbery-what-robbery/

          See, that’s called an observation from The Real World, aka a “data point.” It’s not emotion.

          So, while the snark of your assertion seems to suggest that you think I believe something that “does not happen,” I can point to a real world, verifiable example that it “has happened.”

          “Or does just make you the first target they shoot?”

          So, where’s your “data point” that this has happened?

          “Maybe they would like to have your nice gun they can see so they sucker punch you and take it.”

          Again, data point needed.

          Both of your comments are another fallacy: Appeal To Fear.

          And hence why I labeled your initial comment “FUD.”

        2. avatar Vhyrus says:

          You tell em Larry! The back of the bus is just fine for us gunnies. It’s more comfortable and safer for us anyway. We don’t need this equal rights snake oil they’re pushing!

        3. avatar 10mm says:

          “Maybe the bad guys do such-and-such and your OC gun is useless/dangerous/stupid” is exactly the type of strawman nonsense the antis use. We won’t accept it from them and we sure as hell won’t accept it from some CC ninja elite.

        4. avatar M3M9 says:

          To be fair, posting a link to one data point where open carry “worked” is an anecdotal fallacy. So it is about as meaningless as “reputable sources” say in terms of proving the point.

          That being said, my decision has been to CC based on my training and my instructors. They may or may not be reputable sources to everyone else, but they made sense to me about why CC is better.

          I could care less if everybody else wants to OC though. Reminds me who the hell to stay away from when the shooting starts. 😉

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Larry, the entire point is that whether I OC or CC or *both* is none of your damn business, people addicted to attempting to control other people’s perfectly legal actions for no reason whatsoever, as you just did, sicken me. Get a life.

        6. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “To be fair, posting a link to one data point where open carry “worked” is an anecdotal fallacy. So it is about as meaningless as “reputable sources” say in terms of proving the point. “

          If that had been what I was doing, you’d be right.

          However, as a counterpoint to the “OC doesn’t deter” assertion, it stands as falsification. The claim that OC does NOT deter criminals, at least two of them, is provably false.

          As an aside, though, there was some research done on incarcerated criminals wherein they admitted (in self reporting surveys, so there’s that) that if they knew a potential victim was armed they’d avoid attacking that person. So, if that data is to be believed, the number of incidents of “OC deterrence” is, apparently, greater than 2.

          But, back to the specific point under discussion:

          I don’t claim that OC “works” at deterrence at all times. I merely provide proof against the statement: “The claim that OC CAN deter is false.”

          Hope this clarifies.

        7. avatar M3M9 says:

          I recall the study of which you speak and I don’t think it really proves anything in terms of OC as the survey was not conducted with OC in mind (besides that it was nothing close to a representative sample). Criminals may very well avoid people who are armed, but it does not follow that OCing deters crime more than CCing. But so you have two data points ostensibly supporting OC? It disproves the original assertion, which was overly general anyway. But it does nothing to prove OC is the better way to go over CC, and that’s really what the debate is about. (Putting aside the notion that we have “inoculate” the public about guns by OC’ing, which I don’t view as a legitimate factor to consider when deciding to OC.)

          Also, in terms of the CC v. OC debate, you are trying to prove a negative with CC. Did the fact that somebody was CCing make it so they were attacked whereas if they had a gun plainly on their hip, the attacker would’ve moved on. Who knows? How do you even prove that? An OCer can always point to a story where a gun deterred a crime. A CCer can only point to a gun deterring crime when the CCer became an OCer! Yet, unlike an OCer, a CCer is not going to be attacked because they have an unseen gun on their hip, but because they gave other indicia that they were a good target. They at least have a hidden equalizer they may be able to use to turn the tables. If somebody wants an OCers gun, we can say pretty surely that they are going to simply attack, rather than first threaten to get what they want. And who is “situationally on” 100% of the time, 365/24/7, especially for an unprovoked attack?

          My primary gripe with OC is that it requires ramped up situational awareness over CC because you have to protect what you have openly displayed to the world. And since I rarely see an open carrier with a security holster, and doubt that a lot of them have had any weapon retention training, that seems fairly irresponsible to me. That doesn’t mean that I think OC’ing should be illegal, BTW.

        8. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Criminals may very well avoid people who are armed, but it does not follow that OCing deters crime more than CCing.”

          Kind of a straw man since no one really makes such a claim.

          But, okay, I’ll take a bite on this one.

          How does the criminal know the potential victim is “armed” if they are CC-ing?

          Conceded Point: Criminals avoid people that are armed.
          Inference: Criminal would have to know someone is armed to thus avoid them.

          Right?

          Or, are these criminals clairvoyant?

          “But so you have two data points ostensibly supporting OC?”

          No, these two data points do not “support OC.” These two data points nullify a hypothesis. I explained this above I thought rather clearly.

          It disproves the original assertion, which was overly general anyway.

          Thank-you for agreeing with me, then.

          “But it does nothing to prove OC is the better way to go over CC,”

          As I very explicitly stated above, neither these “data points” prove one method of carry is better than the other…AND…I clearly stated I never claimed or asserted one method of carry is better than another.

          So, again, we agree….I gueeessss?

          “and that’s really what the debate is about.”

          Only to people that think that life and the world has to be put into black-and-white, easily defined pigeon holes.

          To the rest of us…we don’t care.

          How about this….just for grins and giggles:

          You carry how you want, I’ll carry how I want, Thomas can carry how he wants, and the author of the article can carry how he wants.

          We don’t need a “debate” on which is “better.” It’s pointless, and any conclusion that one thinks they have arrived upon is provably false. There is no universal “better,” and you admitted this above when you mentioned the original assertion was overly general.

          “Also, in terms of the CC v. OC debate, you are trying to prove a negative with CC.”

          Wrong. I clearly stated what I was trying to “prove.” Again, here it is for anyone that might be reading comprehension challenged:

          “That OC does not deter violent criminals is false.” That’s it. Reading more into it is on you, not me.

          “Did the fact that somebody was CCing make it so they were attacked whereas if they had a gun plainly on their hip, the attacker would’ve moved on.”

          Kind of a straw man there since I never said anything remotely like that, never hinted anything remotely like that and never have even seen any such assertion made by any OC or “Carry as you wish” advocate.

          “How do you even prove that?”

          Who cares since no one has said or is saying that….until you brought it up as a straw man to tear down for us.

          “An OCer can always point to a story where a gun deterred a crime.”

          Thank-you. Again, you confirmed my point. OC can deter a criminal act, and this statement is supported by demonstrable fact.

          “A CCer can only point to a gun deterring crime when the CCer became an OCer!”

          Um. What?

          So, if the crime was deterred when the gun became open, wasn’t it then the visibility of the gun that deterred the crime? How someone was carrying earlier is immaterial.

          It seems like you have just made the argument that a CC-er was targeted because the criminal did not know the victim was armed, but as soon as the gun was “open” and the criminal could see his selected victim was armed, the crime was deterred.

          I’m not seeing how this discounts anything I have said in this discussion, discounts OC or sings the praises of CC (which SEEMS like you are doing but I confess I’m not sure).

          “Yet, unlike an OCer, a CCer is not going to be attacked because they have an unseen gun on their hip, but because they gave other indicia that they were a good target.”

          I think you are jumping through some awfully convoluted hoops here to try to make some logical point that you think is profound. I invoke Occam’s Razor.

          No one is saying a CC-er is attacked because he is CC-ing, and I’m not sure what relevance that has on the discussion of OC being a deterrent or not.

          Oh, wait…are you still hung up on which is “Better” and trying to say that to make the claim “OC is better” we have to have some ‘statistics’ that show someone is victimized because they are CC-ing to declare OC is “better?”

