Possible Walmart Policy Change

[djthomas]

Warning! Long read ahead! This is from the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) weekly update on 9/3. For those that don't want to read the whole thing, here's the gist of it:

I [VCDL President, Phil Van Cleave] just spoke with someone at corporate and was told by them that the new Wal-Mart corporate policy on firearms is to let district managers decide on the firearms policy for their stores. It is in their hands and out of corporate.

According to their latest update VCDL is in the process of trying to find out exactly what's going on, but I thought I would share because it certainly raises the possibility of Wal-Marts becoming CPZs in the Ohio area in the near future. Keep an eye out for signs so we can take action if it seems that certain district managers are using their newfound authority.

**************************************************
3. New firearms policy at Wal-Mart lets district managers decide
**************************************************

Member A.L. Soots relays his experience at the Fairlawn Wal-Mart:

Mr. Van Cleave,

About a month ago, a relative of mine was in the Wal-Mart in Fairlawn. He was doing some shopping while open carrying his weapon. After being in the store for a little while, he was confronted by the assistant store manager, Jim Hancock, who told him that he was breaking the law by carrying his firearm, and asked him to remove it in the store and let him take it. When my relative said no, the manager told him that he could either go with him to the office and "straighten this out" or be prosecuted.

He said, "OK," not knowing what he was going to be prosecuted for.

When they got to the back of the store, the assistant manager then called the Pulaski Sheriff's Department and put the deputy on speaker phone and asked what my relative could be charged with. When the deputy told him that there was no law being broken, he then hung up and started telling my relative that "things were going to change when the next president was elected...and people like my relative were going to lose their rights to carry weapons."

When my relative wanted to leave, he was told that he had to write a report. After the report was written and signed, he then told him to leave the property. There were witnesses to this. After I talked with Dave Knight about this, he called and talked with the store manager who told him that her store employees would "be educated" and that they weren't to bother anyone carrying a weapon in the store.

Well, last night (August 28, 2007) I was in the same store to purchase some ammo for a CCW class that I was teaching. I was in the store with a friend of mine. We walked straight from the front door to the sporting goods department (open carrying). After standing at the counter with no help for a few minutes we were confronted by the SAME assistant manager and another employee.

Mr. Hancock told us that we were not welcome in the store while carrying a weapon and he wanted us OFF THE PROPERTY NOW. I asked him if this was store policy or his policy. He said it didn't matter, and that if we did not leave, we would be charged with trespassing.

We turned to walk out of the store and Mr. Hancock followed us on our heels all the way out. I stopped at one point to ask him why he was following us. After we left I made a call to the district supervisor, Terry Sartain, and left a message at his office because it was after hours. I spoke with Mr. Sartain this morning and he told me that the local managers and he were working on a new firearms policy.

He said that they had cleared it with the home office and the legal department and that they were OK to change the policy in his store to NO FIREARMS...NO CONCEALED OR OPEN CARRY!! He said that the signs were being printed and would be posted in a couple of days.

The stores affected by this change are Fairlawn, Christiansburg, and Salem, with Roanoke stores to follow. So, it looks like Wal-Mart is falling. What do we do about this, or is there anything that we can do?

(Update: I just spoke with someone at corporate and was told by them that the new Wal-Mart corporate policy on firearms is to let district managers decide on the firearms policy for their stores. It is in their hands and out of corporate.)

[Brian D.]

If this stands, and other businesses follow WalMart's lead, do I need to send a (very sarcastic and angry) 'Thank you' card to the VCDL and some of their more, um, enthusiastic open carry devotees?

This is one of the reasons that I have never become overwhelmingly fond of open carry of a firearm, as opposed to keeping the thing hidden from view of the multitudes of grasseating blissninnies.

Not opposed to OC in principle mind you, just don't like end results such as the one in the story.

