Target in the crosshairs

[Certaindeaf]

"Joe's" went out of business shortly after renaming it to that.. some years ago.

 

[semperfi68to70]

I have never been impressed with Target and I almost never shop there. I will remove the almost from here on.

 

[soberups]

You know Costco has a no gun policy as well.

The one I shop at does not have a "no guns allowed" sign on the door.

 

[RPS]

If you haven't seen the news Target has asked its patrons to not carry when shopping in their locations. I can say for my family that they just lost some supporters. Not an intelligent move when they already had 70 million credit card numbers hacked last year.

 

[GunnyG]

If we self-select ourselves out of enough businesses that have asked us that (but not banned us), isn't that just giving MDA a defacto win?

 

[Jim Colvill]

I conceal carry in every venue where it is not expressly forbidden by law.

 

[Joe13]

I conceal carry in every venue where it is not expressly forbidden by law.

Same and I agree with GunnyG.

It seems that Target gave lip service to those organizations that were using them as leverage against gun owners and did not go thru the effort to post signs or even actually ban them from their stores.

I understand not giving a certain company your business when their policy directly prohibits guns but honestly - if we all stopped shopping at those stores and held our breath, we most likely will pass out before it changes anything.

If we were in TX and had more people owning guns then not, then that might be a viable strategy. Living in the northwest, I have no clue on the exact numbers but I would be willing to bet that only 1 in 5to10 houses have a gun in my area.

So at the very best, if everyone joined in - we will only make a 10% difference in thier bottom line (and that's assumeing everyone shopped there regularly and bought a large amount of items).

No clue what the end all answer is but just not shopping at a store will have very little measurable change if any. Picketing on the other hand might actually get the message out to more people.

 

[RPS]

Well written and I agree with your points. It is a point of frustration as they are responsible for one of the largest data errors in recent history, now they have the audacity to attempt this with customers as well? Pretty gutsy.

Oregon Firearms Federation has a great link to send information over to Target and our Oregon representatives. Like you said Joe13, picketing, rally's or e-mail/phone messages will probably be the only thing that might help.

 

[Chalupacabra]

If we self-select ourselves out of enough businesses that have asked us that (but not banned us), isn't that just giving MDA a defacto win?

That's what I have been saying.
If not giving them the win, we are giving ourselves the loss.
There's a difference between "we ask that you not" and "No, absolutely not ever"
We seemed to get that during the Zimmerman case with the 911 operator saying "we don't need you to" (follow him). That somehow turned into "do NOT" follow him and it changed the whole picture for some people.
All of these businesses, from what I have read in their ACTUAL statements, have said essentially the same thing. "We would rather you didn't" but the law is what the law is.
They just don't want people antagonizing their customers, armed or unarmed.
I'm no fan of Starbucks(overpriced milk drinks with a bad coffee base), Chipotle(overpriced food, but the cilantro lime rice is goood), or Target really(worked there for years, find it boring with nothing I can't live without, and annoyed that they don't get half the scorn that WM does), but it seems like a solid policy to me. "Come here to spend money, not soapbox or make us a participant in your political issues."

 

[etrain16]

Not sure what happened to the original thread posted by RP today - I keep getting re-directed to this older thread on the same issue - maybe the mods have decided to join the two together? The response below was meant to be part of the new thread, not the older one:

Target is in a difficult position, as is any large corporation that deals directly with the public. With this announcement, I believe Target is doing the best it can while isolating the fewest people possible. First, the MAGS are happy, they think they actually have some kind of victory here, so they'll probably back down from Target and go after someone else. For 2A supporters, all they've really done is make a statement that has very little real-world impact on gun owners. You can still carry if you choose to. At this point, they haven't banned them - and, if we behave ourselves in their stores, we shouldn't give them any reason to go any further.

Don't forget that there are 2 sides to this issue, and both can potentially wield strong influence on the company via social media, protests and financial impact. We can threaten to boycott them, but so can the anti's. And don't for a second think that just because they don't yet carry the kind of number the NRA does that they can't get a turnout. They've got the power of media and Hollywood behind them. Pull Jennifer Aniston and a few others out to boycott them and in no time, Target is banning all guns from their property.