          Nah. All this nonsense goes away with the realization “there is no better.” Just carry the way you want and stop trying to convince others that your carry method is “better.”

          “They at least have a hidden equalizer they may be able to use to turn the tables.”

          Which us utterly pointless if they are not attacked in the first place, right?

          I mean, what’s the point here? Is it to AVOID trouble a far as humanly possible or is it to “turn the tables on our attackers?”

          CC certainly has a place as does OC. It’s one of them there “personal choices” and I fault no person for choosing one over the other. To my knowledge, very few OC-ers fault or criticize CC…but it is very common for CC-ers to cite crap as to why “CC is better and no one should OC.”

          “If somebody wants an OCers gun, we can say pretty surely that they are going to simply attack,”

          Again with the Appeal to Fear Fallacy and FUD. Data, please. I know actual DATA is a hard concept to grasp for some reason, but seriously…you are making the claim so back it up.

          “We can say pretty surely” is unsupported.

          “And who is “situationally on” 100% of the time, 365/24/7, especially for an unprovoked attack?”

          This statement does NOTHING to distinguish between OC and CC. A CC-er or for that matter an unarmed person can be targeted for an “unprovoked attack.” So, I’m not sure what your point is here except to say that we all need to TRY to remain diligent in regard to situational awareness. With that, I agree.

          “My primary gripe with OC is that it requires ramped up situational awareness over CC”

          It does no such thing. This is just pure nonsense.

          Are you seriously stating that someone can be comparatively lazy with their SA just because they are CC-ing rather than OC-ing?

          Oh. My. Word.

          “And since I rarely see an open carrier with a security holster, and doubt that a lot of them have had any weapon retention training,”

          Ah, there we go. This statement explains a lot.

          “that seems fairly irresponsible to me.”

          The world does not care what “seems fairly irresponsible” to you. Why would you think it would?

          “That doesn’t mean that I think OC’ing should be illegal, BTW.”

          Well, gee. Thank-you for that. Not “illegal” but just…er…”dumb” or something? Got it.

          Social pressure against something you don’t “like” rather than making it against the law is, I don’t know, better. I guess?

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Criminals may very well avoid people who are armed, but it does not follow that OCing deters crime more than CCing.

          I think JR_in_NC already covered this, but it bears repeating: in a random/chance encounter/crime of opportunity (i.e. the typical type of criminal encounter the average person would most likely face), how would a criminal know that a potential victim is armed, if that person is carrying concealed? In such a scenario, the only way for a potential victim to deter a criminal on the basis of armed resistance would be for the potential victim to be carrying openly.

      2. avatar Tom in PA says:

        Some thoughts on OC:

        -You will probably be harassed
        -Not all criminals are deterred by open carry
        -Your gun is a target for the criminals that see it as a challenge
        -You are surrendering response options
        -Are you using the proper retention holster?
        -Do you have authentic weapon retention skills?

        While I support the right to open carry, I personally don’t endorse the practice (you’re free to do whatever, including disagreeing with me). If you believe you aren’t surrendering options, you haven’t considered all of them objectively. Consider that you may be the first target. Statements suggesting that no criminal can get near you because you have 24/7/365 x 360 degree awareness are unrealistic. Unless you’re wearing a quality holster that can’t be torn from your body that is rated at least Level II retention, and have actual training in weapon retention, you might consider re-thinking open carry until you correct those deficiencies. We all need to be candid with ourselves so we’re not filtering the threat assessment through a fictional reality.

        1. avatar Kevin says:

          Well said.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Consider that you may be the first target.

          Considered, and discarded, due to lack of supporting empirical data.

        3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Considered, and discarded, due to lack of supporting empirical data.”

          Chip, I do wonder what it is going to take for this canard to die a natural death. The degree to which this is clung to is very dogmatic and quite frankly, very “anti-gunner” ish. One really needs to abort all pretense of rationality to continue to make this claim in light of how often it is rejected as irrational.

          Do you have any idea? We clearly are not getting through. Is there a better way the irrationality of this claim can be shown?

        4. avatar Tom in PA says:

          First off, I presented it as a consideration, not a certainty. Your response was rather absolute.

          It might not be probable when contrasted against the whole, but it’s absolutely possible. I’m certain the smart criminals would, and there are examples of the violent targeting the armed security at banks first during a robbery. I’ve discussed and learned from first hand accounts with respected law enforcement and military trainers that clearly illustrate that the obviously armed are often engaged first.

          It should be on the list of considerations because any experienced criminal has enough situational awareness to check their surroundings before committing a crime. They’re looking for police officers, security, witnesses or anyone that could interfere with the act of committing the crime, or implicating them afterward. We know that open carriers were targeted specifically in Newport News, VA, Eastern Michigan University and Gresham, OR – not for death, but for theft. They didn’t target someone else – they went directly after the open carrier to relieve them of their gun. It’s reasonable to deduce they were targeted due to the open carry of a firearm. I will certainly concede that correlation is not causation, but the factual recollection of the events does lend support to that premise, and certainly meets some modicum of your empirical threshold. I think your reaction is somewhat obtuse.

          Also, the presence or absence of empirical evidence does not establish the truth or falsehood of an argument, nor make the truth or falsehood of anything absolute, but rather is an argument that is experiential, according to the senses, and influenced by prior beliefs or experiences. Reject my point all you like, but it is possible, and if so, should be considered.

          Being the “grey man” goes way beyond concealed vs. open – there are plenty of people carrying concealed that telegraph information with clothing or vehicular adornment. Enterprising criminals target vehicles based on gun related stickers, or seeing their owners wearing gun related apparel.

          If the attacker knows you have a firearm because you’re carrying openly, your attacker knows what you have, where you have it, and can visibly ascertain your draw. Just because your firearm is concealed does not mean you will dominate the engagement, you just have other options as this plays out. At the foundation, it is never prudent to give an adversary information on your capabilities. If you know something that he doesn’t, that is something you have as an advantage. While I think that open carry can deter some criminal activity, not every criminal will be scared of you and your obvious possession of a firearm.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          At the foundation, it is never prudent to give an adversary information on your capabilities.

          We’re not in a combat zone. We are not facing ideologically driven terrorists. Our most common adversary will be the common criminal.

          Among that demographic, making them aware of our capabilities is exactly what we should be doing. The common criminal fears the armed citizen, and as a general rule, will seek out the easiest mark. Presenting ourselves as something other than the easiest mark will almost certainly prevent, entirely, any encounter with the common criminal.

          Doing so generally involves situational awareness, behavior, and attitude – far moreso than a visible firearm. And when situational awareness, behavior, and attitude already present someone as an undesirable mark, the addition of a visible firearm can only help that calculus.

          (By contrast, if lack of situational awareness, behavior, and attitude present someone as a desirable mark, the presence of a visible firearm my also help that calculus.)

    5. avatar Jack Griffin says:

      He can carry however he wants. What he shouldn’t do–in order to aid the cause of firearms rights for everyone in the state–is write letters like the above. Name-calling and the general tone of a big whiny baby aren’t the way to get through to anybody. State the facts, state that the employees do not know the XYZ law and state that if such continues, it would be easy for someone to take it to court to reinforce the proper treatment of XYZ.

      This is a knowledge battle as much as it is a legal battle. Non-gun people just don’t know and simply react. The best way to handle that is to be respectful, document the incident and address the proper people later.

      “Another Mouthy Offended White A-hole for Gun Rights” is not what we need in the news.

      1. avatar Watts' Twating of law-abiding Americans says:

        The carrier SHOULD exploit this incident writing letters to Walmart, it’s board members, major shareholders and legislators and he must take the opportunity do interviews with the local and national TV news outlets right outside the store just like the anti’s do.

