• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

Target under fire for no-guns request - The Galveston County Daily News : Blogs

October 21, 2014

Target under fire for no-guns request

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

29 comments:

  • gecroix posted at 2:29 pm on Mon, Jul 14, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    I agree with rah.
    It's a tremendous responsibility, and anyone choosing to do so needs to committ themselves to a detailed and thorough study and practice of when and how NOT to use the weapon carried, when an alternative exists, and to walk away sooner than you might otherwise do, when doing so doesn't really matter anyway.
    About 99% of the time, your cell phone, or your feet, leaving, are a better alternative than the use of your weapon.
    Practice, practice, practice, too, so if ever called upon to use deadly force, you can do so effectively, and safely for the innocent. Better to buy a cheaper weapon and more ammo to practice with, if funds are limited.
    Actually, though, I've found the folks I knwo who carry to be significantly 'cooler' when doing so than when not.
    It's that personal responsibility thingy that so many of us take very seriously...

     
  • rah posted at 10:23 am on Mon, Jul 14, 2014.

    rah Posts: 144

    Carrying a gun is truly bad for those who already have issues containing their anger.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 9:19 pm on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3592

    The "need" to pack a gun while assembling though day-to-day life is exhibitive of a psychosocial paranoia disorder. It's simply the constant fear that someone is always behind you and ready to rob you. Plus a childish "cowboy and Indian" need to look macho and have a gun on your side.

    Thank you, Target, for asking that the ignorant masses put their toys (guns) away while coming in to shop for life's necessities. Paranoia breeds paranoia, and Target is on the road to breaking such an unhealthy cycle.

    As for carlos' question....I have often wondered that too regarding westerns' common practice of turning in guns in public places: courtrooms, jails, saloons, stores. They did it correctly. Haven't we all been in these stores where a customer gets frustrated, quibbles over an expired coupon or a sale that's no longer in effect, or a "faulty" item - yet he/she already opened the package? Oftentimes it's the rude salesperson, often it's the unreasonable customer. Yet and still, I for one, am glad that many of us still don't feel the need to go to the five-and-dime armed to the gills. They didn't do that in "Andy Griffith". Only Andy and Barney Fife had their guns.

     
  • gecroix posted at 11:58 am on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    So, how is Tom doing thse days?
    With the new renewal rules, I haven't seen him in a while...[beam]

    The lesson I remember best passed on long ago was to leave your NRA and Second Amendment and firearms related motif clothing at home.
    Because the folks who are in the know don't need to be reminded, the folks who don't know either don't care or will just get overwrought, and the bad guys will shoot you first.
    Good advice...

     
  • charlotte_merten posted at 10:18 am on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    charlotte_merten Posts: 2

    I think the final statement, "most people who shop at Target aren't toting guns," says a lot. Those of us with concealed handguns, with a CHL, aren't showing our guns. That's for our safety, as well as everybody around us. I carry and my goal isn't to let everyone in the store know that I do. My goal is to protect myself in case some nutcase opens fire in the store randomly, or I am the target of a thief in the parking lot. Will the new rule stop me from shopping Target? Not if they have something I'm specifically looking for and know they are the only ones who carry it. If there is a sign posted on the door saying no firearms, I will honor the sign, as I don't wish to get a ticket. I'm a 58 year old woman that needs some peace of mind that when I go out in public that I can indeed defend myself if needed. That's my reason for my CHL, and I don't consider myself any different than other people around me. You'd be VERY surprised who carries in your midst. When we took our CHL class, the first thing our teacher did was ask us how many guns we thought he had on him. We looked him over and said maybe 2. He had 7! Concealed is the word, not to be marching through the stores with guns strapped to our backs. Please know that those people do NOT represent all CHL holders.

     
  • gecroix posted at 9:53 am on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Nurse, I'm trained in the appropriate use of firearms, too.
    As are millions of other honest, law abiding, good citizens of this country.
    That should give you additional comfort.
    I have some Policeman buddies that I outshot regularly at the range.
    Perhaps you meant trained in law enforcement, instead.
    And, when I need their care, I don't figure my nurse is a flake or a full blown incompetent nut, just because I had one in '86 who gave me the wrong medicine, and things got pretty dicey, for me, for a while...
    You might also note that there are hundreds of thousands of good citizens in this state alone, millions nationwide, who have 'insisted on having a gun in their hands', and have never 'taken the law into their own hands'.
    Concealed carry is a great success everywhere it's in place, even for those who choose not to do so, because the violent crime rate goes down. Not up.
    Can you name a single advocate for open carry who has said they want to be a police force unto themselves? One? Unless you can, how do they 'seem to' want to do that?
    For one thing, legal open carry of a long arm in Texas is nothing new. Been around all my life. Personally, though, I see limited use for it.
    And would never, absent some emergency situation, walk around in a store or crwod of people with one of my longarms slung over my shoulder. I do not want to be the most visible target and first person shot if one of the loons decieds to take their childhood frustrations out on everybody else.
    I also see no point at all in scaring people who are going to be scared no matter what, when it's not necessary to do so, and I can be right beside them armed well, and they don't even know it.
    And, neither does anyone of ill intent....
    NOTICE: Nurse Jayne was NOT, I say NOT the one who nearly offed me. At least, her name wasn't Jayne....so I'm assuming not.....[wink]