[NavyChief]

Just sent:

It has been brought to my attention that Wal-Mart may soon change its long-standing corporate-wide policy in favor of lawful carry of firearms in its stores to a district discretion policy. As a coordinator for Ohioans For Concealed Carry (OFCC) I'd appreciate any clarification you might be able to provide on this issue so that, if necessary, we can advise our members Wal-Mart no longer values their business.
Thank you.

Oh - and I share Brian's sentiments.

[jfan]

I agree. John Q. public is not yet ready for open carry. Like it or not, seeing a firearm next to children evokes negative feelings....and those negative feelings translate to votes for gun control.

Now's not the time to be pushing for open carry....remember, baby steps. Let's get everyone on the same page with concealed carry (we've come a long way) and then tackle the open carry issue.

[djthomas]

Agreed - Although purists might disagree, I see a huge difference in openly carrying at the park or walking down the street versus entering private premises doing so. If I can make it to the Party in the Park, I will be among the open carry crowd when it comes time to use the restroom.

Just like Wal-Mart has the right to say that protesters are not welcome at their front door, they can also say that gun toting individuals are not welcome through their front door. It really gets under my skin when people spout off about their constitutional rights in a private property context where their options are agree and comply or leave, and they try to assert just the opposite that they do not need to comply and are free to remain.

The problem with openly carrying in a commercial establishment is that if people are uncomfortable with it they're going to complain to management. At that point, management is forced to make a decision between you and the five soccer-mom types that are spazzing out. It's purely a business decision. In their eyes you're creating a disturbance that's alarming their customers. They have to respond. The fact that what you're doing is constitutionally protected on public grounds makes no difference. They're going to respond just as if ACORN started marching up and down their aisles annoying customers with their Fair Labor protests.

[Scavok]

Re: OC, "Just because you can do it doesn't mean that you should."

---snip---"things were going to change when the next president was elected...and people like my relative were going to lose their rights to carry weapons."---snip---

Oh, and he knows this how? What an arrogant, self-righteous A.H. ("Adam Henry" for you youngsters reading this).

[NavyChief]

Scavok highlighted something that escaped me before...

...and people like my relative were going to lose their rights to carry weapons.

Ahhh - so he acknowledges it's a right, hmm? That could be fodder for a quite lively debate.

[airdog714]

It seems that some are quick to criticize our open carry brethren when they may in fact do some good.
If Walmart decides to post and become a CPZ, they will in fact be cutting their own nose off their face. Here's how.

No more gun and ammo sales.

Can you say Kmart.

Many of us shop at Walmart because they don't post. If they start to post, and we stand our ground and don't support a CPZ, they will notice it in the bottom line.

If they then change back and take down the signs, many other business may see the light and follow suit.

This is, ofcourse, just one possible senareo. If it goes bad for us pro carry people, there is always kmart. The increase in sales there will make them grow and maybe become larger than Walmart.(I don't think Walmart wants that to happen, and will gaurd against that).

Then there is that new senate thing that alianates any country from our support if the alianates our Constitution, No free money.
This could morf into no Tax Subsidys to US business that don't support our Constitution. ( I Know, This Is Not Law, But I Can Hope/Dream)

All in all, Walmart doesn't want bad Press, and with the all the shootings/crime, and the need for self-protection, Walmart doesn't want to seem like the badguy.

I can be wrong.

airdog

[McM]

I don't understand the desire to OC, but I will defend 210% the right to do it.

[willbird]

Yup and when we find out the stores that DO post, we start to mail receipts to OTHER stores that have not, and explain why we shopped where we could carry. And also let the mgrs of those stores know they have our business now and WHY.

Corp is not going to like people driving to another area to shop at a DIFFERENT Walmart due to willy nilly policy, we pass too many Target stores on the way


Bill

[airdog714]

Wow, I completely forgot about Target.