        The fact is we MUST use the exact same tactics as our adversaries, question the store and it’s employee’s motives, ridicule them, name call, marginalize and insult them, demean them, label them as overly anxious reactionaries and zealots and above all use the same venues, the media, radio, TV, websites, and newspapers, our oppositions willing accomplices, to further OUR agenda. THAT is how WE win.

        1. avatar Jack Griffin says:

          …just like people “win” on Jerry Springer by shouting, cursing and acting a fool.

    6. avatar kenneth says:

      What he proved was that the honest, law abiding citizens of this country are sick to death of being pushed around by idiots, fools, and bullys and they will tolerate it no longer. It puts them on notice that they had best shape up or they will be left behind by their betters.
      Kudos to this man for doing it exactly correct! Be honest and polite… but FIRM in that you will no longer tolerate being treated as a criminal for knowing and following the law!

    7. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      As far as i’m concerned open carry is most useful in those moments when you can’t reliably or comfortably conceal carry. It’s convenient to just be able to carry a handgun from your car to, say, a range, gun-shop, or just have it show while changing a tire, without worrying that you could be “brandishing” your weapon. I’d rather not have people know that I’m armed but there are times when open carrying a handgun makes sense, too. Just sayin’ . . .

    8. avatar Binder says:

      Had the same issue in the Chicago area, you know the place you can’t carry (sarcasm), with Walmart’s putting up signs. They all came down after corporate straitened it all out. This happens when ever there is a change in the law. Just contact Walmart corporate. Now can someone please notify Sportsman’s Guide that there are no magazine restrictions on handguns anywhere in Illinois, Even Cheaper than Dirt has figured that one out.

      1. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

        Hey I live in Cook co. Binder. LOT’S of STUPID internet sellers. I don’t worry about it-I just tell everyone I will never give them my business. And some GB a-wholes put up nasty messages about “slave states”-including shall issue Illinois. AS far as this Texas dude-deal with it and fight for your rights. Or carry concealed. I see open-carry in nearby Indiana and NOTHING happens…

        1. avatar That's right, your not from Texas says:

          Everyone in Texas knows that San Antonio is left wing, liberal, anti gun! Right up there with Austin and Houston.

        2. avatar Tyler London says:

          “Everyone in Texas knows that San Antonio is left wing, liberal, anti gun! Right up there with Austin and Houston.”

          Oh, come on. We’re not THAT bad (yet). I’d say we place a noticeable third behind those two.

    9. avatar Anonymous says:

      What did he prove?

      He proved the walmart manager and his goons are just like “Larry.” Ready to force their opinions on everyone else.

      What was the end result????

      Larry left his opinion on TTAG letting everyone else know that his opinion should be forced on others for reasons indicated, and the usual “don’t rock the boat” whiny argument.

      My advice for what is it worth, CARRY CONCEALED. You wont offend the nanny’s of the world and you will retain a tactical advantage, which I would think would be more important to you.

      Advice noted… but… you don’t get to tell us what we can and can’t do.

    10. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      In other words, gun owners shouldn’t rock the boat? Just stay in the closet? Sit in the back of the bus? Go around barefoot and pregnant? Well, you get the point.

      Rights are never expanded just by going along and getting along. Yes, there are more and less effective means to an end and, yes, reasonable people will differ as to what those means may be. However, simply sitting down, shutting up and hiding is not a winning play. Playing defense has its place, but offense wins the game. Sitting quietly in the nosebleed section hoping no one notices you, isn’t even in the game.

    11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      What a waste of everyone’s time.

      Yes, the store managers did, in fact, waste everyone’s time: their own, the LEO’s, and the customer’s.

      What did he prove? Nothing. What was the end result???? Way to entice more people to push their elected officials to take away more gun rights and create even more useless laws and at the cost of our tax dollars going to lawyers to write them.

      Way to clutch those pearls.

      My advice for what is it worth, CARRY CONCEALED.

      I didn’t see where the OP asked for your advice on his chosen method of carry.

      You wont offend the nanny’s of the world and you will retain a tactical advantage, which I would think would be more important to you.

      There is no “tactical advantage” to concealed carry.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        And for the record, there is no ‘tactical advantage’ to not offending the nannies of the world.

        1. avatar Shane says:

          Except that the nanny might feel intimidated and decide to vote the wrong way on gun issues. I think that’s worth considering.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          We are not responsible for the “feelings” of others.

    12. avatar Tyler London says:

      ” You wont offend the nanny’s of the world”

      I don’t care a wit about the nannies of the world.

      “and you will retain a tactical advantage,”

      LOL. I didn’t know anyone even still used the word “Tactical” without following it up with some sort of joke word.

      http://static.dudeiwantthat.com/img/food/novelty/tactical-bacon-6897.jpg

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        LOL. I didn’t know anyone even still used the word “Tactical” without following it up with some sort of joke word

        He preceded it with his own name, which amounts to the same thing.

      2. avatar txJM says:

        I didn’t know anyone still used “LOL”.

    13. avatar Roberta Isham says:

      Nothing he said was wrong. He has every right to ask for an apology. Its not about the gun. Its about the law. The law allows this and so it MUST be followed or changed. The fact that Wal-Mart is a private company and can ask anyone to leave means that they could have policies that were different from what they have. But they don’t. And Wal-Mart still has to follow the laws that regulate the business in that area, state, federal, constitution… For instance they can’t keep a person out just because of their race but they can kick out someone who is being belligerent, not just disagreeing but truly belligerent. And this is coming from a Democrat from California. Please understand. Ignorance of any law, local or constitutional is the greatest threat to the security to our country.

    14. avatar Kevin says:

      He lost me when he referred to an employee as a “grunt.” And the rest of his self-entitled rant didn’t bring me back.

    15. avatar Karina says:

      You OC haters never change, do you? “Shall not be infringed” never implied “unless carried openly”, last I checked. The correct reaction isn’t your pitiful “indignant nanny” impression ; Mr London deserves your support ; OUR support, not your outrage and your erroneous interpretation of what he should or should not do.

      What you should be angry at is this Wal-Mart and these idiotic employees who need a refresher regarding the meaning of their own store’s signage and their own state laws.

      Who cares who we offend? It’s about what’s right, about what we deserve, not about how many overly sensitive politicians and grandmothers we’re “offending” (and these people will always be offended, just like there will be never enough gun control laws to them). Being offended grants precisely zero rights and zero stepping stones for justification. Which, in all honesty, is what you seem to be, offended, that is. Not only at the wrong thing, but also for the wrong reasons.

      Way to be an embarrassment, Larry.

      Also, hi TTAG. Long time no see and keep fighting the good fight. My regards to Mr Farago, hopefully this time he doesn’t make an article out of one of my emails, though. 🙂

    16. avatar Jon says:

      Once the manager told them to cover up they are required to do so. The manager verbally informed the LTC holder as required by law where a sign was not already posted. The verbal warning meets the requirement under the law. This LTC holder was a fool, and even bigger fool to share with everyone!!!!!!

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “Once the manager told them to cover up they are required to do so.”

        Please cite the TX statute that “requires” one citizen to cover up their firearm after being “told” to do by another citizen.

        1. avatar txJM says:

          Penal Code Section 44 Chapter 30 Section 07 (30.07) applies to this specific scenario.

          Just because the Wal-Mart manager is a “citizen” does not remove his ‘apparent authority’.

          Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY
          CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the
          license holder:
          (1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of
          Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
          without effective consent; and
          (2) received notice that entry on the property by a
          license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.
          (b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
          if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to
          act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written
          communication.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Um, where is “cover up the firearm” mentioned in that statute?

          That statute covers being ON the property, no? I don’t see, nor have I ever read, that that statute gives someone the legal authority to demand that someone “cover” their firearm.

