Gun rights activists test Walmart request not to open-carry guns into store

[Kilgore]

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/460652-gun-rights-activists-test-walmart-request-not-to-open-carry-guns-into-store

Gun rights activists in Texas are testing Walmart’s request not to open-carry in stores by doing just that.

David Amad, the vice president of Open Carry Texas, told The New York Times the 38,000 members of his group have openly carried their guns inside Walmart stores since the retailer announced last week it is “respectfully requesting” customers to no longer openly bring guns into its stores.

He said none of the members who have done so have been asked to leave.

“They are ducking the issue,” Amad told the Times. “They are trying to get the gun haters to leave them alone, while at the same time leave us alone when we carry in their stores.”

A Walmart spokesperson told The Hill that employees are not instructed to approach peaceful shoppers who may be carrying guns in areas where hunting is popular. The goal is to maintain a “non-confrontational approach," the spokesperson said, citing the language Walmart president and CEO Doug McMillion used in last week’s announcement.

[bluestarone]

1. Call the fucking law THEN

ask these assholes to leave!

[hack89]

20. They can't

There is no law being broken. They have to ask them to leave first.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. And why the fuck are they NOT being asked to leave?

I have so far not seen anyone open carrying in public or in a store or restaurant. I know if I did see such, I'd feel incredibly threatened. I hope I'd maintain the presence of mind to leave while letting all around me know exactly why I'm leaving.

I really, really wish that all those who enthusiastically support unfettered gun ownership would suffer the negative consequences of such.

[hack89]

22. To avoid thrusting their employees into potentially dangerous situations?

would you want to be the person to confront a gun carrying man looking for an argument?

[Crunchy Frog]

48. Are you saying that law abiding open carriers are dangerous?

But that nothing should be done to stop them?

[hack89]

52. Walmart workers don't get paid enough to find out

If I worked there I would say “not my job.”

I think open carry is asinine and I have no issue with it being banned. But I don’t kid myself that a ban will make me safer. A violent person intent on harm will hide his weapon to ensure surprise.

[Crunchy Frog]

64. Maybe Walmart could consider hiring a few security people.

God knows they have enough money to pay for them.

In the meantime I will avoid shopping there until they have an enforced policy of no open carry in their stores. And I don't think my state allows open carry, but it's the principle.

[hack89]

74. No matter where you shop you will be around people carrying guns

If being ignorant of their presence makes you feel safer then good for you.

[wasupaloopa]

83. How do you know somebody is carrying a gun if it is concealed?

Or in other words, how do you not remain ignorant that somebody around you is carrying a gun?

[hack89]

87. My point is that banning open carry does not make a store gun free and therefore safe

every day you will most likely meet someone that is armed. They potentially represent the same threat as someone open carrying - except you are unaware of the danger.

[Newest Reality]

3. Promiscuous

Promiscuous gun-toters are not helping their cause in the eyes of many.

Flagrantly flaunting their weapons in order to demonstrate their rights to others is irresponsible. I don't think that such abuses are what open carry laws are supposed to encourage, especially when those activities are not about safety, but do make other people uncomfortable or leaves them feeling intimidated and unsafe.

Is there some implication here that these stores are always dangerous places to be and that one requires open carry to navigate them safely? Does Walmart agree with that? I want to know.

Before the 1980's, the NRA would have agreed with that statement.

[lagomorph777]

29. such abuses are what open carry laws are supposed to encourage

Open-carry laws are exactly intended to make society more violent and dangerous, to sell more guns.

[Hoyt]

4. Ignorant white wing gun-humpers.

[bluestarone]

5. I'm thinking Walmart could be sued

If anything happens in their store AFTER they DO NOT enforce their decision of no weapons in the store?

[hack89]

23. Does their request have the force of law?

that is my question. If it is simply a request with no penalty for not complying, then they can't be sued.

[dalton99a]

39. From Houston Police:

Can I openly carry or concealed carry on private property?

