Earlier today, Target’s interim CEO made a statement “requesting” that its customers leave their guns at home. The decision came on the heels of pictures of members of Open Carry Texas carrying rifles in Target stores, and the subsequent anti-open carry at Target campaign by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. C.J. Grisham, president of Open Carry Texas, told USA TODAY in an e-mail [also published on their Facebook page] that he regrets Target’s decision . . .
While this is not a ban on legally possessed firearms in its stores, we will continue to honor our months long policy of not taking long arms into Target stores or any other business, time and time again, businesses that have asked guests not to bring legally possessed, self defense firearms into their establishments have seen their employees and customers victimized by criminals preying on the openly defenseless.
Open Carry Texas is laser focused on our statewide goals of making Texas the 45th state to recognize the right to openly carry firearms and the 32nd to do so without a licensing requirement. Engaging in the businesses of interfering with or making a scene at private corporations is something to which Open Carry Texas has never lowered itself, a practice we will maintain.
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.”
Just so y’all know.
“Just so y’all know.”
It won’t matter. The anti OCT crowd have their minds made up and closed…OCT is teh 3v1l.
No, not at all, but they do need to refine their strategy to actually maximize the chances of Texas becoming an OC State. It’s quite possible that they already have; this particular fallout is from some of their previous efforts.
When Texas becomes open carry it will be in spite of these idiots, not because of them.
“it will be in spite of these idiots, not because of them.”
More unsubstantiated emoting.
Well, it’s a long, long campaign to full firearms freedom. There will be successes and, occasionally, some setbacks. This one turned out to be a draw.
As for the know-it-all do-nothings like Blinky, sniping from the sidelines, whatever positive happens will definitely owe no thanks to them.
“When Texas becomes open carry it will be in spite of these idiots, not because of them.”
So Rosa should have stayed on the back of the bus?
Mac, that was completely different, so put it away. Rosa was treated like that because of the way she looked, not because of what she was carrying. Now eat your cookies.
Jonathan, we’re both aliases on the internet; you know nothing about be or what I do. All I know about you is you have an uncanny ability to ignore or twist logic so that you believe this is a draw. It’s certainly not the win MDA is making it out to be, but it’s most certainly a loss for us, by us.
Mac, in addition to the gaps in your comparison that Bill pointed out, you’re also missing a very big point. Rosa Parks intentionally and publicly violated a law on a city run bus. These guys might have my respect if they got themselves arrested on city property carrying handguns openly, and their ‘message’ might have made a modicum of sense. But they didn’t, it doesn’t, and your analogy is ridiculous.
Jus Bill says:
“Mac, that was completely different, so put it away. Rosa was treated like that because of the way she looked, not because of what she was carrying. Now eat your cookies.”
So some Civil Rights are more important than others? Because Jim Crow laws have been expanded to cover everyone, they become OK?
Sine OCT caught the limelight…we have been asked not to bring firearms into most prominent places where they demonstrate. I’m wondering (and seriously I don’t know, I’m asking)..what victories can they claim so far? Seems like nothing but set backs to me..
I’m not anti OCT, but you have to admit that at times their methods appear counterproductive.
I knew they wouldn’t , certainly not in Texas.
If you carry concealed, nobody will notice. If you open-carry a hand gun, shop elsewhere. I suspect most of the ass-hats carrying long arms in public are trolls working for, and paid by, Bloomberg, et al. The rest are useful idiots.
I am neither a Bloomberg troll or a useful idiot. Although I was personally opposed to concealed carry licensing laws here in Ohio, I remained silent. This was, in large part, out of respect for fellow patriots I had known in the Liberty movement for years before. You see, I figured that licensed concealed carry would create a rift between groups of gun owning Ohioans. I had a notion that an industry and lobby would rise up around the creation of a privilege from what was once considered a right in Ohio. I also figured that some would come to view being licensed as some sort of club; as special status. At the time, I considered that I might be mistaken so I deferred to others who’s opinions I respected and continue to respect. Unfortunately, I was not wrong and these same individuals have approached me since to lament this fact. You see, we were able to carry concealed just fine in Ohio for many decades prior. The masses in Ohio didn’t realize how many of us carried every day because they didn’t see it. Out of sight, out of mind. However, instead of simply fixing the few troublesome lines of law, we enacted licensing law.
Currently in Ohio the carrying of a concealed handgun is a privilege. Openly carrying a firearm is the exercise of a right. If we continue to only exercise the privilege of licensed concealed carry and fail to, at least every now and again, exercise the right then that right will atrophy. Within a few generations Ohio will see the right to keep and bear arms greatly infringed.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
If the People only bear arms during times of distress, the deterrent value of the Second Amendment is diminished. Likewise, if the only time that government observes the People bearing firearms in public is when there is trouble brewing, the militia will be hobbled and far less effective than was intended. If your only intention is to fight ordinary crime or save your own ass in this generation and possibly the next, then your approach will probably achieve that. However, it’s myopic and may spell disaster to the right to keep and bear arms for generations to come.
If you intend to assert that most of the people who openly carry long guns in Ohio are either anti-gun trolls or useful idiots then your assertions are pure rubbish.