  2. avatar matty9 says:

    Chalk up yet another reason to avoid wally world like the plague. Old man Sam is rolling in his grave I betcha!

    1. avatar Wood says:

      I didn’t need another reason.

    2. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

      I stopped going to the local Walmart a long time ago. The only thing I use it for now is as a landmark for directions to other locations.

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      Well… it was “San Antonio” I wouldn’t expect anything less.

    4. avatar WhatAboutBob says:

      Absolutely. Surprised it took this long for someone to say it. I find it depressing to walk through one, always feel like I’m scraping the bottom of humanity. Are their prices really that much better?

      Of course Target is on my bleep list too….

  3. avatar JohnF says:

    With the history the POTG and LE have had with Wal-Mart, I’m incredulous that any of us still go there. How many people have to be hassled, shot, or having to shoot at Wal-Mart before the POTG put that store chain on their “complete boycott” category?

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      They sell guns and ammo, and I have oc’ed in walmarts across the country with not even a sideways glance. Sounds like that particular store may be the problem, or possibly Texas.

      1. avatar That's right, your not from Texas says:

        No problems in the DFW area!

    2. avatar Hoplopfheil says:

      I don’t enjoy Walmart, but a box of 9mm there costs about half of what it does at Sportsman’s. I can’t help it.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        When my first 9mm was on the Fedex truck for delivery, I hit WallyWorld to pick up some white box and American Eagle. That kept my new pistol from being a paperweight while I waited for a care package from SGA.

        I also sometimes buy motor oil there if I can’t wait for a good sale elsewhere.

        Beyond that, nope, I don’t need the house that Sam built. And it’s a pity, because the way my local store operates (or the store that prompted this discussion) is not the way that Sam wanted it.

    3. avatar hobbez says:

      It is not Wal-Mart that gun owners have had problems with over the years, it’s stupid employees who would lose a battle of wits with a glass of water that cause these problems. Wal-Mart Corporate has only one anti-gun policy on the books; employees cant be armed on the clock. Any particular store that you have an issue with is a purely local issue, caused by ignorant employees, not Wal-Mart.

      1. avatar Mecha75 says:

        I once had a manager tell me they cannot sell ammo to me after 10pm due to a county ordinance. Pure BS. Florida has state premption and therr is no state law. I told her that and she said she will not violate a non existent ordinance. So i told her thats fine i have a target across the street and only drag my family here when i want to pick up a box or two of ammo. Did it hurt Walmart’s bottom line for me to “boycott” them. Nope. I probably only spent a few hundred a year in Walmart. And it isnt a boycott. I just have zero reason to visit that store.

        1. avatar anaxis says:

          Not completely BS. My store (in Alabama) doesn’t sell ammo after 10pm because there is no department manager with keys to unlock the cabinet, and even if there was, the alarm is automatically set by corporate with no way to turn it off. It has to do with there being no gun sales after 10pm (a dept. manager needs to run them anyways), and the alarm covers both cabinets.

        2. avatar Jerimiah H says:

          I love the after 10pm “rule”
          There is no alarm on the cheaply made, glass front display case. Yes, there is no employee assigned to that register on 3rd shift. Managers can, and do, get the keys out. Front registers ring up ammo just fine. I hit too many walmart to count on night time trips back during the worst of the ammo drought. Even had 1 simply unlock the rolling stock cage so I could get the ammo that had not been shelved yet.

        3. avatar Mecha75 says:

          Anaxis, I had previous trips to that same walmart after 10pm and purchased ammo. Every time my wife would realize she forgot something that she needed the next day I would go and buy a box or two of ammo when I was there. Now, I just wake up early and go when Target opens.

  4. avatar Gman says:

    Sure am glad I live in Virginia where we stopped this BS years ago. Texas OC laws are downright repressive.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      You may have missed the point here: the guy did NOT violate the Texas law. It was the Wal-Mart mini-dictator who was wrong about the law, as well as Wal-Mart corporate policy, and about what signs are and are not posted on his own front door.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        You may have missed the point here. Texas laws, both current and historical, are and have been repressive to OC. It is this history of repression which leads to all this modern day confuction. It will take time but eventually OC will be commonplace and these events will be few and far between. This is the current state of affairs in VA.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Aha–well, I will concede your point, as long as Texas requires a license to OC the law is relatively repressive. I can’t say that “repressive law” was responsible for this screw-up, tho, because the guy was within those laws and still got messed with.

  5. avatar CameronB says:

    While i’m in the CC camp. If a company is going to allow employees to enforce codes they should be correct. I’m employed at a similar occupation and we have a very strict range of what we may and may not “tell” the customers. considering companies give free food to low lifes and snobby moms because my deli clerk sighed when cutting her “extra thin but not shaved” fresh out of the package had to wipe down the slicer Ham. I think its fair for this guy to complain about gruff employees asking him to leave.

  6. avatar John says:

    Your first mistake was expecting Walmart managers to have a clue. I don’t think their business model selects for that attribute. Any that do have a clue – I’m sure there are some – just got there by accident.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      This. Expecting Walmart employees to handle nuanced social issues is a real stretch.

  7. avatar TomCCW says:

    No sympathy. Open carry is just an invitation for problems. Purely idiotic posing. Concealed carry is the only way to go.

    1. avatar Alex Waits says:

      because reasons? Rights are not subjected to social utility.

      You have free speech, but only say things that wont get people riled up, because it just hurts the free speech cause.

      1. avatar Larry says:

        Or you don’t say certain things out of courtesy or civility?

        Or the possibility your free speech may impact you in other ways, like losing your job in a “At Will” state when your employer does not agree with what you said.

        You are legally allowed to do both. However it is not always prudent.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          “Or you don’t say certain things out of courtesy or civility?”

          Larry,

          That is all well and good until someone claims that talking about a ginormous range of topics is discourteous or uncivil. What if something like half of the population told you that talking about conservative politics, conservative religion, and conservative finances was offensive and uncivil … but that it was perfectly okay to talk about liberal politics, liberal religion, and liberal finances? Should we be compelled to keep our mouths shut about topics from a conservative angle because it offends almost half of the population?

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “Concealed carry is the only way to go.”

      And we try to say the anti’s are ‘control freaks?’

      Seriously…”the only way to go.”

      Right. We’ll put this in the bin with “Glock is the only way to go” and “.40 S&W is the only way to go.”

      And, how about a little “No Guns! is the only way to go” and “Hillary is the only way to go” for good measure?

      The level of arrogance it takes to say “My Way Is the ONLY way to go” is just stunning.

      1. avatar JJ48 says:

        Let’s just hope Hasbro doesn’t have their way, lest it be “NERF or Nothin’!”

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        @ JR: There ya’ go, said it a lot better than I would have.

      3. avatar SteveInCO says:

        The level of arrogance it takes to say “My Way Is the ONLY way to go” is just stunning.

        Especially when everyone ought to know that MY (i.e., SteveInCO’s) way is the correct way to go.

        /irony and sarcasm.

      4. avatar That's right, your not from Texas says:

        Thank you JR.

    3. avatar JJ48 says:

      It depends on the motivation. For instance, here in Ohio, a permit is required to carry concealed, but not to carry open. If people want to protect themselves and their families but don’t have a concealed carry permit, it makes perfect sense for them to carry open, instead.

    4. avatar Anonymous says:

      No sympathy. Open carry is just an invitation for problems. Purely idiotic posing. Concealed carry is the only way to go.

      No sympathy. Carrying guns is an invitation for problems. Purely idiotic posting. Banning guns is the only way to go.

      See? The same arguments could be made for banning guns. Can you give us some real arguments as to why people shouldn’t be able to open carry?

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Guns icky?

    5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      No sympathy. Open carry is just an invitation for problems.