I think we do need to voice our opinion to them, in a polite way, which I've already done. I also told them, politely, that since I am responsible for my own safety and the safety of my family, that I will, respectfully continue to CC just as I always do, if I in fact go into their stores again.

All I see of this is what I saw from Starbuck's - a knee-jerk, yet necessary reaction to the actions of some folks who decided to make a political stand in these businesses. Unfortunately, it keeps back-firing, and it's not in our favor. At this time, I continue to patronize some establishments that have not actually banned firearms. If they go all out ban, they lose my business. As for a picket, I don't see what that would gain us at this point. They still haven't banned guns - do we really want to drive them to that point? At this point, our rights have neither been violated nor compromised, so why push it to that point? Ultimately, it's their business and, like it or not, they do get to make that call. I'd rather we keep as many businesses friendly to our cause, even if it's a veiled friendship.

 

[ejmpnu92]

I live near a Target, used to go there all the time. But for some reason, I just go turned off from them, maybe 6 to 8 months ago and I have not been back. I don't remember the reason why I was turned off, it had nothing to do with guns or treatment of employees.
So, their request, well means very little to me. But I will honor their request by not shopping at their store... but I was not before, so it will have little effect on them.
But I do like to use the big parking lot for transfers...
Costco, I go there for the gas. Never had an issue with CCing when waiting for gas, not sure the gas guys would care. I rarely go in for anything else, except maybe TP.
I do shop at the local Walmart, but it is only the grocery store type, not the big everything store. The prices are a lot less on the things I buy than at any of the grocery stores near by.
The anti-carry policies of many of the stores have little effect on me because I don't normally go there anyway.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

Listen, while I fully agree with the right to keep and bear arms and do so daily, there comes a point where one has to ask a question of oneself and then of others, is this going to positively or negatively sway the opinion of those on the edge of the fence?
I personally have had enough of folks that claim to represent me showing up in camo and other mall ninja gear stating thats its their 2nd amendment right to do so, yes it is, and I swore an oath at one time to defend your right to do so.

That said, if you feel the need to act the part of the class clown that always has to have the limelight and be the center of attention, then don't claim to represent (me) or (all) of those that may possibly have done far more to defend this right then walk around with a "look at me" sign over your shoulder.

I know there are members here who will have ruffled feathers over this post, but in reality there are many millions of times a year in which a firearm is used to stop a crime from occurring.
When was the last time you heard of it in a positive light from the media?
All you hear about is the negative. I would implore of all of you to take note of that.

I feel the same about those that choose to carry a large sheath knife on the outside just to look big and bad as well, right. The last thing I want someone to have over me is the ability to defend myself, and then the element of surprise. We risk losing this so called inalienable right due to the actions of those that can't seem to figure out that it became illegal to scream fire in a theatre because someone just couldn't help themselves.

 

[GunnyG]

@salmonriverjohn,

Re: "...When was the last time you heard of it in a positive light from the media?

All you hear about is the negative. I would implore of all of you to take note of that. ..."

Do you think that the MSM would ever portray this issue/us in a positive light?

Remember the nicely dressed black man with an AR at an AZ political rally? They went so out of their way to cast it negatively, that they cropped his head and hands out of the picture, because it didn't fit the narrative.

At what point can/should we accept that we won't be accepted, so why even try?

 

[GunnyG]

@salmonriverjohn,

RE: "... became illegal to scream fire in a theatre..."

It's only illegal to do that inappropriately (i.e., when not actually on fire) and the consequences come after the act, not with prior restraint.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

"Do you think that the MSM would ever portray this issue/us in a positive light?"

GunnyG, if they didn't have a rating they too would be out of business, not exactly where I want you and I to be.

"At what point can/should we accept that we won't be accepted, so why even try?"

I'll never accept it, and I've changed many minds, but not through mindless actions that were ill thought out.

"It's only illegal to do that inappropriately (i.e., when not actually on fire) and the consequences come after the act, not with prior restraint." Copy that, but you get the point I'm sure.

 

[deen_ad]

<- Why there aren't any school shootings in Israel!
Teacher with long gun slung over her shoulder!!!