I figure what he probably was referencing was the small number of people in Texas who are LGOC and doing it stupidly, like the pair in Chipotle.
I was unaware that there was a lot of LGOC in Ohio, but that’s the point. An asshat doing it will get the publicity, unfortunately, and people will be “invited” to generalize that all people doing it are asshats.
(I’m even aware that OCT is trying to clamp down on the asshattery so I don’t blame them as an organization, but it continues anyway.)
SteveInCO: As I general rule, it’s not typical for fellow Ohioans to OCLG except at political gathering and restaurants during those gatherings. These food establishments most often have invited us to OCLGs. There have been a few occasions when the eatery chosen was done so without previous reconnoiter but those are typically gatherings in haste. One particular MAIG protest comes to my mind as they didn’t give much notice before they rolled into town. We didn’t have any trouble in the restaurant and the experience was pleasant for staff and patrons. Some individuals actually came up and thanked us for carrying. There are times that I OCLG outside of organized gatherings but that’s more likely when I find myself lacking storage solutions at the moment. For the most part I OC a sidearm. Of course, if, like Texas, OCing handguns were illegal, I would be OCing long guns much more here.
We had that one group of four youngsters in East Price Hill which TTAG did a story on recently. They are unknown to most of us and did not behave in a manner becoming good stewards of civil rights. In the organized events, we try to be better regulated in how we present ourselves.
@John in Ohio — makes sense.
I mentioned in a different thread that there will be a LGOC parade at Westcliffe CO tomorrow (second annual I believe). Trying to decide whether to take the trip. I saw the TV coverage last year; at least one guy was carrying his AR by the handle. (Not so good but if that’s the most the media could come up with it must have been a good event,)
I encourage everyone to attend things like that parade. You would probably really enjoy it. 🙂
“when they came for the open carry advocates, i said nothing because I didn’t want to upset any moms at Target.”
“when they went after the concealed carry advocates I said nothing because I only transported weapons to hunting and the range”
“when they went after me, there was no one left to speak out”
I stopped reading when it didn’t start with “We’re deeply sorry for…” or “I guess we were wrong about…”.
And damn Shannon’s braggadocio is pathetic. I almost feel bad for anyone soft brained enough on her side who thinks they actually accomplished anything.
That’s funny, I stopped reading when it did start “BlinkyPete says….”
fat and tired….
But you clearly read “I stopped reading when”. No sir, things don’t add up at all here.
What “victories” can OCT claim? Seems like nothing but victories for Bloomberg’s cronies to me…
“What “victories” can OCT claim? Seems like nothing but victories for Bloomberg’s cronies to me…”
Remains to be seen. If they get OC of handguns passed in Texas, well, that would be a major victory.
That is, after all, what they are trying to do.
I am a retail store owner and operator. I also own the property. On my property,and as far as the safety of my staff,my customers,and their children,The second amendment does not exist. NO GUNS PERIOD!!!! And to all you swaggering gun carrying bullies out there,there isn’t thing one you can do about it.
Why are you picking a fight on a blog that’s sole purpose is to unite gun owners? Seems counterproductive to what we are trying to accomplish here. As to what you said earlier, calling Blinkypete a do nothing, I seem to recall his version of a UBC that actually gained us more freeds than it sacrificed. So calling that guy a do nothing is just as ignorant as your anti-cop BS.
It would certainly help if Texas would pass a bill legalizing the open carry of pistols, then you wouldn’t have to carry a “long gun” anywhere to be exercising your right to carry in that state. It’s not rocket science.
You’re exactly right. A good starting point, less than I want, but a start nonetheless, would be to allow open carry only for licenced concealed carriers. Oklahoma does that.
It wouldn’t change much on the ground, really. Criminals would still carry concealed because they don’t want the attention and do want to preserve the element of surprise. Most concealed carriers probably wouldn’t open carry, either, beyond the first few times just for the novelty of it, and for probably the same reasons that criminals wouldn’t. All the while, the anti’s and pearl clutchers wouldn’t see much difference around town.
What would change is we’d have one more big legal step toward full firearms freedom and a firmer foundation upon which to build future gains.
Here in Indiana it’s legal to open or conceal carry as long as you have the IN State Police permit/license. I prefer to conceal carry myself for the reason I don’t want to draw attention to myself. BUT I also go to my bank on my way to work VERY early in the morning (before dawn) and I always open carry at the ATM machine just as a deterrent to the BGs. I also open carry around my property and just in the very local neighborhood. (also as a deterrent in case I’m being cased by a BG) Other than that, I think it’s best to be “under cover” everywhere else.
I agree. Texas has a few crappy gun laws. Hopefully they get that fixed up before all the California and Northeast refugees flood it and turn it too purple to get anything good done.
In the court of public opinion, every time a corporation is forced into a corner, and requests firearms not be brought to their premises, we lose. Even if it’s not a ban, even if there is no rule of law, we lose.
I disagree. I think that’s loser thinking.
I have not lost a single darn thing from any of this. I still carry where I’m legally permitted to carry.
In the court of public opinion, we are WINNING the gun control debate.