Yes, provided that the property does not display the signs described in Section 30.06 and Section 30.07 of the Texas Penal Code at each of its entrances. Regardless of whether any signage is present, however, if the owner or manager asks you to remove the weapon or leave the property, you must comply. Failure to leave the property when requested to do so could result in you being charged with criminal trespass.

If I am asked to leave a store for openly carrying a weapon, can I cover up the gun and go back in the store if I have a license to carry a handgun?

Yes, if the store does not also prohibit concealed carry, unless the store owner or manager asked you not to return, in which case returning would constitute a criminal trespass.

If I am a private business owner but I do not have the proper 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted and I ask someone who is carrying a weapon to leave my property, are they legally required to leave even though I don’t have the proper signs?

Yes. As a private business owner you can tell someone to leave if they are carrying a weapon whether or not you have the proper signs posted.

http://www.houstontx.gov/police/open_carry/

[hack89]

41. So the onus is on the gun owner not Walmart

Walmart can't be sued if someone breaks the law in their stores.

[TomSlick]

6. I still contend there is an easy answer.

If I see someone carrying a weapon in a store - any store - I will yell "GUN!" and move briskly to the door, yelling "GUN!" all the way out.

I'm betting it clears the place.

[Initech]

7. Yeah causing unnecessary panic always ends well!

[TomSlick]

47. Unnecessary?

Some yahoo is walking around Walmart openly packing heat and the rest of us shouldn't panic?

If someone is open carrying in Walmart, the only reasonable assumption is that s/he is at best a sociopath and at worst a homicidal psychopath. I am not staying in Walmart with some sociopath or psychopath carrying a weapon. I assume that others will also want to know there is a nut job walking around with a gun so they can also leave.

It causes unnecessary panic to yell "fire" in a crowded theater unless the theater is really on fire.

[Initech]

50. How is yelling "HE'S GOT A GUN!!!!!!!" not the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Go ahead, try it. Either you're going to get shot, or trampled, or you're going to get your ass kicked by the police or bystanders. And none of those scenarios are good. I would tell the police or store management before I blindly shout something like that.

[FiveGoodMen]

85. You SHOULD yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater

If it's on fire

[Initech]

97. Or you could pull a George Costanza.

[hunter]

12. I was thinking more along the lines of bear spray.

They wouldn't forget that.

[WillowTree]

16. Of course, that would probably constitute assault, but try it sometime and see how it works out.

[hunter]

17. I'd probably still be laughing as the cops beat me bloody and hauled my ass away.

But it's going going to happen in my community where cops tend to shoot open carry fools first and ask questions later.

One of our neighbors died that way bringing his gun to a local fast food place.

Open carry is illegal here.

Whatever happened it was written off as some kind of suicide by cop.

It always strikes me odd that this "open carry" nonsense never occurs in places that are actually dangerous, but only in places where elderly ladies on scooters, their purses in the cart basket, feel perfectly safe shopping unarmed. (Hint: it's not the fools with guns keeping the peace...)

My world is a little rougher. Anyone strutting about with a nice gun is likely to have it taken by the cops or a fourteen year old gangster.

Nobody treats guns as cosplay accessories.

Gun fetishes are disgusting, and yes I am mocking them.

Gun culture in the U.S.A. needs to die. Guns are a public health hazard like cigarettes or drunk driving.

And gun culture will die. Most people in the U.S.A. don't care enough about guns to bother owning one.

[HAB911]

25. +++++++++++

[hack89]

42. Could also get you arrested

Especially if someone gets hurt in the ensuing panic. It could also openyou up to a civil lawsuit if someone gets hurt.

[TomSlick]

51. I don't buy it.

My more recent experience is in civil law and not criminal law, but I can think of no criminal charge. I see no civil cause of action.

If some yahoo is walking around Walmart openly carrying a firearm, the only reasonable conclusion is that s/he is either a sociopath or a homicidal psychopath preparing for the next El Paso. There is no reason for a sane person to be walking through Walmart openly packing heat. Therefore, such a person is a risk to the public safety which I should flee and warn others to flee.

