Previous Post
Next Post

Screen Shot 2014-07-02 at 9.04.43 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

[h/t GAP]

Previous Post
Next Post


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

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

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

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

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

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

        • I’ve got to agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Bravo to that team of brilliant tacticians.

      Seriously – they’re working for Bloomberg, right?

    • *facepalm*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Yeah… that’s sorta my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

          I have a right to shop without fear.

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

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

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

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

          This is more emotional anti-gun rubbish speak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Same as Starbuck’s and Staples.

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

      • + frigging One Thousand.

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

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

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

    And now I have to move my prescriptions…..

    • Pretty much…

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

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

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

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

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

      • Yo dawg we heard you like targets so we went to Target and got you some targets so you could target your targets from Target.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Nice going OC people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          The statute says nothing about “corporate requests.”

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

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

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

            BTW – I just heard the announcement on radio news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          The statute says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • While I firmly believe in the right to conceal carry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Why do you want to shop in such a place?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Dave – I agree with all of that.

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

        • Blinky:

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

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

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

        • Blinky:

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

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

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

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

        • tdiinva,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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