The graphic here spanning 20 or so years of progress is MY evidence:
Not sure where you see evidence there. The advance in “Shall Issue” is recent and still requires, in most cases, the gun owner to go to court to get a ruling. In areas where laws have actually been changed to “shall issue”, in practice, law enforcement still operates on a “may issue” basis and stonewalls your attempt or places restrictions on the LTC that make it useless.
I applaud your enthusiasm, but reality is quite different, and will be until we get more conservatives and libertarians into legislatures around the country. Most of the successes have been in places that were fairly gun tolerant in the first place. All the antis need is an event, near an election, that has gun control initiatives on it, and the balance of power would instantly swing in their direction, like in Colorado. Absolutism is not going to get the people we want into office, and that is the only thing that is going to preserve our 2A rights. OCT and like-minded orgs are a distraction to the bigger end game that we don’t need. They just give the antis more ammo against us.
If you live in a state that has shall issue and they won’t issue you a permit even though your are legally entitled to one, contact the NRA-ILA and ask for their help. I had a problem getting a county sheriff in PA not wanting to issue (kept getting the run around) and they helped me out!
A lot of that’s inaccurate. Wikipedia has an awesome animation on a map of the US showing the move to Shall Issue over the past 40 years, and it’s pretty staggering. It went from almost none to almost all in a 15 year period. Granted, my state’s been Shall Issue for almost 100 years, and it has one of the best processes I know of, so I do have rose colored glasses in that respect.
I’m thinking your response is essentially FUD. It is so easily refuted.
“Not sure where you see evidence there. ”
Is the situation not better now than it was in 1985?
Ergo – improvement.
“The advance in “Shall Issue” is recent and still requires, in most cases, the gun owner to go to court to get a ruling.”
Huh? No one in my Shall Issue state has to go to court to get a ruling. I suspect that’s true for most Shall Issue states. No doubt there are a few as you describe, but again…is the situation better now or 25 years ago?
“In areas where laws have actually been changed to “shall issue”, in practice, law enforcement still operates on a “may issue” basis and stonewalls your attempt or places restrictions on the LTC that make it useless.”
Huh? Again? I think you are cherry picking the corner cases and stating them as across-the-board generalities.
My state, for example, is Shall Issue. No law enforcement agent stonewalls anything. That can’t. They are statutorily obligated to issue the CCH unless they can show statutorily defined reasons not to. Further, they have a time limit to act that is also defined in statute.
And law enforcement cannot place restrictions to make it useless or otherwise.
“I applaud your enthusiasm, but reality is quite different, “
No sir. In 2013, the laws here were drastically improved, AND our state also now has both Constitutional Carry bills and School Carry (for teachers, etc) bill introduced.
I’m not sure what state you are in, but the situation in most of the country is improving one small step at a time. They’ve had decades to wind this mess up and it will take a while to undo it.
But good grief, if you can’t see the improvements you are NOT paying attention.
I disagree and say how someone views “the progress” is entirely dependent on where they are geographically and the time period you choose to analyze. For example, if you truly believe that the 2A grants unrestricted rights to individual ownership, than any form of gun control since that bill of rights enactment is a reversal of the original unrestricted right. In that light, there has been nothing but losses to that original right. Is that FUD? In my opinion no, it’s just a point of view. Can you make an argument that there has been progress since 1985? Of course, if you narrow the time period of analysis to that short of time period. But is that a legitimate argument or one just to fit your viewpoint? It’s the same game with statistics that the antis like to play.
On the basis of geography, historically, gun control has always been a local issue. If you go back to the wild west days, while there was no national gun control, every sheriff in every town had ultimate authority over what you could or could not do with guns. It’s basically the same today, except now there are more controls at the city, state, and federal level that help back up legally, a local law enforcement officers’ decision. Again, if you view the 2A from the standpoint that it gives unrestricted individual ownership, the view of 2A absolutists, is this an advancement of gun rights, or a restriction of gun rights? From the absolutist view, it would be hard to argue that it is not further restriction.
Listen, I am on your side. I am just trying to point out that you have to be realistic about the approach we take to 2A liberty. I am also saying don’t be cocky. You’re bullying other 2A supporters on message boards and trying to push an argument that doesn’t exist. Can you point out areas that have better gun rights than others? Of course. And I would say NC has a better history on gun rights than most Northeast states. Is it a wonder why we base our national Marine training center there? But if your really a 2A supporter, are you satisfied with good 2A rights in certain locales, or do say the work isn’t done until all states have good and equal 2A rights? From the point of view of someone in the Northeast, I would say there are a lot of 2A hypocrites out there who have a rosy view of 2A progress because live in a supportive 2A state. So until I see 2A progress everywhere, I say there is a lot more work to do by all 2A supporters.
“You’re bullying other 2A supporters on message boards”
Who the hell am I bullying? This is rich.
” and trying to push an argument that doesn’t exist. ”
And what argument would that be? The point I was trying to make was that we ARE making progress…that things HAVE gotten better.
You disagree? Fine. Whatever. That does not make me wrong.
Are you claiming we have not made progress just because we have not “won” yet?
We will never “win” in that sense. It will ALWAYS be a fight to keep our rights. There will ALWAYS be some statist authoritarian that views personal liberty as a barrier to their own power.