What is the cause of action for warning others of a peril? Yelling "gun" if there is no gun, can be the basis for a lawsuit. That would be the classic yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. (See, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).) Honestly warning others of a threat to public safety is not tortious. The basic definition of negligence is the doing of something a reasonable person would not do under the same or similar circumstances. It seems reasonable to me to flee and warn others to flee if a nut job is stalking the aisles at Walmart openly carrying a firearm. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is tortious only if it is not true.

I'm not going to yell "shooter" unless the yahoo starts shooting. I will only simply say the truth, that there is a person carrying a gun where one does not belong.

[hack89]

54. The law would disagree with your "reasonable conclusion "

Unless you are going to seriously argue in court that the sole intent of state legislatures when they made open carry legal was to facilitate mass murder in public settings.

You can certainly take your chances with the jury - what are the odds that an open carry state is full of people that agree with you.

[TomSlick]

56. The intent of the state legislatures notwithstanding,

there is no crime or tort in honestly warning others of an imminent peril. No state legislature has said that a person stalking the aisles of Walmart openly carrying a weapon does not pose a danger to others. Rather, these state legislatures have only said that open carry is not a crime. No open carry statute requires others to place themselves in peril by staying in a public place with a sociopath or psychopath openly carrying a weapon. No open carry statute forbids warning others that someone is openly carrying a firearm in the area.

I have a obvious right to flee from an imminent peril. I have not only a First Amendment right but a social obligation to warn those around me of that imminent peril. I am aware of no precedent for the proposition that the First Amendment is superseded by an open carry law.

I would be surprised to see a civil suit under the facts I propose surviving a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.

[hack89]

57. You can certainly try your luck. Nt

[TomSlick]

59. Do you have a legal theory contrary to mine? What is your proposed cause of action?

Why would a complaint not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)?

I am sincerely curious. I am no later day Learned Hand and am open to instruction.

[hack89]

60. I question your basic assumption about the danger posed by open carry

Seeing a gun in a public place does not indicate immediate peril. Intent has to be shown. You don’t distinguish between simple carrying and brandishing. Brandishing a gun has a legal meaning with loads of case law behind it. The police will ask you what the gun owner was doing. If the answer is “it was in his holster” then you are screwed. No harmful intent can be assign to that act. It certainly does not constitute brandishing, which is and actual crime that open carry does not render moot.

[TomSlick]

65. Recent experience is to the contrary.

Whether or not a weapon is brandished only goes to whether a crime has been committed. The shooter in El Paso did not commit any crime until he pulled the trigger. His intent was unknowable until he opened fire. Nevertheless, he was an imminent peril the moment he got out of his car. If someone had warned the people in the area, maybe there would have been fewer deaths.

There is no sane reason for a person to be carrying a weapon in a holster in Walmart or the grocery store. Again, the only logical conclusions is s/he is at least sociopathic. At a minimum, the intent is to frighten or to demonstrate antisocial behavior - the definition of sociopathic behavior. It should be no surprise if openly carrying a weapon in a Walmart or grocery story causes alarm.

Carrying a crowbar is not illegal or necessarily suspicious but carrying one in a residential area in the wee hours gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is intended. That suspicion may not be sufficient to support a criminal charge but it is sufficient to support a police stop for investigation.

Again, what is the crime? What is the tort? The tort cannot be simple negligence. The basic definition of negligence is the doing of something that a reasonable person would not do under the circumstances. How is it unreasonable to sound the alarm when faced with antisocial and dangerous behavior?

[hack89]

73. Ok. Nt

[Straw Man]

99. Your interpretation is flawed.

The shooter in El Paso did not commit any crime until he pulled the trigger. His intent was unknowable until he opened fire. Nevertheless, he was an imminent peril the moment he got out of his car. If someone had warned the people in the area, maybe there would have been fewer deaths.

He began firing immediately upon exiting his car. The first victims were in the parking lot. The window for the supposed "warning" would have been mere seconds.