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:44 am on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2525

    Question for Western Historians. In a lot of westerns, movie and television, I see saloons and bars where you had to hand over your firearms and retrieve them upon exiting the establishment. Was this historically accurate or an attempt by script writers to promote "gun control" to its audience? In some Westerns you even had to hand over your gun upon entering some towns. I'm willing to bet this wasn't true but they conveyed the law was on the books "'cause the women wanted it".

     
  • NurseJayne posted at 8:17 am on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    NurseJayne Posts: 343

    Why does this bother me? Because those who advocate open carry seem to want to look away from state and federal laws and be a police force unto themselves.

    Take Chris Davis, for example. Cited at the Open Carry demonstration in San Antonio, he's now at the border threatening to shoot anyone who steps over the line.

    They start by insisting on having a gun in their hands.... and then they quickly take the LAW into their own hands, too.

    I saw someone in Target yesterday with a gun. It didn't make me nervous, though, as it was a police officer, trained in the appropriate use of firearms.

     
  • NurseJayne posted at 8:13 am on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    NurseJayne Posts: 343

    Because we are supposed to have separation of church and state. We cannot use public schools to promote Christianity.

    A business has the right to refuse service to anyone, especially those carrying military weapons.

     
  • NurseJayne posted at 8:12 am on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    NurseJayne Posts: 343

    If people have the right to religious freedom, how can a company use religion to deny those people health care? A company is not a person and should not have the right to use religion to deny benefits.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 1:16 pm on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2525

    "And one of those the previous village idiot president W Bush, passed a law allowing executive orders."
    Executive Orders have been issued since George W. That's short for GEORGE WASHINGTON who issued 8 executive orders. John Adams-1,Thomas Jefferson -4, James Madison -1 and so on. Recent history: Bill Clinton - 364, George W. Bush - 291, Barack Obama to date 182. As long as they are issued within LEGAL guidelines there is no problem.
    Donnie B, I'd tell you to quit while you're ahead but you were never in it.

     
  • DonnieB posted at 6:55 am on Wed, Jul 9, 2014.

    DonnieB Posts: 53

    Obviously you need to educate yourself beyond fruitcake websites and FOX (opinionated) news! There are somethink called AMENDMENTS to the Constitution. And one of those the previous village idiot president W Bush, passed a law allowing executive orders. So guess what, that makes it legal! I guess they forgot to tell you that on FOX didn't they! If you want to go after the president, make it Bush for passing the law! And I guess what I wrote was real beyond your education to understand. Let me try explain it easier for you. The president has proposed a bill on immigration, which was passed by the senate, and sent to the house. But the republican refuse to do anything on it, the same republicans the Sarah Palin supports. So the president has threatened to take legal action of his own if they want to act like spoiled brats! And then this brillant person, Sarah Palin, now say that the president is not doing anything on immigration and we should impeach him. For one, that sounds like a little spoiled kid saying he will call the cops on mom because they didn't get pizza. lol And thats not even grounds for impeachment. She was a governor and she should know the legal steps! Also, he IS taking action, but the like minded republican to Sarah Palin refuse to do anything....Just do me a favor and write in Sarah Palin for president! Because according to you, the majority of america believe exactly the way you do! LOL As long as people believe and talk the way you do, there will ALWAYS be a Democrat president!!!! The right wing media has PLAYED YOU so WELL! HAHAHA

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 6:18 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2525

    DonnieB, there is a distinction between what a president may do and what a president may not do under the Constitution of the United States. Sarah Palin knows that President Obama may take LEGAL steps to strengthen border security. Primary among them is ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! I wonder what you learned in Civics. I hope you did not use Saul Alinsky's book for a text.

