Giant Food Stores

[NCjones]

Originally Posted by Mainsail

Is that what the sign says?

So if they are LEO, then they are prohibited?

Thus if you are not LEO, there is no prohibition.

I'm sure he meant "unless you ARE law enforcement..."

[NCjones]

Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX

Funny, it's not considered a private property issue when a Christian couple who run a Bed & Breakfast want to refuse a room to a gay couple. Seems to me a corporation should no more be able to abridge your rights than the government can.

Sexual preference, nationality, race, religious affiliation, and a few others are a "protected group" under federal law. Unfortunately, gun owners aren't. We're fair game for the whim or amusement of the manager/business owner.

[Stiofan]

Some of you people don't seem top get it. Just as you say you have a right to carry your gun openly, businesses which are owned and managed by American citizens have a right to control their business without the "Govment" coming in and telling them how to do it.


I've worked in retail 30+ years, and owned a retail business for over 15 years. I've walked the walk so to speak. I have personally dealt with the Grandmas, and have seen it first hand. It does affect their business, and I won't fault them for exercising their rights.


One of the problems with today's society is everyone thinks only of themselves, and what they want. No one thinks of others or looks at it from their point of view. We have raised generations of entitled.


You may have a right to do something, but unless you exercise that right wisely, you will end up losing it as there are those out there who want to control how you live. We all know that is true.


With rights come responsibility. One of those responsibilities is to not give ammunition to the opposing side by being militant when it really isn't necessary. No one is saving the right to bear arms by shoving it other's faces especially when it's not wanted.


Now if someone wanted to write the corporation and complain, that's not what I'm talking about. Not shopping there isn't either. But not respecting other's rights to conduct their business by publicly confronting them seems counterproductive.

[NCjones]

Originally Posted by Stiofan

Some of you people don't seem top get it. Just as you say you have a right to carry your gun openly, businesses which are owned and managed by American citizens have a right to control their business without the "Govment" coming in and telling them how to do it.

I agree.
No gays, no blacks, no jews, no people with red hair allowed in my store. Also no people over 65, no republicans, no veterans, no fat people over 200 pounds, no handicapped people, and certainly no gun toters. After all, it's my store I can do whatever I want. My right to "run my business without govment interference" is paramount to everything else.

Try that arguement when your sales tax receipts are due. Tell them you don't collect sales tax because it's your business and the "govment" can't interfere. Let me know how it works out.

Oh, and get rid of those handicapped parking spaces - those are required by the "govment" and therefore you don't have to comply.

Tell the state to go to hell. You don't need that license to sell beer in your store. It's your business and the "govment" is interfering with your right to sell booze.

Why do you claim a right that you obviously don't have???? If you allege that you have the right to run your business with no "govment" interference then put your money where your mouth is. If the "govment" has no authority to

coming in and telling them how to do it.

then show us.


Oh, and if this alleged "right" exists, please show me where. Mine is in the Constitution (2nd Ammendment) and the NC State Constitution. I'll provide you a link to it if you would like.

I can't seem to find "right to run business without "govment" coming in and telling me how" anywhere in the Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution.

[JJFlash]

I'm on both sides of this issue. I have a Constitutional RKBA and I don't consider it "in your face" to advertise that fact. It's no different from any other right which is GUARANTEED to us by our Constitution, not the "govment". So, if someone wants to confront a store owner and have a civil conversation about this right, I'm all for it. If the store owner isn't swayed, then we're free to shop elsewhere; that's our right, also. But I don't believe that "hiding" a right is the way to go. It's a right, and we're exercising it.

On the other hand, a store owner should be able to run his/her establishment without government interference. I'm not talking about taxes, here (although I DO believe we are severely overtaxed and further are being taxed without representation; that's another discussion) but about whom you want to serve in your store. You don't want blacks, gays, fat people, red-haired people, gun-toters...that's your choice, IMO. Let the free market decide if that's the way to go. Maybe your store goes out of business when folks decide not to shop there because of your customer preferences. Maybe you can make a reasonable living selling only to bigoted idiots. Fine. Your choice.