      Let’s test that line of thinking:

      Interracial marriage is just an invitation for problems.
      Cross-dressing is just an invitation for problems.
      Wearing a hijab is just an invitation for problems.
      Wearing a turban is just an invitation for problems.
      Gambling is just an invitation for problems.
      Drinking is just an invitation for problems.

      Apparently, to some people, liberty is just an invitation for problems.

      1. avatar cloud_1911 says:

        Ding Ding Ding Ding!!! Who ever said being free was safe or without the occasional hassle?

        A something I think about when they complain about how “uncomfortable” they are is the gay pride parades and how they tried to shove the whole thing down our throats, tried force us and children to watch.

        Until this guy straps 2 stainless desert eagles to his sides and picks a T-shirt with “Da fvck you looking at, pussy?” printed in giant letters, AND lets his member sway in the breeze, he is more respectful than the gay pride groups ever were.

    6. avatar Tyler London says:

      “No sympathy. Open carry is just an invitation for problems. ”

      Life is an invitation for problems, but I still like it enough to stick with it.

  8. avatar Alex Waits says:

    I wonder if they have employees stationed at the entrance of the parking lot checking drivers licenses.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      The way the idiot “laws” are being used and abused, I wouldn’t be surprised to see employees outside the restrooms checking birth certificates and/or strip searching people to make sure they are the “right” sex…

      Don’t go to the city often, since 80 miles one way is too far. I have no problems with OC when I do, but it’s just not worth the drive. On the other hand, Amazon.com and other on-line merchants seem to fill my needs most of the time. As do my local stores and businesses. None of them are at all concerned with the gun on my hip, openly carried or otherwise.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “I wouldn’t be surprised to see employees outside the restrooms checking birth certificates and/or strip searching people to make sure they are the “right” sex…”

        MamaLiberty,

        I could care less whether someone wears men’s or women’s clothing in public. I could care less if men wear make-up and a padded bra … or if women wear a fake beard and a tight cloth to smash their chest and appear breast-less. I could care less if a man refers to himself as Sally and a woman refers to herself as Steve. What I DO care about, and absolutely will NOT tolerate, is a man — dressed in women’s clothing and wearing makeup and a padded bra — going into the women’s restroom with girls. Nor will I tolerate a woman dressing as a man going into the men’s restroom with boys.

        Girls do NOT need to see naked men. And men should most definitely NOT be seeing naked girls. Likewise, boys do NOT need to see naked women. And women should most definitely NOT be seeing naked boys. Adults who endeavor to see naked children of the opposite gender are perverts, plain and simple. Society has no obligation to accommodate, no make than enable, perverts. In fact society has an obligation to stymie perverts.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          Adults who endeavor to see naked children of the opposite gender are perverts, plain and simple. Society has no obligation to accommodate, no make than enable, perverts. In fact society has an obligation to stymie perverts.

          I have a different personal opinion on this matter. Adults who endeavor to see naked children of either gender are perverts IMO. Regardless of how they are dressed, their gender, or which bathroom they enter – if they are there to see naked children – they are perverts. I don’t agree on the bathroom law recently passed. Some individuals born male identify themselves currently as women and are attracted to men and desire to enter the women’s bathroom. Some individuals born female identify themselves currently as men, are attracted to women, and desire to enter the men’s bathroom. The Texas “bathroom law” criminalizes entering the facility of the opposite sex, and sometimes this does more harm than good, when an individual has had a sex change for example. When a man who looks like a woman enters the men’s restroom it is likely to cause more of a stir than if they entered the women’s restroom, likely unnoticed – and vice versa. Regardless, adults should not be in the restroom to see, touch, make invitations to… naked children – period.

        2. avatar Shane says:

          Calm yourself please. Don’t men and boys (and women and girls) already share bathrooms with hardly any problems? Do we need five bathrooms: boys; girls; men; woman; transsexuals? Should they be broken down further into pre- and post-pubescent versions? Maybe we could employ computerized video surveillance to make certain no one glances left or right for a peek.

          Just don’t tempt me by openly-carrying your Kimber Sapphire.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Shane,

          Sure, both men and boys share a MEN’S bathroom and locker room. And both women and girls share a WOMEN’S bathroom and locker room. That is fine. What is NOT fine is a man (regardless of how he dresses, what name he uses, or whether he claims to be a “woman inside”) using a WOMEN’S bathroom or locker room — especially with girls in there.

          This idea of “transgender” people using the opposite bathroom is a powder keg. Perverts (whether they like to look at children or adults) are going be coming out of the woodwork and exploiting the opportunity that “fair bathroom laws” present. Even worse, some of the perverts won’t be able to help themselves and will escalate to assaults in the bathrooms and locker rooms if an opportunity presents itself.

          If someone wants to parade around in public and “identify” themselves as the opposite gender, that is one thing. Demanding access to bathrooms with the opposite gender is obscene and outright dangerous.

  9. avatar Proud Husband says:

    I feel sorry for Walmart managers. Managing Walmart employees is like herding ants

    1. avatar anaxis says:

      As a Walmart supervisor (not a manager, I work for a living), I lol’ed at this. My store is fairly small so it’s more like herding gerbils.

      Occasionally there are people who make up policy as they go along, and other managers will support them because they don’t know any better. But Walmart itself isn’t responsible for behavior like that. I guarantee there is a training module for managers regarding Texas OC somewhere on Walmart’s corporate website….. but it’s probably buried somewhere between the avoiding microaggressions video, standards for shelf spacing, and cart-pushing safety. It’s understandably hard to get people to watch them, and some just can’t be bothered. Still, we are required to watch those videos monthly, as well as attend weekly training chosen by the store manager.

      That particular manager should be reported higher up the chain of command, but I don’t think that posting an open letter on the web about the incident will help his cause with corporate any.

      1. avatar Empty Jay says:

        Agreed. He needs to contact the district/regional manager and make them aware of this problem. Go to someone who actually has the ability to directly change what’s happening.

  10. avatar mike says:

    Meanwhile, an illegal alien strolls past while conceal carrying a stolen gun….so for better or worse…. carry concealed! You’re still exercising your 2A rights.

    1. avatar Tyler London says:

      I love how the interaction was interrupted by a woman who couldn’t speak English. I’d argue has no 2A rights, since we have to have permits to carry here.

  11. avatar jans says:

    A right hidden is a right forgotten.

  12. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I only go to Walmart to buy jeans that fit my OFWG butt. Not even worth checking for ammo anymore. I need to find a new place to get my Wranglers.

  13. avatar Christian says:

    You people that scrutinize him OC are just as bad as the gun grabbers. The gun community needs to stick together. GEEZ

  14. avatar Dean Ash says:

    In AK open carry is no big deal. I prefer CC, but its personal. I have no issue with OC. I believe more people should OC so fear mongering will abate a little.

  15. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    You are on their property, do what they want or leave. Your rights are not more important than their property rights.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Except it’s not that manager’s property so much as it’s Wal-Mart’s property, and the manager was apparently acting outside the scope of Wal-Mart’s policy. I do agree with your basic point, tho–if it’s his property, he gets to make the rules for entrance thereon (or should get to, IMO).

    2. avatar HamChuck says:

      Ha! Try telling two homosexuals to quit holding hands or get off your property. Business’ open to the public are not the same as your home.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        I’m afraid you’ve got a point–my point is that is should not be that way, and to a large extent it still isn’t that way, and I don’t want to see the .gov have control over who can and can’t go onto someone’s property that they paid for and own and carry all the responsibility for.

      2. avatar Mecha75 says:

        Its not the same. Business that do not want firearms on their property have a right to say so. The laws (including Texas) have this private property carve out. As for discrimnation of sex or race, personally i think the Gov should butt out as its a person’s private property and business. If they want to create dumb policies that exclude potential customers. Then that is thier right and stupidity.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “The laws (including Texas) have this private property carve out. “

          But, if we are letting “the laws” determine what is proper behavior, then we have to acknowledge that “the laws” have a very specific and proscribed way of communicating that to the carrier.

