Previous Post
Next Post

Fresh Market (courtesy

“The Fresh Market is asking customers not to carry guns into its stores,” reports. “The grocer said it had engaged in discussions with a group of activists called Moms Demand Action, who gathered nearly 4,000 signatures across North Carolina to support what they call a ‘gun sense policy.'” But don’t get to thinking that the grocery chain caved to MDA. “This was not a decision that was taken lightly nor in response to pressure from any outside group,” FM’s spokeswoman said. Anyway, let’s Google “Fresh Market armed robbery” and see what we find . . .

Robbery suspect takes officer’s gun, shoots self in leg during struggle – “At approximately 7 p.m., Unified police detectives responded to the Fresh Market, 3900 S. 2300 East, after receiving a tip that a man and a partner were planning to rob the store. Officers spotted the suspect during a stake out at the market and moved to arrest him, said Lt. Justin Hoyal, spokesman for Unified police. The suspect allegedly fought the officer just outside the front door of the business. During the struggle, Hoyal said, the suspect was able to pull the officer’s gun from its holster.”

Man Shot In College Hill; Oakley Market Robbery – The law enforcement officers from the Cincinnati Division of Police were dispatched to the Fresh Market on Madison Road following a report of two men who robbed the market at gunpoint. When the Cincinnati officers arrived at the scene, the store employee said that the two suspects entered the market brandishing a weapon. Employees told the officers that the two were armed with a pistol.

It’s not clear if Fresh Market will post legally required signs banning concealed or open carry from their stores. If not, like Starbucks and many others, their “request” doesn’t carry the force of law. Which means their “ban” is just touchy-feely PC security theater designed “to ensure a welcoming environment where our customers and employees feel safe, and treat one another with kindness and respect while shopping and working.” And allow Shannon and her hoplophobic harridans to claim another “victory” for gun sense. How great is that?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Bingo !

    As I was just commenting on “Do the facts matter?”. Another win for gun sense and responsible gun ownership,

    • It’s a “win” only in the sense that it makes emotion-driven hysterics like yourself “feel better”. It doesn’t legally ban guns from the stores, and it certainly doesn’t keep actual bad guys (who are the ones doing the actual harm that is supposedly what the store wants to prevent) from bringing in their guns or other weapons. It’s the same kind of nonsensical “common sense” that convinces you that someone intent on committing capital felonies will somehow be deterred by the specter of being in violation of a store “policy” or, in an extreme case where an actual “ban” is imposed, committing a low-grade misdemeanor. You are continuing to provide irrefutable proof that “gun sense” is nonsense.

      • Fortunately, you guys never learn; advantage, us.

        People for common sense gun laws are not concerned about true bad guys because we generally don’t go places where the majority of crimes are committed. We fear the “good guy with a gun” who is not a hard-core criminal/gangbanger. We fear hundreds of people walking around with guns who can suddenly turn into “bad guys” in places where crime is minimal at worst. Evidence is that so-called “bad guys” are easier to identify from a distance (clothes, stance, colors, logos, tattoos, slouch, “prison shuffle” gait, location). The next crazy bomb is almost invisible until they just start shooting from a cab, or just walk into a medical center and blaze away. How many “mass shooters” were proven to be hard-core criminals prior to the slaughter? How many were “normal”, or maybe “just a bit odd”?

        Fearing the “crazy bomb” may seem irrational to gun happy folks here, but there is little to support the same fear of somehow being attacked by true “bad guys”. Fear is an emotion. It is fair to address fear of unknown gun carriers.

        • So you fear what you admit is the one-in-a-millon occurrence more than the common occurrence? More nonsense–like believing that a “request” actually addresses the real basis of your “fear of unknown gun carriers”. I mean, now you believe that corporate pronouncements on gun-carry preferences not only will deter criminals whose stock in trade is ignoring felony statutes, but will also deter lunatics who go off their rockers and decide to kill a bunch of people. I’m really not seeing any kind of “advantage” to your side of the argument here, unless the argument is that making hysterical twerps like yourself “feel better” is the ultimate goal, whatever the actual reality of the situation may be.