“But if your really a 2A supporter, are you satisfied with good 2A rights in certain locales, or do say the work isn’t done until all states have good and equal 2A rights? ”
You are switching up the topic and I hate when people do that as it is illogical.
I never said the fight is over and we’ve achieved everything we’ve set out to gain. I said we’ve made gains and to act like “woe is me, the world is ending” is defeatist.
You keep trying to say I am being unrealistic. You can assert that all you want. It does not make it true. It also does not mean that just because I claim we have some momentum in our corner that I think we should sit down and rest on our laurels.
Apples and orangutans.
“So until I see 2A progress everywhere, I say there is a lot more work to do by all 2A supporters.”
We agree on this point. But that is a FAR cry from what sparked this particular discussion. Wanting to see more progress everywhere is very, very different than saying we are NOT gaining ground where we are.
It’s also not the same thing as seeing defeats where they don’t exits. The Target “request,” like all similar PR moves, is fluff. It carries no weight. To get all bunched up over it and see the end of the world because of it does not help.
We need to stand strong. Not be defeatist and panic at every little sign of confrontation.
in CA, it was the Open Carry demonstrations that forced the 9th Circuit Court to hear the concealed carry issue. Once open carry was banned, California was forced to actually open up concealed carry.
If there had not been OC demonstrations, and no open carry ban, we would still have no hope of “shall issue”.
Tough one, I believe the OC should be so commonplace (if not common) that you don’t even think about it unless you see horseplay or someone menacing/threatening at which time you demand proper behavior. Up until then, though, it’s gotta have ~ politeness, but I also believe you may have to force the issue to get there. Feels like a “push” though, and a push feels like a trap.
I’d give my life for the 2nd Amendment. Open carry is stupid. Period. It’s stupid practically, tactically, and politically. Its proponents are enemies of the 2nd Amendment. They are a subversive fifth-column in our midst.
everything in your post is either untrue or a lie
Wow…a “I support the Second Amendment, but …” comment that managed to leave out the “but.”
I’m not a big fan personally. Especially long guns. But I have to say I disagree with what you said.
All of it after the first sentence.
Good. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
You disagree with it … fine. You prefer concealed carry … fine. You disagree with the tactics that some protesters use (e.g. long gun OC in Texas) … fine. But to smear all open carriers as some sort of fifth column is ridiculous, insulting and offensive.
With “friends” like you, who needs Bloomberg?
I’m with you buddy. These jackasses in TX don’t seem to understand how far reaching their jackassary goes. It was a hard fight for CCW here in Illinois. Yes, the 7th court mandated it, but a reasonable shall issue permit system barely squeaked by, and it is still full of pitfalls. If a business says it doesn’t want guns on its property, and you conceal carry on its property, you are in for some serious punishment. So when Target makes the national claim not to want guns in its stores, that has the force of law in Illinois against CCW permit holders. OCT is hurting CCW in the State of Lincoln.
“So when Target makes the national claim not to want guns in its stores, that has the force of law in Illinois against CCW permit holders. “
I call BS on this.
There’s a problem with notification. How on earth can they claim any given concealed carrier heard the press conference announcement of their “request.”
Does IL not have codified in law the specifics of how a private property owner has to notify potential carriers of their wishes? Most states do in the form of posted signs (which carry the force of law on their own or not is immaterial to this point).
So..any lawyers out there got an opinion on this? Does this “request” (that their own PR people have contradicted since, anyway) carry “force of law?”
A judge’s comments about “public accommodation” seems also to disagree with your assertion.
So…nice try at histrionics, but I don’t buy it.
The Target by me in Aurora slapped the 430 ILCS 66/65 “NO GUNS ALLOWED” sticker on their front doors yesterday. Corporate made the statement, store managers posted the signs. So yes, they statement has the force of law in Illinois.
“So yes, they statement has the force of law in Illinois.”
Your statement is a non-sequitor, and this is getting really old.
So one store put up a sign. That itself does not give the “request” force of law. That request is not enforceable as meeting statutory requirements in my state, for example, nor does it elevate being on their premises to ‘trespass’ in others.
Go to a different Target, one that is NOT posted, and they you are breaking no law if you are carrying.
Good grief but this is maddening.
@J-: Target has since declared that they are not prohibiting firearms in their stores and that they will not be putting up signs. Target is claiming that this is a request only. If that Target is in Indiana then you could call corporate and talk to them about it. Fish around here and you can find some postings about the statement. If nothing else, perhaps post a question about it on their Facebook page.
Hell, post a photo (here or TTAG on FB) of the sign and a long shot that shows it is indeed Target and some of us here can call about it if you don’t want to do it yourself.
if a state bans open carry and is still “may issue” then they’re in direct, easy violation of the 2nd Amendment. Even California’s 9th Circuit had to acknowledge this.
Because effectively limiting CC thru “may issue” and banning OC, there’s no legal self defense option, and that’s illegal.
@Rick: It goes further than that. Ohio recognized that if it banned OC then it couldn’t regulate CC. The reasoning is that the privilege of CC can only be licensed because the right of OC is mostly left alone. In other words, the State couldn’t even have shall issue if OC was regulated.