WE NEED LESS GOVERNMENT AND ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

[rayven]

I respect the rights that the store / property owner has in prohibiting firearms. It's why I contacted the company and have not stepped foot in there since I saw that sign. If they don't want to respect my right to be armed, I don't want to give them any of my cash.

(And no, I have not heard a response. I'm guessing I never will.)

I'm not thinking of only me here. Yes, I'd like to be able to go anywhere I want while carrying my weapon, but to me, this is about the general idea of openness and freedom. I want to stand up for my right to keep and bear arms so that my children will hopefully learn from me and realize that every single person has to stand up for their rights or else they will be lost. And then my children (and everyone else) will be much more free.

So as far as I'm concerned, "Giant Food Stores" isn't interested in the general cause of freedom. That's their right. And so I refuse to assist them in that goal.

[kelcarry]

I would think that most states with CCW laws have specific locations where you can and cannot CC and specific specs on signs for display in otherwise acceptable CC locations that allow a business owner to accomodate his own preference on CC. Obviously, as in any issue on CC, you should and must be 100% familiar with your state's requirements. In SC the list of prohibited locations is clearly printed in the law and the exact dimensions of signs prohibiting CC are clearly printed in the law. In my book and if I was on a jury, any mistake you make that ends up with your use of your CCW in a prohibited location will place you in a very bad legal/civil position, regardless of the situation that caused the use. Your acceptance of the CCWP comes with extreme responsibilities and penalties.

[JJFlash]

Originally Posted by rayven

I respect the rights that the store / property owner has in prohibiting firearms. It's why I contacted the company and have not stepped foot in there since I saw that sign. If they don't want to respect my right to be armed, I don't want to give them any of my cash.

(And no, I have not heard a response. I'm guessing I never will.)

I'm not thinking of only me here. Yes, I'd like to be able to go anywhere I want while carrying my weapon, but to me, this is about the general idea of openness and freedom. I want to stand up for my right to keep and bear arms so that my children will hopefully learn from me and realize that every single person has to stand up for their rights or else they will be lost. And then my children (and everyone else) will be much more free.

So as far as I'm concerned, "Giant Food Stores" isn't interested in the general cause of freedom. That's their right. And so I refuse to assist them in that goal.

+1. And in the spirit of solidarity, I, too, will not patronize Giant Food Stores and will spread the word.

[kelcarry]

Hey rayven and JJFlash: You are both right about your stance and so is Giant Foods. They have made a commercial decision and so have you. This reminds me in SC when all the grocery stores and Wallyworld stopped selling a popular BBQ sauce because its owner, a gentleman with a very vocal pro-South/Confederate stance, made himself even more vocal. They used moral/slavery arguments which were totally hypocritical given the fact that, at least in Wallyworld, 70-80% of its merchandise is from the moral beacon country named China. They made the decision based on demographics and bottom line--pure and simple. At least by remaining silent, Giant cannot be accused of being hypocritical just bottom-line concerned. I am sure that there are a heck of a lot more "couldn't care less about CC" citizens than those toting their guns and they still shop at Giant

[rayven]

Originally Posted by kelcarry

I would think that most states with CCW laws have specific locations where you can and cannot CC and specific specs on signs for display in otherwise acceptable CC locations that allow a business owner to accomodate his own preference on CC. Obviously, as in any issue on CC, you should and must be 100% familiar with your state's requirements. In SC the list of prohibited locations is clearly printed in the law and the exact dimensions of signs prohibiting CC are clearly printed in the law. In my book and if I was on a jury, any mistake you make that ends up with your use of your CCW in a prohibited location will place you in a very bad legal/civil position, regardless of the situation that caused the use. Your acceptance of the CCWP comes with extreme responsibilities and penalties.

In my state (PA), signs carry no legal weight whatsoever. If I wanted to, I could completely ignore the sign and carry into the store. I only break the law if they ask me to leave and I refuse, since that would be trespassing.

As for your idea on a jury, we are going to have to disagree. If a person violates a gun law, but ends up having to use their weapon to defend their lives or the lives of others where it would have been perfectly legal in another place, that person would get a not guilty vote by me. I'm just not willing to punish someone for saving innocent lives. But that's a whole other thread...