          • Where did I post that the policies restricting/prohibiting the carry of guns in retail establishments will/would/might/could prevent criminal acts in those stores? How many Whole Foods, Fresh Market, or other natural foods chain are located in high crime areas? Indeed, how many of the stores reported here declaring gun free zones are located mostly in high crime neighborhoods? My statement was that just because stores refuse to allow guns, or because the non-criminal public is no longer armed to the teeth, there will be no general slaughter of the disarmed, just as there never has been in the past. There is no evidence that retail locations are overall high-risk locations where only the presence of an unknown and unidentified number of gun carriers prevent rampant crime at the retail locations, their parking lots, or even for a radius of five miles of any Fresh Market? (or other major retailer for that matter). Before you were born, your parents did not live in mortal fear of their lives being taken just because they went to the grocery store. Unless you live in a particularly high-crime area, your fear of being attacked are irrational.

        • Can you list the places in the US where that has happened? Especially licensed carriers, even though I believe paying for a permission slip to exercise a right is unconstitutional, but be that as it may? Licensed carriers are statistically less likely to commit a crime than police officers. Oh, and if you think there are no bad guys with guns where you live, work, play, worship, you are sadly deluding yourself, best of luck with that self defense plan. Cheers

          • If you are asking about a situation where a “law abiding” citizen went beserk? Well, Columbine (who knew?), Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, Chattanooga Recruiting Station (shooter was not a criminal prior), Charleston, SC church shooting (white supremacist but not a criminal), Isla Vista, California (not a criminal), Uber driver in Kalamazoo, and so on. The shooters were not “bad guys” before their rampages; they looked “normal”.

            If you are talking about ridding a community of guns, then cleaning-out the high-crime areas, that has never been tried.

            If I missed your intention, my apologies; I wasn’t really sure what you were referring to.

          • The fear (and truth of “normal” people becoming crazy killers) is real. How many mass shootings in the last 15 years happened in known high-crime neighborhoods and affected the type of people likely to frequent Fresh Market and the like?

        • Hey 2Asux, is this a victory like Starbucks was a victory? Yeaaahhhh…about that… I open carried in one last week. Full size Glock plain as day on my hip. You know what the shift manager behind the counter said about it? “Thank you, your order will be right up.”
          Strange how none of the customers were scared or shot, despite the hollow point cartridge in the chamber. Maybe mine is broken?

          • No solution is perfect. There will be some good moments for gun carriers. It is why Saul said to double-down when you lose one.

        • 2Asux: I hope the irony is not lost on you as it pertains to one of your statements. You said, “Unless you live in a particularly high-crime area, your fear of being attacked are irrational.” I can counter your argument with the same philosophy where law-abiding gun owners are concerned. The statistics of you or any other store patron being attacked by a gun owner is exponentially low. Furthermore, if the practice of barring gun owners from carrying in any store were implemented, disarming everyone, and some criminal entered the store or some crazed (previously normal person) started shooting, no one could fight back.

          Now, let’s say the store permits citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights in said store. And in your scenario a crazed (previously normal person) enters the store to shoot everyone there. Let’s say there are 25 patrons in the store. What if 5 of those 25 patrons are legally carrying concealed or open firearms and return fire at the crazed guy. The bad guy is either thwarted or stopped in his tracks due to citizens not only protecting themselves, but you and other non-carrying patrons.

          Sure, a crazed individual incident may occur but wouldn’t you want a fellow shopper (who values human life) to have the ability to stop the threat?

          • Please re-evaluate the liklihood of criminals invading a store in a relatively upscale neighborhood. Then re-evaluate the liklihood of a criminal invading a non-brand store in a crime-ridden district. Then take a look at the crime map in any significant city. Where do the majority of criminal events take place? Majority in “good” or even “middle” neighborhoods, or in known high-crime areas? Now take a look at there the mass shootings take place. Are most in high-crime areas? Shopping in a non-crime neighborhood poses less risk of criminal activity. Living in a non-crime area has a greater risk of a “good guy” going off on unsuspecting citizens. The question of whether or not someone having a gun to fight off a mass shooter can be honestly debated, but if the “good guy with a gun” now shooting everyone around did not have that “legal” gun to begin with, the mass shooting could not happen (knife and machete attacks are “statistically insignificant”, as are the deaths and injuries resulting. Gun people propose that having a few gun toters scattered around a town or city somehow represents an element feared by “bad guys”. Where is the proof? Every time a criminal holds up a store or bank, the risk that some one is armed exists, but is so heavily in the “ain’t happenin’ here” category as to not seriously pose a deterrent to crime. Neither does the possibility that some “good guy with a gun” will deter another “good guy with a gun” who just went off the rails and started shooting.