     
  • gecroix posted at 6:15 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
    ― George Carlin

    I don't know why it came to mind....[beam][beam][beam]

     
  • DonnieB posted at 3:50 pm on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    DonnieB Posts: 53

    I have seen the funniest story of all now, and have to point out the intelligence of the right wing. I just read where Sarah Palin is calling impeachment of the president for inaction on border security and immigration. She wants to impeach him because he's not doing anything. LOL! But yet, the speaker of the house is asking tax payers to pay to have a bill submitted calling for a lawsuit against the president, because he wants to use executive orders to take action on border security if the Republicans (mostly tea party) refuse to take action on border security. So while the president is threating to take action if the tea party refuses to do anything, Sarah Palin (the originator of the tea party) is calling for impeachment because she says he's not doing anything. LOL, LOL, LOL! I mean WOW, this tops this Target argument! I thought it was a lack of intelligence factor, but this goes over the top. LOL Please oh please let her run for office again! Her and Boehner! They would be like to little tornadoes so lost they wouldn't know which way was up! And no I won't respond to any comments! If you try to argue this, you should be helping Sarah Palin with the impeachment! LOL

     
  • Jake Buckner posted at 10:32 am on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 1675

    Exactly.

     
  • qball posted at 9:07 am on Tue, Jul 8, 2014.

    qball Posts: 3

    Anyone that knows me, knows that I am a supporter of the 2nd ammendment and I am a supporter of Texas Concealed Handgun Laws. I also support a businesses right to request that firearms not be brought onto their property. Even more so, I support my right not to do business with them. I have a CHL, Ive been through a thorough background check, had fingerprints run, took a CHL course and train to be safe and proficient with my firearms. I have gone through the legal process to carry a firearm. Am I the one you need to worry about? On the other hand, if someone has not done this (other than a peace officer) and carries a firearm, they are breaking the law. Target, ask yourself, if these people are not abiding by laws that can land them in jail, do you think they will really honor your request to keep them out of your store? Target, if you do post the legal signage, you will only be preventing the law abiding CHL holder from carrying a firearm, not the person you truly need to worry about.

     
  • TrebleClef posted at 12:25 pm on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    TrebleClef Posts: 312

    As a CHL holder, I do (most times) carry while shopping. I am however, uncomfortable where people are openly carrying high powered rifles. Problem for me is, you never know when a crazy person is going to show up among these and start shooting for the hell of it. It has happened and will happen again. CHL holders have not stopped any of them. In fact, one CHL holder (in Las Vegas) got himself killed trying to intervene. There must be a better way to exercise ones rights than to walk around with an AK 47 during these times. May be legal but it makes little sense.

    I grew up during a time where one could take his rifle to school and leave it in the book closet because you and friends were going rabbit hunting after school.

     
  • paul-hyatt posted at 11:24 am on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    paul-hyatt Posts: 233

    I for one feel much safer not being in a "gun free" zone. Criminals have not shown the ability to read the laws nor obey them, so why would anyone in their right minds deny honest law abiding citizens who have a CHL the right to protect themselves from criminals. I have stopped going to businesses that are into social engineering like Star Bucks, Chiptole now Target and any others that I find that want to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

     
  • paul-hyatt posted at 11:20 am on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    paul-hyatt Posts: 233

    From reading your posts it would seem as though you hate our Constitution just like our president does.

     
  • gecroix posted at 10:54 am on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Until, and unless, Target in this state posts the legal version of the Texas Criminal Code 30.06 statute, OR asks you personally, face to face, to leave their store if you are carrying, they have deprived you of nothing, and you are legally permitted to enter their store armed, in accordance with applicable laws.
    What they HAVE done is shown where they stand ideologically, if not yet fully financially....so often the two are at odds...[wink]. Spend your money accordingly.
    As to the Hillary Clinton talking points, et al hyper hysterical hyperbole floating about, the Supreme Court did not deny anyone anything in the Hobby Lobby decision, except the employees of those stores, only, to not have their Plan B pills paid for by that company. They can still get regular birth control pills paid for, or they can go spend their own money to buy Plan B.
    The SC decision does not take away anyones contraceptives. That's just being repeated by a range of folks from simply disconnected up to plain old goofy and on to outright liars.
    Here's two things to ponder - if Target doesn't provide at their expense Aspirin and Tums for employees, does that mean they want to take away all over the counter meds (like, ahem...contraceptives...? Plan B is an abortifacient, and will ultimately destroy a fertilized egg (otherwise known as LIFE).Secondly, while the act of abortion is a 'legal right', making somebody else pay for it is not. You want to kill your offspring for no reason but convenience, kill them on your own dime(s), not the taxpayers, and not a company that doesn't condone infanticide.
    Actually, I'm thinking a lot of conservatives wish that a whole lot more people used contraceptives instead of killing their babies after conception.
    I certainly do.

     
  • srjh2 posted at 9:31 am on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    srjh2 Posts: 4

    No one has the RIGHT force others pay for their birth control, No one is denying anyone ACCESS to birth control drugs, they just need to pay for it themselves. Hard working Americans are tiring of being forced by a lawless president to pay for other peoples existence who can pay their own way. Look, everyone understands that some people need help once in a while, but entitlements should never be a lifestyle.
    People do have a RIGHT to freedom of religion, speech, and To KEEP & BEAR arms as stated in our Bill of Rights.
    Utopians please read and understand our Constitution & Bill of Rights.