There has traditionally been the same approach to the right of travel here. Pedestrians, slower vehicles, horse & buggy, etc are prohibited on practically all of the controlled access highways but there will almost always be an alternative route for these modes of travel to arrive at the same destinations. Otherwise, the right to travel would be inhibited. I travel by alternative means (slow) a lot and I’ve noticed this to be true in SW Ohio. So far, there has been no destination I could not reach by alternate routes.
** By “regulated,” I am referring to the more modern sense and not the 2A language sense. Just to clarify… 🙂
Just got off the hook with a Target spokesperson. First I called a local store in Eugene Oregon, and they referred to a national number. It is: 1 612 696 3400
This person, whom I could barely understand, told me their policy was not to allow guns in there store, that they wanted to keep it a safe environment for everybody. I told them I was a concealed permit holder, and had gone through a background check, and didn’t feel that I would contribute much to changing the “environment” of their store. She said the CCW permit did not matter. I said I would no longer be shopping there.
Then they are contradicting themselves.
You mean like “talking out of both sides of their mouth”? That happens frequently in the gun business.
Maybe we should all call Target’s national number, and after they tell us not to carry in their store. we can ask then if we know Walmart’s phone number. That ought to tie their panties in a wad!
I suspect that the 1 612 number redirects to an outsourced service in India or somewhere similar. They just want this to go away so you’ll buy their stuff again.
As much as I don’t like seeing rifles carried in condition one/low ready/whatever, remember that Target didn’t put out it’s statement in reaponse to the open carriers; they never gave two toots about it until Shannon and her gaggle of harridans started bleating. Target’s request is Shannon’s fault all the way. We’re all in this together, ladies and germs. You may not like me, and I may not like you, but we’re not each others’ enemy.
How about we all get together and politely (POLITELY) ask OCT and other groups to please keep their hands off their rifles. And, when Shannon inevitably rears her head (and she will whether its OC or not; she wants all guns banned, not just those she can see), let’s all form ranks against her and not each other.
(Full disclosure: I wrote the “Open Carry Primer” P320 entry)
“We’re all in this together, ladies and germs. You may not like me, and I may not like you, but we’re not each others’ enemy.
she wants all guns banned, not just those she can see), let’s all form ranks against her and not each other.”
Well said. Thank-you.
she’s being paid to have all guns banned…
Really, that doesn’t matter. Does that make her any less sincere in her hoplophobia?
Is a concert pianist somehow bad because they are being paid to do something they are passionate about?
The problem with Shannon Watts is NOT that she is being paid, but that she is doing something that is evil.
“Yeah for #Target saying customers can’t bring guns to stores. Boycott by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense hit Target in pocket.”
Where does it say “CAN’T”?
Interesting–in the pic above this article, the action-deprived “moms” ‘s post is uncharacteristically accurate: I note that it says they applaud Target “for _asking_ customers to leave their guns at home”. Meanwhile, RF has referred to Target’s “ban” in our own headline. Like I said, interesting.
The interesting word here is “boycott”. Has Target actually been losing money until they caved in?
Target is struggling financially. They don’t need or want controversy.
Target has been in active disaster recovery since their credit card theft “problem.” Their fondest wish is that they never heard of OCT and MDA, and that you’d just shop there.
Maybe Shannon will pose for pics w her supporters and admirers at a target? Of course we could line up for such pics while concealed
That first sentence is a nightmare. They needed a period and went for a comma.
I got flunked in high-school English for doing that.
I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything, it’s just that people already think we’re idiots. We have to be doubly careful when we present our case.
Don’t worry. No one expects perfect grammar on the internet, although I do hold a higher standard to journalism than the comments.
Ever heard of a comma splice?
Love the picture… Way to whore out one of your kids, MDA!
I think he’s holding a BLASTER! OMG!!!
I called my local Target and spoke to a store manager. He said it was a request but they were not banning guns. I said I was a lawful conceal carry holder and always carried, he reiterated that it was not a ban and conceal carry was lawful. I think Target is being squeezed by the anti’s and they’re trying to keep a leg on both sides of the fence. Although open carry is legal in Ohio I really think it’s just stupid to open carry as it doesn’t normalize guns – it fires up the anti’s. It’s counter productive. (shrug) Just my .02. I won’t spend a dime in a store with a “no guns” sign. If Target posts a no-gun sign I’ll have spent my last nickel there.
Seems we are all getting different responses. See my post half way up the column. The nat. # again is 1 612 696 3400.
Any lawyers want to come in here and tell us if it’s legal to CC in Target, when they have no signs posted?
Seems like we just got through with this thing, only it was Costco.
Any lawyers want to come in here and tell us if it’s legal to CC in Target, when they have no signs posted?
I honestly don’t care if it’s legal to carry there. They have stated they don’t want my gun there, any way, any how. That means they don’t want me in there (unless I make myself a potential victim to save fifteen cents on whatever).
Being asked to leave my gun behind–when I am NOT one of the people causing the ruckus they are supposedly reacting against–is an insult. Worse, they didn’t issue a press release telling MDA to also stay away. They aren’t neutral, they’ve taken sides.
I’ve already spent my last nickel in there. And I’ve told them so.