        • “It’s quite strange that no-one else has caught on to what you’re doing.”

          And what would that be, DinDuIt?

        • His subterfuge. He thinks that the madness spewed forth from the anti-gunners is hilarious and not even worth debating and instead posts it here just to incite everyone. Maybe Ralph has too much time on his hands.

        • I mean, come on guys. Every argument he puts forth is utterly shattered by your careful and logical examination of relevant facts and reason. Yet, he continues to repeat the same old tired silliness, that would be expected of a kindergartener, not an adult, even though you prove him, for lack of a better term, undeniably wrong. That leads me to conclude that he just does this because he has some kind of unfettered urge to troll and that he is not anti-gun. Do you really think animists would keep on, keeping on, after the metaphorical smackdowns you hand them on a daily basis. Maybe, maybe not.

          • You would have a stronger argument if facts and logic were as powerful as you seem to think. Social progress is pushed forward not by numbers, buy by hearts. Your numbers lead you to the position where 500 deaths from negligent gun handling are “statistically insignificant” and worth no thought about how to reduce that population. Those 500 lives matter to someone (especially those killed) and do not deserve to be cast aside like so much rubbish.

            Where are your facts: how many DGUs stopped an armed criminal vs. the number of crimes committed where a gun was used by the perpetrator? How many armed criminals were/are deterred by fear that a potential victim is armed with a gun and knows how to successfully defend themselves? Where is the direct link between a general downward trend in all crime and the alleged rise in gun ownership? Where is the direct link between the general downward trend of crime, and the alleged rise in people carrying guns for protection? Where is the direct link between the general downward trend of crime, and the alleged 100 million gun owners protecting their homes? The nation is getting safer every year, yet no one can definitively say that the result can be traced to any amount of gun ownership. And again, where are the legions of interviews with criminals who acknowledge that they feared an armed populace?

            Get those facts, then let’s talk. ‘Til then, the people in this country who care about their fellow citizens will continue winning the hearts and votes of the majority who are appalled at your (general “you/r”) callus disregard for the devastation caused by availability of guns (legal and illegal).

        • “My statement was that just because stores refuse to allow guns, or because the non-criminal public is no longer armed to the teeth,”

          I turn 70 this year, and I have never, ever, even once, been in a grocery (or other store, for that!) which refused to allow guns. That would require armed guards and metal detectors, looking like something from an airport. The idea that anyone, at all, notices such a prohibition other than the mentally disabled advocates (MDA) is simply stupid. The only thing it does for me, should I notice it, is assure that my gun will not appear to defend *your* life, only for my own. Screw you, and screw the store. Boy, that is some “victory” you’re celebrating!

          And, dingbat, you either carry a gun or you don’t. Deciding you need it here and don’t need it there, putting it on and taking it off a dozen times a day is both stupid and dangerous. Cops carry in church, for chrissake, because their next stop may be a shootout.

          • I do not want to misunderstand you….

            Are you saying you would never knowingly go into a store that banned guns?

            Are you saying you just ignore announced gun ban policies, ignore gun ban signs at stores?

        • “Please re-evaluate the liklihood of criminals invading a store in a relatively upscale neighborhood”

          Didn’t we just see that a few months ago in Paris? Do you think the likelihood is going down? Because if so, you must have voted for Oblammo, gun salesman from hell!

          • Yes, I saw the Paris and Brussels tragedies. Neither attack was done without some sort of intelligence warnings being issued. Ignored warnings are abject failures of the police forces and military. Do you see the same thing happening here? After specific warnings, nothing is done to cancel the events, to flood vulnerable locations with police. Our police and military have always been more responsive to terror warnings.

            If you are considering only terrorist attacks, on what do you rely to make you believe committed terrorists will be deterred in the slightest because some citizens might have hidden guns ?