Someone perpetrating a mass shooting doesn't sling up his rifle and wander around the store for a while before opening fire. It just doesn't happen that way.

[stopdiggin]

72. don't think "carry" is very smart .. but your insistence on imminent danger is strained (IMO)

"No state legislature has said that a person stalking the aisles of Walmart openly carrying a weapon does not pose a danger to others."

Have to say that the implication is pretty clear that they ARE saying something like that. And also arming teachers in the classroom, etc., etc. Once again, not too smart .. but they are clearly rendering a judgement on public safety. Aren't they?

[Codeine]

67. If people are open-carrying in Walmart

and nobody else is yelling “GUN!” but instead going about their business then your reaction clearly isn’t indicative of “reasonable” behavior.

[Kaleva]

62. You could open yourself up to a civil lawsuit

If your actions led to property damage, others suffering injuries or even death.

[Initech]

8. This is why we can't have nice things.

[Straw Man]

9. I find it odd ...

... that people feel so threatened by open carry, when on a daily basis they probably encounter multiple people carrying concealed, either legally or illegally.

[Judi Lynn]

10. How could they be upset by encountering someone carrying a concealed gun?

They wouldn't know about it, unless the A-hole tells them about it.

I'm having a hard time seeing how that happens.

[Straw Man]

13. Umm .. that's kind of my point.

Why are they freaked out by the weapons they can see and not by the ones they can't? Do they think the latter aren't there? They are there -- all the time. Every day.

[elias7]

18. I don't understand your point

People are freaked out by open carry because GUN! I don’t agree with open or concealed carry, and I’d probably be similarly freaked IF I KNEW someone had a concealed weapon, but I’m not openly freaking because I don’t know it’s there.

People are freaked out by concealed carry. It just that the weapon is, you know, concealed.

People who conceal are also exhibiting some degree of sensitivity and discretion that open carry people do not seem to have. The very ego needs that drive someone to open carry raise concern to me, an open carry freaker, that this person is not a healthy or stable person. Simply put, I fear someone showing me they have a gun because they are well aware that it is intimidating and they DON’T GIVE A SHIT.

[lagomorph777]

30. +1 We need to stop letting assholes carry guns around in public. It's a flagrant threat.

It's irrelevant whether you are flaunting it or sneaking it. It's a gun and has no place among decent people in public.

[hack89]

43. The dangerous ones will carry in public regardless of any law.

the people that actually obey the law were never a threat to begin with. As a society, we need to get serious about violent people and actually do something about them before they kill.

[lagomorph777]

75. That will make it much easier to identify them and get them off the street.

If you outlaw flagrant or sneaky carry, then only outlaws will do it, and they become conspicuous.

[hack89]

76. The dangerous ones conceal carry and are therefore not conspicuous.

not much of a future in drawing attention to an illegal gun.

[lagomorph777]

77. They will set off metal detectors.

And as a previous poster pointed out, the mere presence of a gun makes people more aggressive. In the concealed case, the one smuggling the gun would be first affected, but it colors and degrades that persons interactions with those around him, and generally infects the tone of society.

[hack89]

86. You are completely missing my point

I am talking about illegal concealed carry - the kind that criminals, crazy people and other violent folks tend to do. The people that intend to do you harm will carry gun regardless of any law.

Besides airports and government buildings, where are all these metal detectors you are talking about?

[lagomorph777]

88. I don't think we'll be able to find common ground on this issue.

I consider most of today's uses for guns to be immoral and foolish. Clearly you don't.

[hack89]

94. I have owned guns for 35 years

I have never harmed a living thing. I shoot at targets - how can that possibly be immoral?

[lagomorph777]

95. That would fall in the "not immoral" category.

Those who amass armories of guns as porn, carry guns around in public, and insist that the 2nd Amendment trumps the 1st Amendment, are acting immorally.

[Straw Man]

44. Here's the thing:

You can safely assume that you are surrounded by weapons whenever you go out in public. Just because you don't see them, that doesn't mean they aren't there. So to suddenly freak out because you see an unconcealed weapon is illogical. You are in no more jeopardy then you were before.