These places could specifically request that people not carry long guns into stores (maybe an exception for Texas until they fix their law) and that groups, any groups, not gather in front of the store without prior permission. But Target didn’t do that. It would be nice if some of these big chains would consider long gun storage behind the customer service counter if they don’t want them in the stores. Just an idea…
Although open carry is legal in Ohio I really think it’s just stupid to open carry as it doesn’t normalize guns
We didn’t have concealed carry licensing until about 2005. Before that time, myself and a multitude of Ohioans carried every day. The clear solution to the “problem” at the time was to remove a small bit of bad law in the Ohio Revised Code. Since most of us carried concealed, it fell out of public consciousness just how many Ohioans were, in fact, armed. I insist that by most of us carrying concealed all of those years, we inadvertently damaged the exercise of our individual right to bear arms! Now, instead of being able to exercise the right to bear arms openly or concealed in Ohio, we must accept a privilege if we want to conceal. Ohio has carved a licensed privilege from the right to keep and bear arms. Open carry is the exercise of the right in Ohio and concealed carry is the exercise of a privilege. Concealed carry did the complete opposite of normalization prior to concealed handgun licensing laws in Ohio. Everyday bearing of arms cannot be normalized by concealed carry alone.
I got a CCW permit and i shop at target, Guess what stupid i carry a gun next to your child and you will never know about it.
Unless someone tries to abduct said child right in front of you, and with the mother screaming, you whip out your trusty 6 shooter, or 18 shooter, or whatever you carry and stop said abduction right on the spot, causing said mother to gratefully embrace you, and invite you home with her for a glass of wine, and then, and then,………………………Somebody direct me to the nearest “Distressed mom, I need a glass of wine!
There’s just so much wrong with this comment. My first issue is with calling someone stupid and then disregarding most of the rules of the English language. The next issue is that comments like that don’t help our public appearance at all. It makes us look like DBs. I understand these clowns don’t play nicely but that’s no reason to stoop to their level.
NV Open Carry’s position is to keep it up, but leave the rifles at home. Leave Target if they threaten to trespass you, but be sure to tell the manager how much you are now going to spend at Walmart.
“Open Carry Texas is laser focused on our statewide goals…”
…of scoring one for the other team.
Enough with the grandstanding.
A month ago I suggested our slogan be “Take Aim at Target” now it’s time, we must BOYCOTT Target and EVERY other retailer who seeks to violate the 2nd Amendment and American citizen’s right to defend themselves from violent criminals.
How about “Know your Target and who is behind it?”
The Quarrelsome Quim, Shannon Watts, strikes again and the weenies amongst us are out in force demonizing Open Carry advocates. Here’s a suggestion, Open Carry EVERYWHERE it’s “legal” to do so, once the uninformed become accustomed to firearms in public the hysteria will cease, it worked for the Rainbow militia.
I’m going to guess target was being harassed. So they pulled this out of their asses. Considering OCT doesn’t carry “guns” for their demonstrations. The SOP doesn’t change. So really this is a blurb about nothing.
I suspect the Mighty Midget made a couple of phone calls to some board members regarding negative press about Target in, let’s say, his Business Week property unless they do something amenable to the Demanding Moms. He DOES take notes when he talks to Rupert Murdoch.
Do that many of us really go to Target?
Sporting Goods – crap
Tools – crap
Automotive – crap
Toys – crap
Socks & U Trou – better than Walmart but I phased these out last year to supplement the ammo budget.
I think their tools come from the stuff Harbor Freight rejects.
It still boggles my mind that, depite the far left lean of Vermont, we’re still the only state that doesn’t infringe on its citizens’ right to carry – concealed or open. I don’t intend to look THAT gift horse in the mouth.
I feel sorry for that kid. Boy is he gonna get teased when he goes back to school. I know – can’t see his face. Someone will out him and it will probably be his mother.
They don’t know you carry in Vermont because it’s always cold up there and your coats cover the guns. 😉 Sorry couldn’t resist that one.
We “didn’t let them know we carry” and we ended up with further restrictions on carry; concealed carry licensing laws. 😉
Alaska and Arizona also allow both open carry and concealed carry without requiring a permit.
I wonder, if MDA and OCT collided would it create a new particle called supidium?
Hopefully it would be more like poop and antimatter colliding.
OCT- ” making a scene at private corporations is something to which Open Carry Texas has never lowered itself ”
Ummm, well…. Personally, I think the OCT posers at Chipotle was a bit of a scene.
As evidenced by the picture.
Geez, didn’t someone already tell them(MDA): Target doesn’t want youuuu!
It disgusts me how they say that Target “protected kids.”
“OMG, that big bad gun could have gone off at any time! so scary!!!”
I’m starting to think OCT is actually a false flag operations coordinated by anti-gun groups. OCT got Target to become anti-gun. Starbucks, Chipotle, Chili’s all became anti-gun. California’s Open Carry organizations successfully got all open carry banned in the state.
* CA’s ban might actually back-fire on anti-gun supporters by making CA shall-issue… awaiting final decision from the 9th.