        • I’m with ya, 2Asux. I’m a responsible, law abiding gun owner. But I really have no clue when I might snap and start shooting everyone I see. I’ll tell you what though, it won’t be at a Fresh Market. Gotta respect their request for a gun free area.

        • “We fear hundreds of people walking around with guns who can suddenly turn into “bad guys” in places where crime is minimal at worst.”

          So, an irrational fear then.

          • It would only be irrational fear if there were absolutely no incidents of gun owners going off the reservation and killing hundreds of innocents (multiple incidents over time). Question: do people who seemed “normal” to just about everyone ever become mass killers of innocents? Answer: yes, at least once per year. Conclusion: it is irrational to assume, presume, believe that another mass shooting by a gun owner will not happen. Therefore, fearing a repeat incident, based on evidentiary history is not irrational.

        • I suggest you start taking your doctor prescribed medications. Your Bipolar, schizophrenia is showing. Ativan, Klonopin, and Zoloft will do your brain some good… Please refrain from engaging in left-wing political activities while under the influence of Psychiatric Pharmaceuticals…

        • If a business announces that guns are unwelcome, and you carry one onto that property, in many jurisdictions you can be charged with trespass if discovered. Even if you are not discovered, you have now become non law abiding. So much for the unsupported claim that gun owners are the most law abiding demographic in the country. You illustrate the point that gun owners are law abiding until the instant they aren’t. We, society, cannot identify you, and we cannot predict when, and in what manner, you will act illegally (such as going on a shooting spree).

          You lot are keen on claims to be motivated purely by logic and facts, but you are quite choosy about your facts, and continue to underestimate the power of the heartfelt appeal to pursue all legal means or ridding the nation of privately held guns, or at least reduce the number to a more controlled, predictable, safer segment of the populace. You hate the “bloody shirt” because it is effective, and you have no heart-appealing message to overcome it.

        • That is incorrect. They have to post a sign indicating that guns are not allowed. And in some states the sign has to have certain characteristics to be legally binding. In at least one state (Wisconsin) if you post a legally binding sign then you assume legal responsibility for the safety of your customers. If something bad happens you are going to be paying out damages. Without a sign they cannot have you arrested unless they ask you to leave and you refuse. In some state the penalty for failing to leave is the equivalent of a parking ticket. You show the principal characteristic of an emotional and irrational anti-gun advocate. Ignorance of the facts.

          I will also take the opportunity to Inform you that accidental gun deaths are akin to traffic deaths. That’s 30k vs. 500.

      • I think DinDult is on to something. After reading some more of 2Asux’s posts on a previous thread, I am concluding that he is just trolling, even to the point of calling himself a “community organizer” just to provoke the majority anti-Obama sentiment hereabouts. Unlike some trolls, tho, I think he is just doing it for amusement.

        • Nothing funny atall about gun safety, ever. Nothing amusing about the struggle for gun sense.

          As for “community organizer”, pick whatever term you like when identifying someone trying to energize people to make political stands, to convince the larger public that gun rights are not absolute, that some common sense needs to be applied, that the struggle isn’t assured and people need to find better ways to push their views, that you cannot rest on your happy shoes just because you think everything will just work out because you are “right”.

    • What is gun sense? A new sense that allows people to detect guns? Is that a super-power?

  2. Why do they go out of their way to say they have been in “discussions” with a “group of activists”, and then go out of their way to say that their action is not the result of pressure from any group of activists? Same reason they “request” that people not bring guns into their stores rather than actually banning them (despite what idiot outlets like the Winston-Salem Journal insist on reporting as a “ban”)

    • Isn’t Fresh Market now under the corporate umbrella of Whole Foods? If so, the question is, why did it take so long for Fresh Market to get around to announcing the gun policy of the parent company. If Fresh is not part of Whole Foods, why did it take so long for Fresh to announce themselves “gun free”? All those “wholesome”, “natural”, “organic” or whatever fru-fru term applies, are all anti-gun because their main clientele is.

    • I thought the fun part was a petition with 4000 signatures. In NC? Really? 4000? What is that, 1 in every 2500 people? Overwhelming. So, since nobody cares, just shut them up by telling the press you are “requesting” people leave their guns home. It will fit nicely with “requesting” that they spend more money. Means nothing at all.