          Claiming something is “the law” is not it. The WM employee has a legal duty to inform the carrier properly.

          In the above story, the OC-ers even asked the WM employee if he was invoking his right under 30-07 and the manager did not know what he was talking about. Taking that at face value suggests the manager did not know the law AND did not know his “property rights” can only ‘trump’ the RKBA in his store via proper notification.

        2. avatar Mecha75 says:

          JR, the law in Texas requires very clear signage. Of which, this particular Walmart did not follow. Also, we know that Walmart has a permissive corporate policy regarding customers with firearms. My statement was more a rebuttal to the argument that if you cannot discriminate which patrons you want as customers, how can they do so for someone who exercising their 2nd amendment protected rights. That argument is fallacious and ridiculous. My private property rights trumps anyone else’s rights on my property. While I disagree with “potential” discriminatory practices of businesses, I fully believe that they have a right to make that decision.

        3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          I okay, I’ve got to admit…I’m confused.

          It sounds like we are saying the same thing…precisely the same thing…then you say something about ‘property rights’ that seems to contradict both what I am saying and what you clarified you meant.

          What am I missing?

          WM cannot infringe on the “rights” of others (in regard to RKBA) without doing so within the proscription of 30-06/30-07. Period. Full Stop, as they say.

          These managers did not do that. The law gives them a mechanism to “infringe” and they did not comply, thus any “infringement” is their bad.

          So, I think we are in agreement with that part.

          Are you saying that there should be no 30-06/30-07 necessary because “property rights?” Is that what you mean?

    3. avatar Gman says:

      As seen recently in all too many court cases, places of public accommodation do not have the right to violate your civil rights. They must serve all people regardless of their (insert protected classes here). The mantra of “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” no longer exists. And IMHO, the free and lawful exercise of a civil right of which does not impinge upon the rights of any other should be equally protected under the law. I believe 30.06 and 30.07 are unconstitutional.

    4. avatar Anonymous says:

      I agree with that – with private property. However the Manager doesn’t own “Walmart.” Also – walmart is a commerical operation open to the public. He was also mistaken and confused on the law and walmart’s own policies.

    5. avatar Tyler London says:

      “You are on their property, do what they want or leave. Your rights are not more important than their property rights.”

      Umm… I though that’s what happened?

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    It seems that Walmart recruits its managers from the department of motor vehicles or the local building department.

    1. avatar Mecha75 says:

      No. Only their rejects. The Gov pays better.

  17. avatar Shwiggie says:

    You should send a spruced-up version of this to corporate. Otherwise you’re just whizzing in the wind.

    As for OC vs. CC, I carry concealed because I’m uncomfortable carrying openly in most cases. But it is within your legal rights, and I support that. I can’t help but wish you’d organize a group of OC friends to make a trip there and watch the shenanigans…

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Here in MI, there’s no longer any reason to be apprehensive about OCing just about anywhere, thanks to the OC activists I see widely castigated right here in these comments.

      Since I got my CPL, I no longer OC, but I don’t CC either. I just carry.
      Sometimes it might be visible, sometimes it might not, for I no longer care who does or doesn’t see my sidearm.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “Here in MI, there’s no longer any reason to be apprehensive about OCing just about anywhere, thanks to the OC activists I see widely castigated right here in these comments.”

        Interesting how that works. I think a similar remark could be made about Texas…with all the “despite” nonsense.

        It really makes one wonder about those that do the castigating.

      2. avatar Mecha75 says:

        There is a difference between OC and those blatant douche bag OC “auditors.” More people going about their day with a visible gun on their hip will do more to normalize the masses then the tacti-fool morons walking in full BDUs, body armor, and an AR strapped to their backs will. Americans don’t actually like seeing military walking around armed on their streets. And most sheeple cannot tell the difference between them and the tacti-fools. On top of that, they have been brainwashed into thinking that ordinary people running around in BDUs, body armor, and an AR must be those anti-gov, anti american, militia terrorists.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          So wait a minute. In one sentence your complaint is with people who look too military, saying Americans don’t like military walking around on the streets…and later on in the same paragraph you claim people will be scared of these guys because they will assume they are anti-government militias?

          US Soldiers. Anti Government Militia. Pick one. Make up your mind.

          Better yet, think this whole thing through again. Either alternative is stupid.

  18. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    Why is Walmart posted in Texas? We don’t have that problem in Missouri.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Apparently that Wal-Mart is not exactly “posted”–the signs merely say you need to have a license to carry a handgun there, and no other “weapons” are allowed. That’s pretty much what the law says as to carrying in a public place anyway (well, except for long guns, which can be carried in public without a license–but that’s a different can of worms…)

    2. avatar HamChuck says:

      Because Walmart sells adult beverages. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) requires the signs pictured to be posted at every business that sells alcoholic beverages. It’s (almost) meaningless in Texas because you can’t carry a handgun (open or concealed) without a license anyway.

  19. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Clearly, the OCer was not welcome in such a classy establishment, with all the upper rungs of society.

    Walmart has a reputation to uphold and your uncouth behavior has sullied that reputation. For shame.

  20. avatar mike says:

    Why does he keep saying “30 aught 7” ?? Talk about a language barrier! If he had just simply said “open carry” from the start, he probably would’ve been left alone.

    A little common sense needs to be applied from BOTH sides here.

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      Agreed. Right or wrong, communicating like an ass isn’t going to get you the result you want. The guy’s attitude and communication skills were at least part the reason he wasn’t allowed to just finish shopping.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “The guy’s attitude and communication skills were at least part the reason he wasn’t allowed to just finish shopping.”

        Boy, that goalpost just keeps on moving, doesn’t it.

        So, he was NOT asked to leave WM because he was OC-ing, but WAS asked to leave because he had an “attitude?”

        Couple of points to that:

        (1) We have no basis to assume he had a bad “attitude” until an unreasonable and illegal request was made of him. Asking for clarification of said request is a “bad attitude?”

        (2) What other “bad attitudes” do you justify for being asked to leave a WM? If I tell my child they can’t have a toy and the manager says “You will have to buy your child a toy or leave my store” and I question that, would that be “bad attitude” in your book?

        And, before you claim the analogy is ‘bad,’ keep in mind that

        (a) I am not claiming my scenario is analogous to the OC-ers in the article, just seeking clarification on where YOU draw the line on “bad attitude.”

        (b) There is no legal basis for a WM manager to “require” someone buy a toy, but nor is there a legal basis for a WM manager to confront an OC-er and ask for a RTC license.

        (3) At the end of the day, who gets to decide what “attitudes” are “bad” and which ones are “good” in regard to interacting with WM Managers?

        (4) If an attitude is deemed “bad” in regard to interacting with WM Managers, what other shopping venues does that same attitude get called ‘bad.’ Does the declaration of “bad attitude” apply only to Walmart, or Target as well?

        Does each venue get to set their own line of “bad attitude?” Do they all have to clear it with Kevin on the Internet first, to make sure those attitudes really are “bad”?

        What if a WM manager in another town disagrees with you on your assessment that the CUSTOMER had a bad attitude? Who should WM Corporate side with? You, or someone within their organization?

        (In case you can’t tell by this point … I think your statement is asinine).

      2. avatar That's right, your not from Texas says:

        You do realize it was a Wally World in San Antonio Texas …right?

    2. avatar Tyler London says:

      Because I want to be perfectly clear I’m not committing a crime. Additionally, if they don’t even know what 30.07 is, why are they trying to enforce it?