Open vs. concealed is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't proposition. Some people think concealed carry is sneaky and underhanded, robbing them of the ability to exercise the choice to take themselves out of proximity to the weapon. Others say open carry is provocative and aggressive.

Your last premise is flawed because the person who is open-carrying to make a political point, no matter how obnoxiously, is far less dangerous to you than the person who is concealed-carrying for a criminal purpose.

[Hoyt]

78. Do you carry? Personally, I think carrying period should be banned except in rare instances.

Paranoid/scared people, racists, bullies, etc., should not be carrying guns in public.

Lock em up, if they do. I'm also for requiring sensors in gunz to help detect the deviants.

[Straw Man]

81. What you think really doesn't matter.

What's codified in law is what counts.

Paranoid/scared people, racists, bullies, etc., should not be carrying guns in public.

Assuming that this was even quasi-legal under the Constitution, could you suggest a practical method for screening for those traits?

Lock em up, if they do. I'm also for requiring sensors in gunz to help detect the deviants.

There's already a thing called a "metal detector" that provides that function. Or were you thinking of satellite tracking, or some similar Security State fantasy?

[Hoyt]

89. If one carries a gun in public, especially in cities, it's pretty clear they are

irrational, a bully, or a racist.

In fact, those wanting to protect toting, AR15 style rifles, etc., with all the killing going on, is difficult to fathom. Although a Catch-22, anyone wanting to tote or purchase an assault style weapon, should have to undergo an exhaustive mental evaluation.

[Straw Man]

90. Pretty clear? Uh ... no.

Again, that's one person's rather distorted opinion. As such, it should never be the basis for public policy.

[Hoyt]

91. Your gunner perspective -- can't live without gunz -- is a bit distorted, as well.

[Straw Man]

92. I could live quite well without "gunz" [sic].

But there is no valid legal, ethical, or moral reason that I should have to. Shall we discuss that?

[Hoyt]

93. Nope. Your gunz are more important than what is best for society.

No need to discuss, with that attitude.

[Straw Man]

96. Please don't presume to tell me what I believe.

You don't know me any more than you know what is "best for society."

No need to discuss, with that attitude.

If you have no interest in discussion, one wonders why you frequent a "discussion forum."

[Crunchy Frog]

49. Why aren't people freaked out by the knowledge

That there are genitals concealed under the clothing of pretty much everyone?

I mean, considering that most of them would freak out if they saw someone walking around in public pantless.

[TheBlackAdder]

66. Two guys, one has their pants zipper closed, while the other opens it and exposes themself 😂

.

No one is alarmed by the first guy, as all guys carry.

The second one, the open-carrying one, draws alarm.

.

[Cerridwen]

19. A large body of psychological research on the 'weapons effect' (edited twice)

Mere sight of a gun makes police – and public – more aggressive, experts say

Psychology may give some clues. For decades psychologists have looked for evidence that weapons affect behavior, and a large body of research has borne out their suspicions: simply seeing a weapon – whether a sword, hand grenade, tank or gun – makes people more aggressive.

Speaking to the Guardian, Ohio State psychology professor Brad Bushman said that research has shown humans respond as quickly to guns as to spiders and snakes, though unlike that impulse the effect must be at some level learned.

“Weapons increase all of those aggressive thoughts, feelings, hostile appraisals and the type of thinking that somebody’s out to get you, or wants to hurt you,” Bushman said.

Aggressive impulses can sometimes be strong enough to override common sense, studies have found. Confronted with a pickup truck driver who had stalled at a green light, drivers in one 2006 study were more likely to honk at the pickup with a rifle than they were at the pickup without a rifle. The study developed a similar 1975 experiment that also included a bumper sticker reading “vengeance”.

“You’d have to be complete idiot to honk your horn,” Bushman said, “but that’s the power about the weapons effect, people don’t think about it much. The effects are very automatic.”

edit: hit post too soon

2nd edit: coffee starting kick in. There is a lot more at the link.