  3. It’s simple. They don’t want gun owners to shop there cause it makes them “feel” safer. That’s fine. I don’t shop at those pretentious over priced stores anyway. They will learn the hard way that criminals….. yes those people who don’t obey the law, don’t care about the sign in your window other than to use the knowledge that they will be the only ones armed.

    • Oh well. I guess I’ll just have to continue carrying in those dozens of other stores whose aisles are littered with soccer moms. Since I carry concealed, they’ll be none-the-wiser.

  4. f**k those stupid b****es at MDA.

    I emailed Fresh Market, saying I would take my business elsewhere from now on because of their anti-gun policy.

    Kroger is a better choice: low prices and they respect your rights.

  5. Fresh Market “Requests” No Guns in Stores.

    To me, that’s a request for me not to come in their store either.

    That’s fine,.. Me, my gun AND my money will respect their request and shop at one of their competitors who respects my right to protect myself.

    • Normally, I would agree. However, such a mild request, in order to shut the harridans of MDA up and get back to business, well, I can’t get too excited about. If they made some legally binding, punishable offense out of it, yeah, but this is just telling MDA they are crazy.

  6. So are knife carriers to disallowed next? Martial arts practitioners? People generally stronger than average? People who appear scary?

    The only justification for not allowing guns vs the other things, is negligent discharges.

    The person having a mental breakdown or escalation of an argument into violence is the same for the physical type.

    • “So are knife carriers to disallowed next? Martial arts practitioners? People generally stronger than average? People who appear scary? . . .”

      All of the things you list are mircoaggressions. People of color, people whose gender has historically given them less status, different gendered people who’ve always suffered from being misunderstood and even rejected by people of privilege are inherently more sensitive to expressions of physical power. People whose ancestors suffered from oppression have deeper feelings about things than people of privilege and so it’s only right for Whole Foods and Fresh Foods to provide a safe space that will make people feel less threatened. It’s only fair!

      • Using the term, “Microaggressions” is a micro-aggression…it makes me feel threatened and unsafe. That word invokes images of militant feminists who teach gender studies at some ivy-league, liberal college that I could not afford to attend…which is another micro-aggression due to income inequality. /snark off.

      • I think it’s time for you to submit to an Obama-Care Expanded Background and Mental Healthcare check…I see SSI-D in your future as a mental defective.

  7. I always shake my head when these merchants actually believe that their “requests” will be followed. And I always hide a smirk that those who “feel safe” going into these stores believing that all gun owners will actually abide by the merchants’ “requests.”

    So naive…

    • What are you smirking about? Did ya miss the butthurt folks above your comment saying they will now stop shopping there?

    • Our local Harris Teeter posted a no-guns sign several years ago. A number of local folks (myself included) contacted the store and spoke with the manager. He listened politely and said he would pass our feedback up to his management. A week later the sign was gone. I love Harris Teeter 🙂

  8. Far too expensive so I could care less what they “feel”. Kroger and now Harris Teeter (owned by Kroger) have the same overpriced pseudo gourmet stuff without the silliness. And they also have regular stuff for the rest of us. Fresh Market is begging for a couple members of that religion of peace to come by with their fully automatic AK’s like they did in Paris. Not kosher stores. Maybe worse. They sell pork products. To certified infidels.

    • Maybe if Robert collected a bunch of the comments here where people announce they will not enter a Fresh Market because of gun policy, the FM people would really “feel” safer. It is the least we can do for the weak-kneed.

  9. I don’t really care what the law or the constitution says to a point, it’s their store, its their rules. If you’re not welcome there why do you want to give them your money, shop elsewhere.

    • I don’t as a rule shop at The Fresh Market because they’re outrageously overpriced but if there’s something I really need that I can’t find anywhere else some silly unenforceable “request” is not got coming between me and something I want.

    • I ignore feel good silliness.whenever possible, of course in Georgia a no guns sign means nothing. I will, however, give preference to businesses that aren’t silly. Starbucks coffee tastes burnt to me, so it is no problem for me to pass them by in favor of other places that are cheaper, sell better coffee, and are far less silly. Oh, and I have had a license to carry from the state of Georgia for over twenty years and carry my pistol almost every place I go. The hysterical fools who dislike me carrying mean nothing to me.