The only way to normalize guns is to have more people coming to ranges. Free range days, CMP, etc. The US has been moving from a more rural country to a more urbanize country and people just don’t have that experience of ever firing a gun. That’s the way you normalize them without instilling fear and bans.
Hrmph. Never opened carried at Target. In fact I hardly ever do. They will still get my business, it is their right to chose how they want. I support all rights, not just the 2nd one. That said I will fight to the death for my rights, your rights, our rights. Will continue to concealed carry to Target. Hope I never have to draw. But if I do and it saves my loved ones, myself or some gun muggle. Then it is a victory for our side, even if they refuse to see it.
I strongly suggest that if you want to fight for your rights, you not reward Target for what they’ve done by continuing to help their bottom line. Even if all they’ve done is very publicly suggest you not exercise those rights; they still chose to issue a corporate-level statement ONLY against armed citizens.
My conversation with Target Customer Service Chat:
You are now connected to Matt.
Matt:Thanks for shopping at Target.com. My name is Matt. How can I help you?
Larry:Hi Matt, I live in Texas and have questions about your request for no weapons in your stores.
Matt:I will be glad to help you with the information.
Larry:I am a retired police officer and have a permit to carry concealed in all 50 states. I carry concealed and do not open carry. My wife is a concealed weapon lic. holder and she carries concealed. Are we welcom in your stores?
Matt:We respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.
Larry:If I do what will you do?
Matt:This is a request and not a prohibition. We ask that guests respect this request.
Larry:My family and I will no longer shop at your stores. Thank you for the information.
Matt:I can understand your concern. I will share your feedback with my leaders.
Matt:Can I help you with anything else?
Matt:Have a good day!
And I thought OCT was short for Open Carry Trolls. Oh hey, but that works too.
Contrary to any claims, I see no evidence that the OCT political activism of “Scared Straight” but with guns, is having a positive effect. Quite the opposite. These stunts with long guns in shopping and urban centers clearly frighten the muggles. That’s bad! We want these people on our side, not running into the waiting arms of the Media sycophants and Moms Demand…something or other.
Open carrying a rifle in a retail family store to make a point about gun rights is irresponsible and counterproductive in my opinion. I believe in the constitution set forth by our founding fathers and the right to carry if your a law abiding citizen. BUT toting around a hunting/sporting rifle in front of the general public and kids just to illicit a reaction isn’t useful, necessary, or responsible. Is it illegal no, but it is embarrassing to reasonable gun owners who are the majority but are rarely heard from. So radicals please stay at home and let the rest of us win the battle for you through legislation. BTW Target didn’t ban guns or put up no CCW signs they just “requested” they not be brought into stores so legally nothing has changed.
“I believe in the constitution set forth by our founding fathers and the right to carry if your a law abiding citizen. BUT “
I’m beginning to wish I had a nickel for every time this “but” is used.
So, no. Really. What’s your problem with folks carrying a rifle around a retail store?
We spend a GREAT deal of effort trying to convince people that the gun itself is an inanimate object, guns in the hands of good guys can be beneficial to society and other deeper points that separate “evil as will” vs “evil talisman.”
And then an Open Carry article come out, and all of a sudden we find that many POTG DO believe the gun itself is an icon of “badness.”
I’m tired of the “it fuels the antis” bs. This kind of thinking, that the carrying a gun is somehow wrong on it’s face plays RIGHT into their mindset.
“Guns are Evil, and should not be around children or families in stores.”
Geez, JR, he said it was “irresponsible” not that it “should be banned.”
Lots of things you have a right to do would be irresponsible; is pointing this out any kind of denial of the right?
The fundamental problem I have with SOME of the open carry activists is that they habitually confuse “it’s stupid to do that” with “you shouldn’t be allowed to do that.” He said the former, not the latter. He bent over backwards to not say the latter.
Okay, that’s a fair distinction, but…. (haha)
Maybe part of the problem is in defining “irresponsible.” Do we use and objective definition, or a subjective one open to interpretation of each individual (including the critics)?
We can all agree that irresponsible is breaking one of the four rules. That’s a good starting point.
But, what gets me is all the folks saying that CARRYING a rifle in $STORE is irresponsible. Let’s leave the OCT and other news examples out of the discussion for a moment, and consider a person carrying a rifle, on a sling, not touching it, just open carrying…while in, say, Home Depot.
Go back to the Home Depot thread last week (or whenever it was), and we’ll see bunches of comments about “leave the rifle at home” or “no need to carry a rifle in Home Depot.”
Reasons given include: you don’t need a rifle there, hanguns are better to carry, you scare the sheep, it fuels the anti’s, it creates bad press in general and a few others.
NONE of those reasons focus on an objective definition of irresponsible, but only on the criticizer’s personal feelings on the matter, such as, externally approved “need,” personal opinion about tactics, etc.
THIS is what I was railing against…the notion that the rifle, simply carried, is a problem. That is falling into the trap the anti’s have set in term of defining “adequate need” and other EXTERNAL justifications.
Another example…the posed picture with the four ladies outside the restaurant in Colorado. Right out of the gate…claims of “irresponsible” because hands were on grips of holstered guns.
It is my view that for us to stay focused on the Right To Keep and Bear Arms, “irresponsible” needs an objective, not subjective, “I disagree with that,” definition.