I'm sure there are other stores, but I can't name them all. But my hat's off to them.

airdog

[Harlie]

No way they quit selling handgun ammo years ago. Not gun friendly at all, not only that, never could get their cash registers and tags to agree, so price check, delay and aggravavtion. Most Wal-marts have had no issues with carry to date, no reason to think that area managers are that dumb, YET.

[djthomas]

Wow, I completely forgot about Target.

I'm sure there are other stores, but I can't name them all. But my hat's off to them.

I prefer Target over WalMart any day if for no other reason than despite being across the street from each other the two stores nearest me tend to attract totally different clientele. However, until Target starts selling ammo there are times I need to make the trip to WM. Has anyone else noticed that they seem to have a very hard time keeping that $6.47/box .223 ammo in stock?

Back on topic, I agree with the point that I'll 100% support someone's right to open carry, but I have to qualify that by saying I also have to 100% support the right of a private establishment to prohibit you from doing so on their property. Consider two groups, one of which I agree with, the other I don't. The first is an open carry group, the second is a group of rabid anti-war protesters who believe that the US is the source of all that is evil. I will gladly stand up for the right of both groups to do what they do marching down the street, assembling in a local park or simply standing on a street corner. At the same time, I will gladly stand up for the property owner who tells both groups "I don't want you here, you need to leave now."

You can't have it both ways and say that private property is inviolable from those who would try to tell you how you must use your property while also saying that someone has an absolute right to use your property to exercise their first or second amendment rights against your wishes.

Whenever I speak to a CPZ about getting a sign taken down I'm always extremely careful to avoid talking about my rights. Because really the only right I have is to not do business with them. I symbolically get down on my knees and say "I understand that as a private establishment you have the absolute right to decide whether or not to permit concealed carry and I sincerely respect that. However, I respectfully request a reconsideration for the following reasons..." This serves two purposes. First, I'm not coming across as a zealot trying to tell them what they must do with their business (file that one in the circular file), but second (and more interestingly) I've had businesses call me back and say "no we don't have the right to not post.. so and so said we must" and they're surprised and relieved to find out that they are perfectly free to do what they want. It seems that with the smoking ban requiring signs on every building, some are confused into thinking that they must have both signs up. The fact that one sign shop in town makes a combo no smoking no guns sign doesn't help. In 3 of the 4 cases where I've gotten the second response the signs quickly came down. In the fourth they explained how they're going through a legal dispute with the person who told them they must post, but gave me personal permission to carry anyway and said they'd tell any person with a CHL that they're free to do so as well.

[Jake]

If my local WalMart posts, they are certainly going to be hearing from me!

I hope there is enough of an out cry to make a difference.

[OhioPaints]

Agreed - Although purists might disagree, I see a huge difference in openly carrying at the park or walking down the street versus entering private premises doing so. If I can make it to the Party in the Park, I will be among the open carry crowd when it comes time to use the restroom.

Just like Wal-Mart has the right to say that protesters are not welcome at their front door, they can also say that gun toting individuals are not welcome through their front door. It really gets under my skin when people spout off about their constitutional rights in a private property context where their options are agree and comply or leave, and they try to assert just the opposite that they do not need to comply and are free to remain.

The problem with openly carrying in a commercial establishment is that if people are uncomfortable with it they're going to complain to management. At that point, management is forced to make a decision between you and the five soccer-mom types that are spazzing out. It's purely a business decision. In their eyes you're creating a disturbance that's alarming their customers. They have to respond. The fact that what you're doing is constitutionally protected on public grounds makes no difference. They're going to respond just as if ACORN started marching up and down their aisles annoying customers with their Fair Labor protests.

I agree. I think we NEED open carry to adjust the general population that firearms are legitimate. As it is now, most people only see the bad side ("News at 11"). BUT open carry in a store can cause problems which can backfire against us.

I think we need more open carry in public before we gain enough acceptance so that we can wisely do it in retail stores.

Of course, we do most of our shopping in Ky where CPZ signs are non-existant and don't mean much (Hint to Ohio legislatures....),

Ken