      • PS It is always good advice to ignore the hysterical trolls, Robert may choose to feed them, but I feel this is a mistake. It is his site and he will do as he chooses, but I will ignore them and the posts in response to them. You will not persuade them, so why waste your time and efforts responding?

  10. Never heard of them. Doesn’t affect me. From their website, I see that they do have eight stores in Texas, including four in the greater Houston area. Taking a quick first impression of these guys, I’m only surprised they didn’t go all in on the first day with freshly stenciled anti open and concealed carry signage.

    • They won’t. They’re not going to detract from the their “atmosphere”. This is why Shannon and her morons want TX law changed to reduce the size of 30.06 signs

      • Is that right? Weird. Wouldn’t a bigger sign mean a bigger victory? Shouldn’t they be really proud of a requirement for a sign so big it has to be suspended from a helicopter? I have seen a store with both 30.06 and 30.07 signs, in both English and Spanish, and it pretty well covered the front of the store. I lol as I CCd past it.

        • A smaller sign is very beneficial to gun protesters. A small sign is easier to miss, resulting in the possibility of arresting a violator and making an example. Anti-gun people are not as dumb as we would like. (especially their lawyers)

  11. There’s just one thing that bugs me about these companies. It is the fact that when they merely ask their customers not to carry in their stores but don’t post any signs or requests or whatever, I might accidentally enter and buy something. I don’t wish to spend my money in stores that don’t want me to but it is not reasonably possible to keep oneself up to date on all the anti-gun companies out there.

    • Absolutely. If they are going to capitulate to an extreme political ideology and discriminatory behavior, they should be men (and women) and show their prejudices so the world can see it more clearly.

  12. In states without a Texas-style 30.06 law, they are basically having their cake and eating it too. They disallow guns, but other than installing metal detectors at the door, their policy is nigh-unenforceable.

    However, I wouldn’t take that as comfort. Wandering around the web and going “f–k Fresh Market, I’ll carry inside if I want to…” is a good way to get the people like MDA and 2ASux to campaign for Texas-style 30.06 laws in every state, so the stupid gunbuster signs have the force of law, and thus the government can fight the battles that people like MDA and 2ASux aren’t willing to fight head-to-head.

    Gunbuster signs might be a laugh in most states, but 30.06-style laws aren’t a laughing matter.

    It’s easy to sub out the dirty work to the help, huh? No wonder they are pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    • “but 30.06-style laws aren’t a laughing matter”

      Last I heard (I don’t really care), if you are discovered carrying and told to leave, and you refuse, you may be fined $100 or whatever. Sorry, but that is, in fact, a joke. I have ignored such signs for over 15 years, now, and have never even gotten to the point of being asked to leave.

      • Another self-confessed law abiding gun owner who is not law abiding. Proves the point that there are no law abiding gun owners.

        Ignoring no gun signs amounts to trespass (maybe criminal trespass in some places), a violation of law by a “law abiding” gun owner. The violation occurred whether or not discovered and prosecuted. When a gun owner intentionally violates the law, that gun owner can no longer lay claim to being a “law abiding” gun owner. Naturally, your own kind will not call you out, because they too are not law abiding gun owners.

        • Go back to Tumblr with the rest of the 15 year old adolescent Liberals. Then you can be “Tumblr Famous!”

    • POTG believe that they are free to enter any private property while carrying a gun, without even the smallest thought to being courteous enough to ask if gun-carrying is permitted. Logic dictates that if I allow you onto my property, my rules rule. If you don’t know my rules, since you are the visitor, your responsibility is to ask if behavior such as carrying a gun is permissible. Should you fail to do so, and I discover that you have a gun, it is perfectly legal for me to eject you from the premises. If you fail to go, you are committing trespass, breaking the law.

      If I post an announcement that you may not enter while carrying a gun, and you do so, you commit a crime the moment you cross the threshold. You are no longer a law abiding citizen. The crime is committed even if not discovered and prosecuted. Thus the statement that “there are no law abiding gun owners” is validated.