I think the Four Rules works well. There’s no specific safety rule against touching the pistol grip of an AR, but there is about finger inside the trigger guard or poor muzzle discipline. There’s no safety rule against resting your hand (posed for a PICTURE) on a handgun’s grip, but there is about…trigger and muzzle. Etc.
It’s much harder to be objective in these things. It means accepting (dare I say “being tolerant of”) things we may personally disagree with. It means saying “I would not do that, but they are not really hurting anything.” It means GIVING UP THE INTERNAL DRIVE TO CONTROL OTHERS.
Liberty and freedom are not easy. It is precisely the long term effect of this “subjective analysis of proper” that we have seen the erosion of individual liberty that we have seen. Some of that erosion just happens over time, but some of the subjective application of “proper” plays right into the hands of statist and authoritarian thinkers.
Do I OC a rifle in Home Depot? No. But nor do I feel the need to criticize those that do just because they are open carrying a rifle. Nor do I ask that they justify “need” to do it.
Yes the four rules are a good starting point. Yes, there should be an objective definition of proper behavior.
But that definition will end up having a huge contextual component. Even the four rules have one. It’s not “keep your finger off the trigger” but rather “keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.”
As such the four rules always apply, even in the heat of a firefight. They certainly apply at the shooting range,
That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be other rules as well, that apply outside of a range or a firefight. And to my mind “keep your hand off the grip unless threatened” is one of them. It’s a condition Red or at the very least Condition Orange thing. (On yellow I will snick the safety off, if concealing.) If you aren’t being threatened (or about to draw at the range) it’s inappropriate because it means you are one step away from drawing (handgun) or bringing the rifle to bear on a threat. If there IS no threat, then people are going to wonder who you are preparing to shoot unprovoked. Now an exception to this would be a situation like a posed picture where everyone understands that it’s a posed picture. To me that seems like a good safety rule that (however) applies to walking around in public, NOT to a gun range or a firefight. So it’s not one of The Four.
Of course even there, though it’s not a safety hazard/threat, it can be stupid for other reasons–like if the picture is likely to be used by your enemies for political purposes. It’s hard to imagine someone using the picture of the four women in Rifle (hehheh he said “rifle”) in that way (note to self to visit that restaurant!), but two scruffy-if-not-loony looking people with semiauto rifles worn in such a way that they can instantly be brought to bear, and people clearly posed in a “one instant from ready to fire” mode–yeah, I don’t blame people for finding that alarming. Were these guys walking around like that the entire time? I don’t know. Probably not. But that doesn’t change the fact that that pic showed them in a bad light and once seized on by the opposition constituted an “own goal.” Wrong from a rights standpoint? Nope. Objectively unsafe and/or threatening? Probably not (unless they really were walking around continuously like that). Stupid in the context of handing the enemy ammuntion? Absolutely!
Good posts, SteveInCO & JR_in_NC.
@JR_in_NC: We seem to share the same sentiments on the matter. I try to refrain from all of the creative name calling when it comes to some OCers even when I privately want to facepalm. Thanks for posting that.
Sorry, but Texas problem is not that you can’t open carry a firearm. It is specifically that you may not lawfully open carry a handgun in Texas. This is clearly a stupid NJ type law, residing in one of the most 2nd Amendment friendly states in theUS. And, in a state that is both Southern, and Western – it is incomprehensible.
Forcing Texans to carry rifles where a handgun is the appropriate choice, is absolute nonsense. Most of us who choose to carry, choose to carry concealed. However, this should be a choice, and not a mandate.
Plus, having to strap on an AR in order to practice ones God given right to self defense while going into Taco Bell for a burrito supreme, is as outright retarded as it looks.
Even being a gun loving Army vet I actually see nothing wrong as to what Target did. They did not “target” gun carriers, they simply asked kindly if we could just leave them at home while shopping. Any gun lover who is pissed of by this is ignorant and is probably the reason why most Americans don’t like gun carriers. We have the right to open carry, BUT, others have the right to respectfully ask to not do it in their place of business. Keep it respectful and quit slamming on Target, what they did is very understanding if you see it with a true open mind.
Perhaps, but if they make that request I’m not going to shop there. They have no obligation to guarantee my safety, and they’ve just self-identified that their customers are less likely to be armed (assuming said customers honor their request). That seems just a dumb as putting a “no guns in this house” sign in your yard.
They have every right to make that request. They would even have the right to make it a flat-out order if they wanted to. That ought to be beyond dispute (though some here do dispute it, asserting their alleged “right” to ignore the request). I respect that right of theirs; I choose to exercise my right to not darken their doorway ever again. I do think it was a profoundly stupid thing for them to do, and I find the way they handled it insulting, but they are within their rights, and I am responding as vigorously as possible while remaining within mine–they don’t have a right to my money. All rights respected all around.
How about we change the perception given in the Everytown picture at the top of this column to something like this:
I think we should start a campaign to have Target change the name of their store. It’s offensive, violent, and now that they don’t want me to carry (CC or otherwise), a reminder of what could happen when I’m in there!
Not content with the long list of places that have already changed their gun policies for the worse, these clowns are now going after Kroger: