Target: Please don't bring firearms into our stores

[Larry Gude]

Or on a more fundamental level, allow birth control pills to be over the counter.

We're one of a select few countries that does not allow them to be sold OTC. Ironically, we do allow Plan B pills to be sold OTC and they're essentially a huge dose of hormones found in birth control pills.

Of course that would go against liberal talking points about the "war on women". You can bet they will be making a big fuss that Viagra is covered, but not birth control.

And, again, you make a good point for REMOVING healthcare from the realm of, say, hobby stores and nurseries and oil companies and mil contractors. Open up the damn market place, get some competition going on and costs will go down and quality and service will go up.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And, again, you make a good point for REMOVING healthcare from the realm of, say, hobby stores and nurseries and oil companies and mil contractors. Open up the damn market place, get some competition going on and costs will go down and quality and service will go up.

I'm all for it (I'm sure you know that by now )



I hope the Hobby Lobby decision opens up a discussion, but I fear it will not. I fear it will push people to rely on the govt to solve the "problem" at hand.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm all for it (I'm sure you know that by now )



I hope the Hobby Lobby decision opens up a discussion, but I fear it will not. I fear it will push people to rely on the govt to solve the "problem" at hand.

It won't. It can't. The time to argue that has long since passed and we are fully joined in a wrong; employer provided insurance, it's inevitable negative consequences, exploding cost, declining quality and service, and the irretrievable investment in the status quo by the powers that be.

That is the frustration of politics; the enormous potential to do good for the nation and promote the general welfare coupled to the reality of strong interests that, never mind right and wrong, are simply too invested to be able to accept real change and too powerful to be forced to accept change.

 

[kom526]

I saw several places here in NMB with stickers saying, "No Concealed Weapons Please". I believe that most of those businesses were bars/restaurants.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Wait, why was Target public property when it came to smoking, yet private property when it comes to guns?

I don't think it is reasonable to invoke that at all.

These smoking bans were done by the force of government. Of course they will assert public property, otherwise their fiat doesn't have teeth. Yes, the slobbering masses bought into it. But they have will have to live with their own morality there.

If a bar or restaurant wants to voluntarily ban smoking, then that's fine. And that scenario is absolutely no different than Target voluntarily asking guns not to be brought into their stores.

So I think we're talking apples and oranges here.

 

[Tilted]

Again, I differentiate between corporations and individuals. A distinction, in my view, sorely lacking in this nation, supposedly, of individuals. As such, I see an enormous, common sense difference between SOMD and two people v. TARGET.

Fair enough. But while it might make sense to distinguish between corporations and individuals in some contexts, it seems to me an inapt distinction to make in this context. And if we think through what we're talking about when we talk about corporations, I think we (in most contexts) come to the nearly inescapable conclusion that what we're really talking about being implicated are the rights of individuals rather than the supposed rights of corporations. But we've probably discussed that general issue before and likely will again, so I guess we don't need to get lost in it right now.

That said, did David and vrai not organize as a corporation for the purposes of owning and running this site? That would surprise me (if would surprise me greatly if they weren't at least organized as an LLC, which technically may not be a corporation but the some of the same issues - and the same basic notion - would still be in play). Perhaps you would further distinguish closely held corporations from not closely held ones. But again, while that distinction might be relevant in some contexts, it isn't clear to me why it would be relevant to a significant degree in the context of property rights. The notion of owning property - which may only be a societal construct, but represents an important, I'd say essential, foundation of societal organization itself - necessarily carries with it the right to make a wide range of decisions with regard to the use of the property that is owned (or otherwise legitimately controlled, e.g. by proxy or license).

What else do you think corporations that serve the public should not have say in when it comes to the premises (or operations) they own? Can they, e.g., require that you be polite to other customers beyond the degree to which the government could? Can they prohibit certain kinds of expression, or only to the degree the government could? Can they favor particular content or viewpoints? Do they have to allow all activities on their premises which the government itself would not have the authority to prohibit? Your position seems incredibly problematic to more in addition to just being wrong in principle based on the general notion of liberty on which so much of this nation's rules, as well as its culture, was built.

 

[Tilted]

Ok, maybe my statement was a bit harsh. If we disregard the 2A side of the argument, when does a public place of business get to override public law?

What do you mean by override public law? Generally speaking, places of business don't get to override public law - that is to say, they don't get to violate it. Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't think that in particular regards public law is wrong or bad or violates the Constitution. And there are exceptions such as what was recently in the news relating to the RFRA.

But are you suggesting that asking customers not to bring firearms into Target is overriding public law? I don't see how. Something being legal is not the same as requiring all private parties to allow it to happen on their property. Even if the law does not prohibit prostitution, that doesn't mean everyone (or even just businesses that serve the public) has to allow prostitution on their property. Something not being illegal means the government isn't forbidding it and the government isn't punishing it. That's not the same as the government requiring private parties to allow it. For that to be the case there'd need to be a law doing just that - e.g., saying that people or businesses or whoever had to allow X, Y, or Z on their premises. Now, there are some such laws. But I'm not aware that there are such laws when it comes to being able to carry firearms in retail establishments. There may be some in some jurisdictions (though they might themselves present constitutional issues) and it wouldn't surprise me if going forward, to score political points or otherwise, some jurisdictions try to pass such laws. But in the absence of them, it isn't overriding public law to ask people not to carry firearms on your property. It's a property owner's legal prerogative. Section 1983 (of Title 42), for instance, doesn't apply to private party actions.