      • You’ve committed two fallacies here. First, you’re assuming that all gun owners ignore “no guns” signage of all kinds, which is an assumption you have no data to support. Second, and more importantly, everyone breaks laws every day. Run a stop sign lately? There’s no such thing as a law abiding citizen. What’s important is that you’re not a danger to others. The overwhelming evidence is that those with a license to carry are much less likely to shoot someone than those without. The reason is obvious: anyone intending to commit a crime with a gun has no need for a license permitting them to legally carry it. Conversely, this demonstrates that having a gun does not make you more likely to commit a crime, firearm-based or otherwise.

        • You missed my point. Not discussing whether gun owners are less likely to harm, not discussing whether gun owners have no intention to cause non-defensive harm.

          I am pointing out the hypocrisy of gun owners (especially here) who claim to be the “most law abiding” citizens, and thus to be free of restrictions on gun ownership. People on this blog, purporting to be gun owners, openly state their intention, or habit, to violate trespass laws. Doing so means gun owners cannot claim that they are the most law abiding, thus worthy of unrestricted possession of guns. Las abiding gun owners are law abiding up to the moment they are not. Problem is no one can determine when that moment is, and prevent the unlawful act. That includes everything up to and including shooting innocents.

          Again, how many of the mass shooters of the last 30 years were law abiding until they pulled the trigger?

  13. Once upon a time The Fresh Market was THE place to buy “gourmet” foods and produce you couldn’t find anywhere else.

    That was 30 years ago.

    They’ve always been a snobby high-end grocery but nowadays they’re not the only game in town

    I have a feeling those big obtrusive “gunbuster” signs required by several states to meet legal standard won’t be making their way onto the front entrances of their stores anytime soon if ever. Detracts from the decor and all that,.

    • Good point. Would TFM put a compliant 30.06 sign out in front of their stores in Texas? 30.06 (and I guess 30.07 now) signs are obnoxious and ugly.

      • Not a bug, a feature! And if they are not full size and in color (meaning obnoxious), they are not legally binding.

  14. I conceal carry and when there is option I don’t give my business to those with a no guns sign. But if do need to go into that establishment I just ignore the sign since in Oklahoma there is no law broken by doing so, the store has right to ask you to leave if they know you are carrying and like anyone else they ask to leave you can be charged with trespass if you refuse. Since I am carrying concealed they don’t know. I just don’t get too worked up about the issue. Fresh Market type stores get a lot of hybrid driving pie in the sky liberal types who have always valued symbolism over substance, so they make a feel good statement for the benefit of those types and they all feel good.

  15. Oh gee, I think I’ve heard everything now! What do they think, some criminal is going to read the “no gun” sign and say “oh, I can’t rob that store because there is a ban on guns”! How stupid is that!!!!! Let’s face it Freah Market, you are caving in, in the worst way and I hope you are not encouraging bad behavior by the bad guys!

    • I’m really puzzled that people here still think gun free zones are about criminals. The point of gun free zones is to assure patrons that no one alongside them in the store has a gun with which that someone could immediately start shooting people in a crazed moment. That “someone” is a legal gun owner, especially those with CHPs. If you look at where these retail locations exist, they are not generally in high crime areas, are not peopled with persons likely to commit a crime in the store/business. All the anti-gun organizations and followers know criminals are dangerous and obey no laws. Avoiding locations and events where criminals are likely to be is of prime importance. Keeping unknown so-called “law abiding” gun carriers from suddenly going berserk in a grocery store is the goal. No one wants to bump up against a person who might be carrying a gun and fear that something might set them off.

      It is not about safety from criminals. It is about safety from legal gun owners. Legal gun owners (persons not yet criminals) constitute the majority of mass shooters in non high crime areas.

  16. Some folks should stay anonymous, if my suspicions are correct?

  17. Remember Mike bunch of numbers? The felon who ran an anti-gun website? Mr 2ASUX is using the same kind of arguments the numbers guy used to use in almost verbatim language. I think he is Mikey with a new name.

    • Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even one wrong and wide of the mark. Of course avoiding the subject is a favorite, lame tactic here.

      • Actually Mikey, I did have substantive comment explaining to you what is required to actually ban firearms from a place of business and consequences of doing so to both the place of business and the individual carrier. You did not respond to that post, which is par for the course for any-gun advocates when confronted with actual facts.