     
  • GlenKrajca-Radcliffe posted at 7:08 am on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    GlenKrajca-Radcliffe Posts: 9

    And while we are at it the Supreme Court says the 35 ft buffer zone at abortion clinics is illegal while it hides behind its own buffer zone that prevents persons from being in the 252x94 feet plaza meaning the closest you can get is 98 ft.

     
  • GlenKrajca-Radcliffe posted at 7:01 am on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    GlenKrajca-Radcliffe Posts: 9

    So let's see the consensus seems to be it is OK for a company to deny certain drugs to their employees based on supposed religious grounds. But it isn't OK for a company to request that shoppers not openly carry weapons no matter what the reason is. And oh btw abortion is a legal right srjh2 but the Right wants to deny women their rights (your comment on Target denying you exercising your rights).

     
  • srjh2 posted at 6:35 am on Mon, Jul 7, 2014.

    srjh2 Posts: 4

    Target has lost my business, I will not spend my money at any business that does not allow me to exercise my legal rights.I am so sick of all these wimpy politically correct establishments like Target, Starbucks, and others.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:26 pm on Sun, Jul 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2525

    Question is will all "gangsters', "wanna-be gangsters", thieves, and other hooligans honor Target's request? If a simple sign requesting "No-guns" works then what's wrong with posting a sign in schools with the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?

     
  • gecroix posted at 6:56 pm on Sun, Jul 6, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Target is trying to be the quivalent of 'a little bit pregnant'.
    Either post the 30.06, or don't.
    Potential customers on either side of the issue might well review the type of location where mass shootings usually occur, and decide for themselves.
    I have no animosity toward anyone deciding not to carry, as long as they leave me alone about it, and follow the law, just like I have to do.
    BUT, I will shop elsewhere, if possible, simply because I see no reason to reward with my money a business that assumes I'm a threat to them, while in reality CREATING a greater threat for their shoppers. Pretty near a can't fix it situation...
    As for Open Carry Texas, or Open Carry Anywhere, I'm all for freedom and the Second Amendment, and thankfully living in a state that recognizes both. But, I offer the simple and factual observation that you will NEVER make some people comfortable in the presence of firearms, but you WILL make some people ambivalent about firearms now decide to go into the anti camp. Fear, real or imagined, is a POWERFUL force. Perhaps a little soul searching about the vast difference between what one can do vs what one should do is in order here. That, plus the tactical fact that unless you HAVE to carry openly, like the Police or Military, all a private citizen does by doing so is practically guarantee that they will be the first person shot by some nut case intent upon mayhem, and undeterred by the sight of a firearm.
    That PLUS the fact that I, and I'd guess most folks able to do so, would pick YOU out as someone to keep an eye on, based on my personal assessment of poor judgement shown, legal poor judgement, topped with the ability out front right there in the open to exercise it further, possibly. Ever watch that Chuck Norris movie where two robbers walk into a bar with shotguns, and before they can level their weapons, about 50 handguns are pointed at them...because it's a cop bar?
    I figure, though, the open carry folks vs concealed carry folks is like going bear hunting with a fat guy, because then you only have to outrun the fat guy, not the bear, to keep from being eaten...[wink]
    While I applaud your legal right to exercise your Second Amendment rights, I choose to do so more discreetly, and perhaps win some converts, not create more grist for the anti-gun news cycles mills...
    imho

     
  • 230islandgirl posted at 5:41 pm on Sun, Jul 6, 2014.

    230islandgirl Posts: 1

    I would respect Target's request, it is their right as a business to make requests. But, it doesn't bother me for legal licensed carriers to have a concealed gun while shopping. Sometimes crazy people break out and hurt people in these places. I would rather have a fighting chance than be a sitting duck. Still not sure about the open carry. I would think toting a long gun around while shopping wouldn't be very common.

     
  • Jake Buckner posted at 5:02 pm on Sun, Jul 6, 2014.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 1675

    "So, do you normally pack heat while shopping? Does it bother you if others do? Does the thought of someone walking down the aisles of Target with a rifle make you jittery? Will you respect the request? Or would such a request inspire you to stop shopping Target altogether?"

    1) When my license is current, I carry when shopping. (Right now it's expired.)
    2) I feel safer knowing others around me are carrying, so no, it doesn't bother me.
    3) Being around openly carried firearms makes me feel safer, not jittery.
    4) I would not respect the request if my license were current. If they don't want people to carry, they should post compliant signage. If they posted the signage I wouldn't like it, but I'd honor it.
    5) Request or no request, I will continue to shop at Target. I feel an individual or a company has the right to make at least some of the rules on their own property. I prefer Target for certain products, and I wouldn't let one of their rules get in the way of my obtaining those products.