 

[Midnightrider]

If they were protesting for their rights based on skin color or gender or sexuality, would TARGET still be saying that or would they be saying "Welcome!" ?

I don't think it really matters, but they would probably take issue with any group protesting inside their store. Particularly if that group was causing a disturbance for other patrons. That's just a guess as I don't follow target's corporate policies that closely.

 

[Larry Gude]

Fair enough. But while it might make sense to distinguish between corporations and individuals in some contexts, it seems to me an inapt distinction to make in this context. And if we think through what we're talking about when we talk about corporations, I think we (in most contexts) come to the nearly inescapable conclusion that what we're really talking about being implicated are the rights of individuals rather than the supposed rights of corporations. But we've probably discussed that general issue before and likely will again, so I guess we don't need to get lost in it right now.

That said, did David and vrai not organize as a corporation for the purposes of owning and running this site? That would surprise me (if would surprise me greatly if they weren't at least organized as an LLC, which technically may not be a corporation but the some of the same issues - and the same basic notion - would still be in play). Perhaps you would further distinguish closely held corporations from not closely held ones. But again, while that distinction might be relevant in some contexts, it isn't clear to me why it would be relevant to a significant degree in the context of property rights. The notion of owning property - which may only be a societal construct, but represents an important, I'd say essential, foundation of societal organization itself - necessarily carries with it the right to make a wide range of decisions with regard to the use of the property that is owned (or otherwise legitimately controlled, e.g. by proxy or license).

What else do you think corporations that serve the public should not have say in when it comes to the premises (or operations) they own? Can they, e.g., require that you be polite to other customers beyond the degree to which the government could? Can they prohibit certain kinds of expression, or only to the degree the government could? Can they favor particular content or viewpoints? Do they have to allow all activities on their premises which the government itself would not have the authority to prohibit? Your position seems incredibly problematic to more in addition to just being wrong in principle based on the general notion of liberty on which so much of this nation's rules, as well as its culture, was built.

My views would have been better served if I distinguished between closely held and not. That makes my position a great deal less cumbersome, I think. To say "TARGET" would prefer our customers to not carry in our stores' is a rather nameless, faceless thing that we empower with the identity of an individual. I suppose that's where I am drawing my line

 

[Gilligan]

Buddy of mine was asked to leave a Walmart store because his open-carry was supposedly making people nervous (pic below). Jeez..is everybody turning in to a sissy??

But seriously...I just don't see the need to open carry in nearly all situations I can imagine. The only time in my life I've open-carryed..a) whilst hunting b) when leaving my bar at 3 am with the cash drawer.

Concealed, on the other hand, and entirely different matter.

 

[Larry Gude]

Buddy of mine was asked to leave a Walmart store because his open-carry was supposedly making people nervous (pic below). Jeez..is everybody turning in to a sissy??

But seriously...I just don't see the need to open carry in nearly all situations I can imagine. The only time in my life I've open-carryed..a) whilst hunting b) when leaving my bar at 3 am with the cash drawer.

Concealed, on the other hand, and entirely different matter.

Sub compact? Is that a Lewis????

 

[Gilligan]

Sub compact? Is that a Lewis????

You should see the holster for that thing.

 

[Larry Gude]

You should see the holster for that thing.

Sopwith Camel?

"We at TARGET appreciate your business but, respectfully request that you leave your personal protection firearms, and their holsters, outside. Please and thank you!"

 

[Gilligan]

Sopwith Camel?

"We at TARGET appreciate your business but, respectfully request that you leave your personal protection firearms, and their holsters, outside. Please and thank you!"

What about tripods and carriages?

 

[Larry Gude]

What about tripods and carriages?

"Sorry, sir. You're taking up too much aisle space. We're gonna have to ask you to leave..."

 

[Gilligan]

"Sorry, sir. You're taking up too much aisle space. We're gonna have to ask you to leave..."

"Rats!. :kicksammocontainers:"

 

[GURPS]

Sub compact? Is that a Lewis????

looks like a Russian Maxim Ammo box, and linked 7.62R

 

[nutz]

But are you suggesting that asking customers not to bring firearms into Target is overriding public law?

Yes, that would be a fair carryover. If it is legal to carry a firearm openly and/or concealed (with whatever permit may apply), when does any public place have the "right" to ban that activity unless otherwise proscribed by law (churches, school zones, etc.).

What that being said, I think it is stupid to do and I don't shop Target anyway. I'm just more annoyed with people making up their own rules and then later on claiming it is "illegal". Case in point, one of my vehicles was involved in a parking lot hit and run. The insurance co. tried to deny the claim because it wasn't on a public road and it was a Md. law. BS. They paid the claim, but it was a lot of stupid aggravation to get it done.

 

[Lurk]

Or on a more fundamental level, allow birth control pills to be over the counter.

We're one of a select few countries that does not allow them to be sold OTC. Ironically, we do allow Plan B pills to be sold OTC and they're essentially a huge dose of hormones found in birth control pills.

If you made them OTC, the insurance wouldn't make them "free" anymore and Sandra Flucke would take to the hustings again (your point, in fact). Besides, I doubt IUD's would be made OTC unless the liberals are willing to allow "coat hanger" obstetricians to insert them in back alleys.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Yes, that would be a fair carryover. If it is legal to carry a firearm openly and/or concealed (with whatever permit may apply), when does any public place have the "right" to ban that activity unless otherwise proscribed by law (churches, school zones, etc.).

Do private property rights play a role at all?

Before the nanny-staters starting banning smoking everywhere, would it have been OK for a bar or restaurant to setup a non-smoking establishment?