        All the businesses expressing a desire for people to leave their guns at home are playing your side for the fool. They want to keep both our business and with the Kroger group telling you to pound sand no competitor like Fresh Market really wants gun owners to go elsewhere. Their proclamations are merely a wink and a nod to gun owners to stay concealed so you snowflakes won’t wet your pants. I assure you that you can go into a Target, Starbucks or other companies who had made similar statements in areas where it is usual and customary for people to openly carry firearms without being asked to leave.

        And finally if you follow the open carry discussions here you would know that most us think it is stupid to walk around with AR just for show and that includes people who open carry handguns. The difference between our side and yours is that we think people have a right to be stupid as long as they aren’t breaking the law.

        • You may think publishing a notice, posting required signs banning guns amount to wink and a nod for you to “carry on”. But you are likely still in violation of the trespass laws in your area (maybe not where you live), or areas where other gun people live. When states require posting no gun sighs, that is putting you on legal notice that carrying a gun inside is trespassing the moment you enter the door. Whether a “traffic ticket” or a felony conviction, breaking the law makes so-called “law abiding” gun owners no longer law abiding. You don’t get to decide that breaking only a little law still qualifies you as a “law abiding gun owner”, nor more that you can say, “I will abide by all the laws regarding self-defense gun use, but the others don’t matter because I got my rights”. My point is you guys love to preen about how law-abiding you are, yet here, on this blog, so many have declared they ignore the laws regarding where guns may be possessed on private grounds. Retail businesses do not want the adverse publicity among the high-dollar clientele they all want to cater to. Some brand stores are dodging the issue by saying they follow state law, but they are only wanting more support from the gun sense people in order to feel better about potentially cutting-off the gun lovers by refusing their traffic.

          Disregarding a company policy that applies to all its locations, ignoring legal signs banning guns on the premise is breaking the law. Those who decide not to do business at locations banning guns are doing the honorable thing. Those who just trust that no one will find out they are trespassing are not honorable, nor are they law abiding. You have judged yourselves by your own published standards.

        • Mikey, you are clearly unfamiliar with firearms and tresspass laws. All states require that you post signage to make it illegal to bring a gun on premises. Without the sign tresspassing does not come into play until the properly owner discovers that you have a firearm and you refuse to leave. If there is no sign how would you know? Furthermore, none of the companies said you cannot bring a firearm into their stores. They said that they would prefer that you don’t. That is not prohibitive language under the law. For It to be effective the policy must displayed. In majority of the states even the signage does not create an instant violation of Tresspass laws. The property owner still must identify you and ask to leave. In some states, like Minnesota, failure to leave amounts to the equivalent of parking violation. If you are carrying concealed how would anyone know. It logically follows that the so-called prohibitions are not meant to be effective. I hope that helps you understand the law but I suspect that you lack the rationality to understand it.

          Here in Wisconsin almost nobody posts a legal binding sign because of they do and something bad happens they will sued out of business unless they pay the expense for private security.

          • An announcement via print or posted sign establishes the line beyond which one is trespassing. No one must identify you, and specifically ask you to leave. Indeed, a thief can be convicted of trespass if caught by police in a building. Owner does not need to demand the thief leave the premises. That trespass charge can be filed even when there are no signs or public announcements declaring that an uninvited person entering a location is prohibited from being there except as invited. Secondarily, gun owners who disregard no gun signs prove they are no longer “good guys” with a gun. They are arrogant, ignorant, selfish bullies. If you are law abiding, you do not ever disregard the rules of the property owner who announces clearly (posted signs) that you are not welcome if carrying a firearm.

  18. No signs up in Cary NC. I think the “request” just to satisfy anti gun people.
    While Fresh Market is not cheap, some of their food is excellent and not too expensive, Apple pies, Irish Sausages, and Pastries. They also have good sale items.

    • I’m sorry. I just gotta do this. You knew it was coming, right? I mean,….

      Does everybody carry in Cary?

      Ok, ok, that was bad.

      But I just couldn’t resist

  19. If I were a robber, all these gun-free zones popping up would be like Christmas for me. “I’m making a list, checking it twice…”

  20. I go to the Fresh Market all the time. I just ignore their rules and carry anyways as I buy my kefir and organic meat.

Comments are closed.