[mapol]

26. Open carrying is beyond stupid--and irresponsible, imho.

people feel so threatened by open carry, when on a daily basis they probably encounter multiple people carrying concealed, either legally or illegally.

It's one thing for cops and other law-enforcement people, as well as security personnel, to carry closed guns--on a legal basis. Open carrying whether it be on a legal or illegal basis is beyond stupid--and irresponsible, to boot. When people openly carry guns, there's more of a chance of it going off accidentally, and either seriously injuring or killing somebody. I've never encountered any ordinary citizen/civilian, or any cop or other law-enforcement person openly carrying guns, and never hope to.

[VOX]

61. Open-carry is a (white) male power statement, designed to intimidate others.

Legal concealed carry isn’t as immediate a concern, since there’s no interest in visual intimidation.

I do feel threatened by open carry, but not in a way one might think. I look at this issue and see an addiction problem: too many military-style weapons in the hands of individuals whose grip on reality is skewed and possibly tenuous— it’s like bringing a dystopian future into the present. The real threat lies in the fucked-up, paranoid attitude of the average open-carry freak. YouTube is well stocked with videos of 2nd Amendment obsessives wandering the streets with ARs, hoping for an encounter with law enforcement, so they can spout off about their “rights” on camera.

I don’t wish to live in a country where citizens are so paranoid that they themselves are the actual problem.

[Straw Man]

84. Well ...

I don’t wish to live in a country where citizens are so paranoid that they themselves are the actual problem.

... vis-a-vis the gun control vs. gun rights contretemps, the old maxim that "it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you" would seem to apply. Talk of bans sells rifles and spurs protest. Ironic, ain't it?

[Codeine]

69. Name checks out. nt

[Straw Man]

80. Back atcha. nt

[dalton99a]

11. Don't complain about your food - Shut up and eat!

[StarryNite]

14. Gawd 'N' Gunz

Looks like a twisted Norman Rockwell painting.

[mapol]

28. At least this waitress has the good sense to put her gun in a holster.

I don't advocate letting people openly carry guns in public places, but at least this waitress has the good common sense to keep her gun in a holster.

[Codeine]

70. Jesus, I used to live in that town. nt

[StarryNite]

15. 18-year-old arrested after gun accidentally fires in Buckeye Walmart

18-year-old arrested after gun accidentally fires in Buckeye Walmart

"An 18-year-old man was arrested and is facing multiple charges after a .45-caliber gun discharged in his pocket while he was inside a Buckeye Walmart store, police said Monday."


[link:https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/southwest-valley/2019/09/09/18-year-old-maurice-eugene-weaver-arrested-after-gun-accidentally-fires-buckeye-walmart/2267829001/|

[mapol]

31. What a stupid idiot this guy is!

First of all, 18 is old enough to realize the dangers of openly carrying a gun in public places.

Secondly, this was an accident just waiting to happen, even before it occurred.

Thirdly, when that gun accidentally went off, it could've seriously injured or killed other people.

Fourth, That guy deserved to be arrested and thrown in the can for awhile.

[SidDithers]

58. The gun didn't accidentally fire...

You lose the right to have an “accident” when you’re carrying a firearm. Call it what it was - a negligent discharge.

Sid

[Crunchy Frog]

63. Not an accidental firing, rather a negligent discharge.

The gun humpers refuse to even use the language of personal responsibility.

[sl8]

21. Do Texas Walmarts display a "30.07" sign?

If not, it would seem that they're not all that serious about eliminating open carry in their stores.

("30.06" section is similar, but applies to concealed carry)

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-30-07.html

[...]

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent;  and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

(c) In this section:

(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b) .

(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f) .

(3) “Written communication” means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following:  “Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly”;  or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height;  and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder openly carries the handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035 .

(f) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the handgun was carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

(g) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as defined by Section 46.01 .

[...]