      1. avatar mike says:

        If you wanted to be “perfectly clear,” then you’d use normal everyday language that anyone can understand…. like “open carry was just recently legalized here.” Those people weren’t LEOs to understand what 30.07 means off the top of their heads.

  21. avatar Gman says:

    It seems to me that 30.06 and 30.07 are legal forms of discrimination. That they represent nothing more than another form of “We don’t want your kind here”. Is not the free exercise of a civil right, which has no impingement upon the rights of others, equally worthy of protection against discrimination by places of public accommodation?

    1. avatar HamChuck says:

      It’s Texas man. All hat and no cattle as they say in these parts. I long for the day I can move back to Arizona where the 2nd Amendment is not only fully in effect, but where I witnessed two managers in a downtown Phoenix Walmart talking to a guy open carrying a revolver. They weren’t giving him a hard time either, they were admiring the grips on his piece. It warmed my heart.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        ^ THIS ^

      2. avatar Vhyrus says:

        I oc everyday here in Phoenix. I actually got 10% off at taco bell because the guy liked my gun.

        1. avatar Jon in CO says:

          This restored my faith in American Humanity. Thank you sir.

    2. avatar Tyler London says:

      Even though I’m the one who filmed this video and wrote this letter, I support their right to keep out whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Their private property rights trump all IMO.

      What I have a problem with here is they were acting neither under color of law or under corporate policy. They were acting upon their own ignorance, which corporate needs to be made aware of. (Yes I have contacted them. No, they haven’t responded yet.)

      If Walmart posts 30.07 I will simply go elsewhere just as I did in this video.

    3. avatar Mecha75 says:

      Legal form of discrimination? no. My private property rights trumps anyone else’s rights on my property. You do not have free speech on my property. If I don’t like what you are saying, I am throwing your rear end off my property. And if I do not like you, or trust you, I do not want you exercising your 2nd amendment rights on my property. But I will defend both of those rights for and with you in the public square and on public lands.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Tom, a man of few words…

      1. avatar Tom in PA says:

        That was funny! Actually, Tom is the man that attempted to post the “One does not simply walk into Walmart – there is evil there that does not sleep” meme with Boromir from Lord of the Rings and couldn’t get it to work! Epic fail…..

  22. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

    I don’t OC, but I support your right to do so as you like. It’s fairly commonplace here in Georgia. Your mistake, in my opinion, was in allowing them to engage you in the first place. The fact that they did so to begin with only highlights either their ignorance regarding the statutes and or their animus towards you exercising your rights. I think you should have just kept walking, and optionally, told them to go back the their offices and re-read the statutes or pound on some sand. Sure, he would have called the cops, but as it turns out he did so anyways, right?

    Tom

    1. avatar Gman says:

      This is how I deal with those darn security detectors when they go of as I walk out. I ignore them and keep walking. I ignore the yelling moron behind me telling me to stop and keep walking. I have done nothing wrong and you have no cause to stop me. If you have a problem, it’s yours, not mine. But I’m already outside. In this case the gent was inside. Kind of hard to simply ignore them in his case.

      1. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

        I worked at Hellmart for 5 years. You do realize that the door alarms have nothing to do with guns, right? They’re simply magnetic detectors set to go off when an article of merchandise with a tag that hasn’t been degaussed goes through. If the doors go off every time you pass through, check everything closely for a magnetic strip and I bet you’ll find one. Remove it and presto – no more annoying door alarms. If you brought your wallet at Walmart that’s the first place I would look.

        Tom

        1. avatar Gman says:

          Tom,
          Yes, not guns, failure to neutralize the tags. This seems to happen to me all the time. Nothing pleases me more than to have 3-4 kids running after me into the parking lot screaming for me to stop. I never even break stride. They demand to see my receipt and I ask them politely to back off as I get in my car and drive away. I have done nothing wrong and refuse to deal with their failed security systems.

  23. avatar Kevin says:

    From the TABC’s Homepage –

    TABC Clarifies License to Carry a Handgun (LTC) Verification Requirements for Businesses

    Regarding the obligation of a TABC license or permit holder to verify the License to Carry a handgun (LTC) of a person in possession of a handgun on a TABC-licensed premise:

    * The Open Carry law did not change the Alcoholic Beverage Code regarding verification of handgun licenses.

    * There is NOTHING (emphasis added) in the Alcoholic Beverage Code specifically requiring TABC license/permit holders to ask a person to present his/her License to Carry a handgun (LTC), NOR DO WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO (again, emphasis added).

    Here’s the link –

    https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/

    Sounds like we just need to carry this page saved in our phone’s browser.

  24. avatar bryan1980 says:

    The CC vs OC debate shouldn’t even play into this, to be quite frank. What happened here was someone who was OCing by the letter of the law, and was hassled for it by two morons who are totally ignorant of the law.

    I hope he pursues this matter further and gets at the very least an apology from the two managers and WM corporate.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      “…two morons who are totally ignorant of the law.”

      I’ll bet their names are Hillary and Bernie.

      1. avatar Tom in PA says:

        Exactly. I trust them like gas station sushi or a Chipotle burrito….

  25. avatar EJQ says:

    I have found that where there’s a Wal Mart, there’s a Target nearby. Occasionally, I shop at Wal Mart, (usually because it’s the driver’s choice, and I’m the passenger), which always reminds me why I prefer Target. Now, whether Target is for or against O.C., I’m not sure. I’m not a big shopper.

    However, there’s been one O.C. sighting in the family since Texas law changed. In Kroger.

    1. avatar John says:

      Target’s stated policy is that management would prefer you not be armed while shopping. Haven’t heard of them running anyone off, but that’s their policy. It was in the news about the same time Kroger told MDA to go pound sand.

      In Indiana, at least where I am, you see open carry all the time. The guy fishing from the sidewalk bridge crossing the creek? – He’s carrying. The nicely dressed shopper at Lowe’s? – He’s carrying. Nobody bats an eye. There’s two pistol ranges in walking distance from my house. I wonder if that contributes to the generally low crime rate hereabouts.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Target Corporate did one of those “Please do not carry in our stores” announcements under pressure from Moms Demand Action. It’s not a full blown corporate policy and certainly doesn’t have the force of law, but I believe in punishing them for it anyway.

      Walmart has no corporate policy, nor even an old announcement, whatsoever regarding customers’ firearms, which means they don’t forbid anything the law doesn’t forbid. This was an act by rogue (or ignorant) employees.

    3. avatar FedUp says:

      I’ve been avoiding Target for being anti-gun for so many decades I forgot why I started doing it (Target may have been one of the corporate sponsors of the “keep Missouri a no-issue state” campaign in the 1990s).

      I surely wouldn’t go there thinking it was more pro-gun than Wal-Mart.

    4. avatar Tyler London says:

      The only Kroger I’ve been to was the one on the beach in Galveston. It was head and shoulders above HEB and Walmart. Unfortunately there isn’t one in my hometown of San Antonio.

  26. avatar What The Heck Is That says:

    If I had an experience like this at my local Wal-Mart, it would be the last time I set foot in that store. They have nothing that I can’t find elsewhere (and at least for my local Wal-Mart, they are often lacking things that I need)

  27. avatar Sayyadina says:

    In Georgia it seems like half the population at my local Walmart is open carrying.

  28. avatar WillieLee says:

    Why is it I always assume someone with a gun on their hip is a police officer? I don’t know.

  29. avatar RealityCheck says:

    Jon in CO said “Agreed. Come down to CO, you can open carry and get your weed on. (If that’s your thing…)”

    Doing so is committing a federal offense which can and will (if prosecuted) result in you losing your gun rights. Forever.

