People can vote, but it only works in a state where people give a damn about their gun rights. In Maryland, the elections will show that people simply continue to vote for the same thing over and over, accept voter redistricting, and take the continuing abuse of their rights. If they cared, then you'll see changes in the political landscape in the state. Until then... change isn't likely.
Target: Please don't bring firearms into our stores
- Thread starter Tilted
- Start date
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
And I agree with you 100%.
that had NOTHING to do with rally out front ... from huffpo
bottom line it is private property ... target can do what they want inside, but they had better be ready for the lawsuit for not protecting the public after banning armed citizens
LibertyBeacon
Unto dust we shall return
What the #### are you talking about?
In states where businesses ban firearms, its been found that the business now has the responsibility to protect the shoppers from criminal acts.
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/04/caleb_jones_gop_gun_bill_business.php
http://articles.philly.com/1987-08-24/news/26167768_1_crime-victims-security-parking-garage
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/04/caleb_jones_gop_gun_bill_business.php
http://articles.philly.com/1987-08-24/news/26167768_1_crime-victims-security-parking-garage
Larry Gude
Strung Out
How in the flying hell is carrying a concealed firearm remotely like taking a crap on your table???? I'm an NRA certified basic pistol instructor. Maybe we can fix that for you???
Heck..that's too easy. First person that gets injured or killed in a Target store as a consequence of an attack that could have "arguably" been defended against were they armed, but they can legitimately claim were not armed because Target....and every lawyer in the country will be lining up to collect the litigation reward. It will be a big one too.
Tilted
..
Please tell me you'd agree though, that it should be a homeowner's prerogative to tell guests not to carry firearms on the homeowner's property just as it should be the homeowner's prerogative to tell guests not to crap on the homeowner's table.
And what about Target and other private business, should they get to choose whether customers are allowed to carry firearms on the businesses' premises?
Tilted
..
I suppose it's plausible that a particular plaintiff could win such a suit, depending on the details of their particular situation. But in general I'd think such cases were long shots, unless some special cause of action was created (which might itself be legally iffy) or there was some particular negligence involved (i.e. beyond just having a policy of asking customers not to carry firearms in your stores).
Hang on..you, of all people, know that cases like that, when brought by skilled legal teams, are settled out of court more often than not. THAT is the exposure that Target created and I'm pretty certain that their in-house legal beagles thoroughly analyzed the consequences of that potential outcome.
It's stupid simple really. The guys that predict sales and the lawyers that predict legal outcomes (and potential costs..probabilities..etc) produce estimates and the senior corp management weenies look at those and choose the one that appears to have the best bottom line effect. That process, within Target, resulted in the in-store gun ban. Frankly...I'm more on their side with that than not. Anyone that is carrying concealed can decide for themselves the risk balance and carry or not..and those that insist on carrying open, well I'm not a big of fan of that kind of display..
I get so damned tired of telling people not to crap on my tables.
Tilted
..
Sure. In the end (or at least for now) Target decided that the costs of asking people not to carry (e.g. risks of legal exposure, negative PR) outweighed the costs of not asking people not to carry (e.g. perhaps risks of legal exposure, negative PR). It still isn't clear to me what their official policy is regarding people carrying in their stores, btw, and I suspect that is intentional. Is it still actually allowed even while frowned upon?
Anyway, I suspect the dominant aspect of the consideration was the likely PR effect either way - that's where Target has the most to gain or to lose. Other factors or risks may have figured in, but they probably didn't move the needle nearly as much as the estimated PR impact.
Tilted
..
Suggestion: Don't clean it up and invite them back over the next day. Perhaps, umm... experiencing, umm.. the aromatic effects of their actions will help them get the message and sufficiently incentivize them to modify their behavior.
...
LibertyBeacon
Unto dust we shall return
My property, my rules. Target's property, Target's rules.
This is not esoteric stuff.
LibertyBeacon
Unto dust we shall return
You don't know much about law either, apparently.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Gotcha. OK, so, you are fine with cake bakers refusing homosexuals, business refusing service based on skin color or any other reason? Making up their own zoning and inspection rules, if they choose to have any? Right? Their property, their rules, yes?
See, your home is not a place of business. You're not asking to be able to do business. It's private and personal. A business is seeking to conduct business within a community and that community has the right to impose rules and restrictions be it zoning, licensing, inspections, accommodations and so forth including civil standards such as not being able to discriminate. If you choose to conceal carry, TARGET is imposing you not only violations on your second amendment rights but, adding to it stigmatizing you and inconveniencing you as you may like to be out and about and the wife asks you to swing by TARGET to get some stuff when you had not planned to go and had accordingly brought your weapon along. Or whatever reason.
Maybe you're one of those folks that likes to think of corporations as people and as having the same rights as citizens? Or, maybe you think a business is a different thing than a citizen?
To me, there is a world of difference between the two. This is not esoteric stuff.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Which is to say, assuming this is their reasoning, they could decide to not serve gays or based on skin color or religious affiliation or handicap or gender.
Again, for me, all of this comes down to business being required to serve communities not just in their core business but, other interests as well such as zoning, licensing, fair accommodation and other considerations.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Of course. You should able to, in your home, your personal property, be able to discriminate as you see fit. No gays, no heteros, no Christians or what have you, no requirement to serve cake, no kids or no deviants such as Dallas Cowboy fans.
A business, again, SHOULD be subject to more requirements as a condition of being able to do business including accepting all law abiding citizens.
TARGET should no more be able to prohibit second amendment rights than they should be able to suspend any other right.
Wait, why was Target public property when it came to smoking, yet private property when it comes to guns?