The one I shop at does not have a "no guns allowed" sign on the door.

I haven't seen one at any of the Costco's I go to, but it is their policy nonetheless.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
NRA Golden Eagle member
Defender of Freedom Award


"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

 

[soberups]

If I owned a business that catered to the public, I would not allow long guns to be carried inside. Concealed carry, no problem. Open carry of holstered handguns, no problem. Long gun....go leave it in your car, or ask me for a safe place in the back to store it. If you want to parade around like a badass with your bubba'd up SKS or AR, take it someplace else.

 

[GunnyG]

If I owned a business that catered to the public, I would not allow long guns to be carried inside. Concealed carry, no problem. Open carry of holstered handguns, no problem. Long gun....go leave it in your car, or ask me for a safe place in the back to store it. If you want to parade around like a badass with your bubba'd up SKS or AR, take it someplace else.

Speaking specifically to TX, open carry isn't legal with anything other than a rifle or shotgun.

Speaking to the demands of the demanding Moms, in my experience with Starbucks over the Brady/CSGV/mom boycotts, their language has never discriminated between OC or CC. If there is a gun involved, they want it banned.

If you were to specifically ban one carry mode in your store, you'd lose my business, regardless of my CC'ing.

We need to stop allowing Shannon, et al, to balkanize our community.

 

[soberups]

Speaking specifically to TX, open carry isn't legal with anything other than a rifle or shotgun.

Speaking to the demands of the demanding Moms, in my experience with Starbucks over the Brady/CSGV/mom boycotts, their language has never discriminated between OC or CC. If there is a gun involved, they want it banned.

If you were to specifically ban one carry mode in your store, you'd lose my business, regardless of my CC'ing.

We need to stop allowing Shannon, et al, to balkanize our community.

I would, sadly, accept the loss of your business.

There simply isn't any need or justification for the open carry of long guns in places like stores or shopping malls or near schools. It doesn't help our cause.

If I am running a little greasy spoon diner out in a rural area during hunting season and you hike down off the mountain to buy a sandwich with a deer rifle on your back, no problem. People in rural areas are used to seeing that. But if my diner is in downtown Portland and you are packing an AR-15, people aren't used to seeing that and, given recent events, they are likely to be intimidated and that isn't good for either our cause or my business.

 

[40calruler]

Listen, while I fully agree with the right to keep and bear arms and do so daily, there comes a point where one has to ask a question of oneself and then of others, is this going to positively or negatively sway the opinion of those on the edge of the fence?
I personally have had enough of folks that claim to represent me showing up in camo and other mall ninja gear stating thats its their 2nd amendment right to do so, yes it is, and I swore an oath at one time to defend your right to do so.

That said, if you feel the need to act the part of the class clown that always has to have the limelight and be the center of attention, then don't claim to represent (me) or (all) of those that may possibly have done far more to defend this right then walk around with a "look at me" sign over your shoulder.

I know there are members here who will have ruffled feathers over this post, but in reality there are many millions of times a year in which a firearm is used to stop a crime from occurring.
When was the last time you heard of it in a positive light from the media?
All you hear about is the negative. I would implore of all of you to take note of that.

I feel the same about those that choose to carry a large sheath knife on the outside just to look big and bad as well, right. The last thing I want someone to have over me is the ability to defend myself, and then the element of surprise. We risk losing this so called inalienable right due to the actions of those that can't seem to figure out that it became illegal to scream fire in a theatre because someone just couldn't help themselves.

Ruffle feathers if that is what it takes to get through to the idiots that have to show off how bad bubblegum they are by displaying their gun. As I have said many times here I would much rather have a guy with a knife say "give me your wallet" and me reach back as if to comply with the request and SURPRISE never bring a knife to a gun fight. Gun on the outside makes it so everyone knows you have a big bad gun...also makes it easier to get to you when they know they have to pull a gun rather than a knife so you do not have a chance to draw yours.
I open carry only in the woods when camping and fishing and the open carry is for animals. Someone may make the mistake of telling me to throw the revolver or not touch it not realizing there is a pocket gun in the place they think they are going to get money from me. I will take surprise over cocky any day.