    Weed may be legal as a state law, but it is still illegal as a federal law. And the ATF has already ruled that using medical marijuana, “legal” or not, is a violation of form 4473 and results in loss of right to buy and own firearms.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Reality can be a bummer sometimes, check?

    2. avatar Paul says:

      Ok, ok, you can open carry OR get your weed on.

      1. avatar Tyler London says:

        Just don’t be a knock-off and everything will be groovy.

  30. avatar txJM says:

    “Thirty-aught-seven” is not proper verbiage. How do you expect anyone to know what you’re saying when you’re using gun slang?

    1. avatar Tyler London says:

      ““Thirty-aught-seven” is not proper verbiage. How do you expect anyone to know what you’re saying when you’re using gun slang?”

      That’s the verbage the Chief of the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office uses…

      1. avatar That's right, your not from Texas says:

        The Texas legislators all called it 30 aught seven, not 30 point seven! This is Texas.

        1. avatar That's right, your not from Texas says:

          Excuse me… Not 30 point 07. Fixed it.

        2. avatar Tyler London says:

          “That’s right, your not from Texas”

          I LOLed at that screen name.

          People say “Thirty aught six sign” because, at least in this area of the country, that’s how you pronounce the 30-06 cartridge as well. Since the 30.07 sign law came several years after the 30.06 law, it makes since that the unique pronunciation would carry over.

          And again, if the dude doesn’t even know what 30.07 penal code is, why is he telling me it’s posted on the door?

      2. avatar txJM says:

        You mean the Sheriff that the Deputy Sheriff’s Association has just turned against?

        Quoting her doesn’t make you any less of an idiot.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      As I understand it, “aught” is just another word for “zero”, and has been for a long time.

      1. avatar Tyler London says:

        Yep. As I recollect, been that way since at least nineteen ought one! 😛

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Ironically, it’s naught that is the word for zero, aught means “something” and naught means nothing.

        But people have been making the mistake for so long, it’s probably really no longer a mistake, but rather genuine change in the language.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_the_number_0_in_English

        1. avatar txJM says:

          ^ This.

          Of course, these dickheads don’t care to make the arduous journey through Google to educate themselves on their native language… But, what can you expect from someone who whines “Am I being detained?” when obviously being detained, and “This is public access” while on private property…?

  31. avatar tresk21 says:

    I always thought Texas was one if the most gun friendly states in the country. Seems lately, though, all I hear are people having to fight for rights we enjoy without molestation here in Alabama. OC, CC, NFA items…. We get it all here with little to no hassle.

    1. avatar Tyler London says:

      It unfairly has that reputation thanks to Hollywood. We still have a bit of a way to go.

  32. avatar John Howes says:

    The idiot with the camera isn’t do us any favors. What a moron.

    1. avatar Tyler London says:

      Care to elaborate, or are you satisfied with being pointlessly contentious?

      1. avatar txJM says:

        What else is there to elaborate on? You’re a moron, and you are making all gun owners look bad. Pretty straighforward.

  33. avatar James in AZ says:

    All that happened will be on record

    What’s not on record never happened

    What never happened will not happen

    Says every OC pushtard thinking they know better, because data

    LoL

  34. avatar Guy in SATX says:

    Wow. I work within the vicinity and see OC’ers all the time in the nearby Best Buy, Office Depot, etc and no one blinks an eye simply because the staff is instructed to follow the state law.

    It just seems the manager was plain ignorant in this instance. And whoever said you *need a retention holster and retention holster skills* to OC, complete BS. Show me statistics that no retention holster gun grabbing is commonplace.

  35. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    Ah, it looks like some of the usual anti-OC ad hominem trolls got access to a computer around 16:00…(Guy in SA excepted…)

    1. avatar James in AZ says:

      Not me

  36. avatar BStacks says:

    Luckily you didn’t try that at Costco, or in Las Vegas…

  37. avatar Mike R says:

    I prefer to go to Wal-Mart CC not OC. While I support your right to OC a big reason I don’t do it because I don’t want the hassles…grey man all the way.

    1. avatar James in AZ says:

      According to scientific empirical magical data the hassle you described does not exist

  38. The late Justice Scalia said this at a speech to the National Wild Turkey Federation’s annual convention in Nashville in 2006:
    “The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed,” Scalia told the audience of about 2,000.
    “I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms,” said Scalia, noting that as a youth in New York City he was part of a rifle team at the military school he attended.
    “I used to travel on the subway from Queens to Manhattan with a rifle,” he said. “Could you imagine doing that today in New York City?”
    Why are so many people afraid of seeing a gun, especially in the South?

    Until retired from the bench last year, I looked like a 1960’s F.B.I. agent; short haircut, dark suit, long sleeve white shirt. I always carried my Beretta M9 in a Kydex level 2 retention holster and wore a black leather and Kevlar police belt just in case a prisoner ever overpowered me.
    One day while having lunch, it was especially hot, so I took my coat off. I often wore my badge on my belt next to my holster when I went out because at that time I did double duty as director of our court police force.
    A lady in her mid 70’s came up to me about 30 minutes later and said: “When I saw your gun it about scared me to death. Then I saw your badge and I breathed a sigh of relief.”
    Now Alabama is an open carry state with the problem being you need a permit to car carry, so my badge made nothing legal. Why was she so frightened?

    Pistol Permits have been issued in Alabama for well over 125 years in order carry a concealed pistol because carrying concealed was something sneaky people did. Those bent on crime carried concealed.
    People with nothing to hide carried openly. When did we become a nation of nervous Nellie’s? When I was in high School in the relatively crime free early 1970’s half the pick-ups had functioning shotguns on racks in the back windows, nobody gave them a second look.

    Scalia was right. This attitude needs to be changed. This man did it right.
    Many open carriers need to chill out a little, be a little more friendly and realize that you are dealing with people that are scared of guns.

  39. avatar Jon says:

    Once the manager told them to cover up they are required to do so. The manager verbally informed the LTC holder as required by law where a sign was not already posted. The verbal warning meets the requirement under the law. This LTC holder was a fool, and even bigger fool to share with everyone!!!!!!

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “Once the manager told them to cover up they are required to do so.”

      Um, citation please?

      What TX statute gives a private citizen the authority to “tell” someone to cover up their firearm?

    2. avatar HamChuck says:

      Actually, pretty sure the manager didn’t follow even one of the requirements of Texas law or Walmart corporate policy. At least not until he told our guy to leave. Since he was acting in contradiction to Walmart corporate policy, he was not speaking with any “legal” authority as an agent of the property owner, in this case the Walmart Corporation. The manager referred to the sign outside the door of Walmart which says, in essence, you can’t carry a gun in here unless you have LTC, which our guy had. The only time our guy received “effective notification” (under Texas law) was when he was told to leave the store. Which our guy promptly did. In addition, there is nothing in the Texas statutes which say that a licensed carry most conceal their firearm upon being asked. You only have two options as the property owner or the owners authorized representative: Ask the license holder to leave, or don’t. There is nothing else.

  40. avatar Tom says:

    The armchair lawyer accomplished nothing more than being asked to leave the store.
    WTG

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Well, your comment shows how narrow your thinking is.

      See, it accomplished a LOT more than just that.

      There was a post on TTAG, arguably the single most viewed firearms related website on the Internet.

      And, it garnered over 100 comments from TTAG readers.

      Plus, I am given to understand there is video, and that has been posted online as well.

      So, it would seem, and I’m just “spitballing” here, that your remark that ALL he accomplished was being asked to leave is empirically false.

      Got any specific OC hate to fling? Maybe lay out the old irrational “you’ll only get shot first” canard just to make us feel like you really care?

  41. avatar Owen says:

    “I spend thousands of dollars at Walmart every year” – #ReconsiderThis

    I don’t shop at Walmart because I don’t want to support the race to the bottom mentality.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email