[dalton99a]

34. Nope.

[elocs]

24. It's a "request", what's to test? n/t

[Straw Man]

46. If they haven't taken the steps to legally ban firearms ...

... from their premises, then it becomes a trespassing offense. All they can do is ask you to leave. If you refuse to comply, then you can charge them with trespassing.

[spanone]

27. Next step Walmart: JUST BAN THE FUCKING GUNS FROM YOUR STORES.

NO GUNS ALLOWED. PERIOD.

[Ohiogal]

32. Yes! If Costco can do it, why can't Walmart?

[mapol]

35. Thanks, Ohiogal!

This:

Yes! If Costco can do it, why can't Walmart?

is a damned good question, Ohiogal! Way to go--well said! Thanks!

For all kinds of reasons, I never shop at Wal*Mart anyhow, but the fact that anybody can carry guns while shopping in Wal*Mart has given me even more of a reason not to.

[mapol]

33. That's the best suggestion yet, spanone!

This:

NO GUNS ALLOWED. PERIOD.

is the very best suggestion yet! Thank you, spanone!

[dalton99a]

38. +1. All they have to do is attach a sign

[Johnny2X2X]

36. I always wonder if someone thinks about cracking their skulls

Seriously, you see someone with a gun strapped to them at a grocery store, their intentions are likely to kill people. I'm surprised that occasionally someone doesn't grab a hatchet off the shelf and sneak up behind them and give them a hard wack to the heck to kill them before they start shooting.

Open carry is just a way to try to scare people, that's what it is.

[bluestarone]

37. Why don't these hot shots with guns try this shit

In a court house or Congress?? I'll tell you why, because they KNOW they can't! So the difference is Walmart and others have no signs on the building stating NO GUNS ALLOWED! If walmart was serious THAT'S what they have to do. They are creating MORE of a problems if they don't do this!

[dvan]

40. A "friend" of mine used to do this

kind of shit... carry his assault rifle around in places he knew he could get away with it. He would open his front door in his underwear and walk out to his front yard carrying his AR. A couple of months ago, he went over to his sister’s house, killed her, shot 3 other people (they survived), then shot himself, leaving his niece motherless and his 2 kids fatherless. These asshats are just scared little boys with fragile egos.

[mountain grammy]

45. fucking assholes.

[randr]

53. It never was about law and order

It is about the right to be an asshole

[guillaumeb]

55. Who "needs" to carry a weapon when shopping?

[VOX]

68. Useless white dudes don't want to lose the power to wag their surrogate dicks in public.

Because it’s all about the ability to intimidate, to have the power and immediate importance that possessing and publicly “showing off” military-style weapons can impart to weak minds.

Those weapons define those who cling to them. It reveals a desperate need to be “important,” to matter. “Look at me! I’m holding the power of death right here! I could cancel you out in a split second!”

How ignorant and fragile they are.

[Midnight Writer]

82. There you go. i live in a rural, heavily armed area. I know lots of gun humpers very well.

They love freaking out people with their guns, and speak openly about it.

It is a display, a show of aggression.

An example. A neighbor made an insurance claim for weather damage to his home. A claims adjuster showed up and began looking around his house. Knowing full well who the man was, my neighbor got his shotgun, went out and confronted the man. Made him get on his knees, raise his hands, and show his ID. My neighbor tells this story as a humorous anecdote. 'I thought he was gonna piss his pants!"

[raccoon]

98. What a sadistic dipshit. Nt

[rockfordfile]

71. These gun nuts are idiots. The fact they think it's ok to carry a gun into any store.

There's no reason to carry a gun into a store. That is a mental problem.

[Newest Reality]

79. Public Relations

Public relations stunts like that will not save lives. They seem to encourage and challenge the promiscuous gun-toters to do a run on their stores just to prove a point, so without a legal sign and ban at each entrance, these vapid attempts to appear to be pro-active could do more harm than good. The PR is more like bait.

I apply that to all the retailers that now plan to follow suit and I don't think that efforts to placate people who are concerned about this are even respectable. The response should be similar to what I have pointed out.