Target respectfully requests that you shop unarmed

[bilgerat57]

I didn't catch the entire article, just the headline while the wife was scrolling through, but apparently, the day after Target made their statement, a Target customer was robbed at gunpoint (I believe it was in the parking lot, not sure). Did anyone else catch that? I haven't had time to look for it. Might be interesting to see the liability level on that one since Target made a public statement about not allowing guns on premises.......

[mojo84]

I didn't catch the entire article, just the headline while the wife was scrolling through, but apparently, the day after Target made their statement, a Target customer was robbed at gunpoint (I believe it was in the parking lot, not sure). Did anyone else catch that? I haven't had time to look for it. Might be interesting to see the liability level on that one since Target made a public statement about not allowing guns on premises.......

I don't think there is any additional liability.

[C-dub]

That probably wouldn't fit because it doesn't appear to me that his intention is calculated to alarm anyone. It would probably more likely that he would be charged with intentional failure to conceal. Especially since no one was alarmed at the time he did it and the only way anyone found out was that he was dumb enough to post it online.

What do you think his intention was and how do you know no one was alarmed?

I don't alarm easily but if I saw this pinhead pull a piece in a dept store, alarmed wouldn't quite describe my feelings. This idiot shouldn't be allowed near a real gun. Or a child.

Calm down. I said it probably wouldn't fit because it doesn't appear that his intention was to alarm anyone. Meaning, those around him at the time. The reason I think that is because we likely would never have heard about this if he hadn't been dumb enough to post it online. There was no headline about him being arrested for it or that the SWAT team was called in to surround the place and make everyone come out one by one with their hands above their heads. And to me, it looks like he is trying to be a little discreet in these pictures, while being a dingleberry showing off his gun in Target. That's what it looks like to me. If that's not what it looks like to you that's okay. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. You might be right and I might be wrong. So what.

[Box]

I didn't catch the entire article, just the headline while the wife was scrolling through, but apparently, the day after Target made their statement, a Target customer was robbed at gunpoint (I believe it was in the parking lot, not sure). Did anyone else catch that? I haven't had time to look for it. Might be interesting to see the liability level on that one since Target made a public statement about not allowing guns on premises.......

I don't think there is any additional liability.

http://gunsnfreedom.com/0709-go-to-targ ... un-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mojo84]

I didn't catch the entire article, just the headline while the wife was scrolling through, but apparently, the day after Target made their statement, a Target customer was robbed at gunpoint (I believe it was in the parking lot, not sure). Did anyone else catch that? I haven't had time to look for it. Might be interesting to see the liability level on that one since Target made a public statement about not allowing guns on premises.......

I don't think there is any additional liability.

http://gunsnfreedom.com/0709-go-to-targ ... un-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing in that article leads me to believe Target is subject to any additional legal liability because they've requested people to not bring their guns in. Are you suggesting otherwise?

[asbandr]

I don't see why target should be liable for something happening after their announcement. For one thing, they haven't posted 30.06 or whatever would be required from other states. Secondly, it's still a person's decision to go in unarmed. Lastly, there's no way to prove this crime would not have occurred without the announce from target.

I think to try and hold target responsible would be the same as the anti's holding guns responsible for crime. Just as it is not the guns fault that an idiot pulled the trigger, it is not targets either.

This country needs to stop focusing so much on laws to "limit" crime and focus more on stricter consequences to having committed crime. I'm tired of seeing how a criminal gets off after posting a large bail, or gets out of jail early for good behavior. When my kids are grounded they are the best little guys in the world but not long after they are ungrounded they do the same thing that landed them in there in the first place.

Our justice system works on the premise of "innocent until proven guilty" but every time these stricter gun laws are passed it turns it around. We have to prove our innocence to remain free. That's why idiots like todd locey make me so angry.

[ShootDontTalk]

First of all, it's not a "right" until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court says it's a "right." That's the only opinion of the Constitution that matters.
Chas.

Charles...Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, but I find this a bit unusual.
1) The Constitution says this:

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This leads me to suggest that we the people pre-date our Constitution, which of course, establishes our form of government.

2) The Declaration of Independence states this about our rights:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"

I would conclude from this that our rights are granted by a pre-existent Creator. The powers of the government are granted by the governed. Our rights are to be secured by the Creator, enumerated in the Constitution, and protected by the powers we the people grant to our government.

Therefore, I might suggest that our rights are not granted, upheld, affirmed, or in any way justified by the decisions of the government which we the people created. The Constitution enumerates these rights which are not granted by the government we formed, but by the Creator Himself.To say that a right is not a right until and unless validated by the very instrument we the people created to protect the rights granted by the Creator seems to me to place the government above the governed and the Creator. If we turned the argument to the right of free speech, right of free assembly, or the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, for instance, would the government not be intruding on pre-existing rights if stated thus? Perhaps the addition of the word "exercise" of our rights in a free society would make it better? Just asking.

Respectfully
Pete

EDIT FIXED

[philip964]

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/07/armed-rob ... at-target/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Colin Noir posted this link on his Facebook page.

This chronicals the robberies at Target since the request for unarmed shoppers.

Target apparently states it will not put up signs prohibiting guns in there stores.

[The Annoyed Man]

First of all, it's not a "right" until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court says it's a "right." That's the only opinion of the Constitution that matters.
Chas.

Charles...Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, but I find this a bit unusual.
1) The Declaration of Independence says this:

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No it doesn't.

However, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States does say all that.

ShootDontTalk, basically, I agree with your premise, but here's the thing I would quibble with you over..... as a Christian myself, I agree that these rights are God-given. However, the founders were an eclectic bunch, including Christians, theists, agnostics, etc., and they realized that these rights had to be explainable as pertaining to them also. After all, how can an atheist who does not believe in a creator seriously claim rights established by a deity he doesn't even believe exists? So, the founders used a set of terms interchangeably, sometimes depending on who was speaking.... terms like "God-given", "nature's God", "natural rights", and so on. While I would never deny the Lord's involvement in this, others might, I think we need to be inclusive in our choice of terms so as to make it clear that these rights are universal, regardless of one's spiritual condition, simply because one lives and breathes.

[ShootDontTalk]

TAM. not sure what document you're referring to. Here is a transcript of the Declaration of Independence:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html


I understand the other parts of what you're saying, however a great many people have made a life's work of attempting to alter the simple wording of every document in our history. I know why, but that is not really the issue here. Regardless if their collective concept of a Creator was a little green man from Mars the issue is of pre-dating. That issue is hardly up for discussion by any serious scholar. The founding fathers had a simple view of history: Creator, creation, man, Declaration of Independence, Constitution, government, in that order.

EDIT: Aha....I mislabeled the first quote. Thanks for point it out.

[Keith B]

Get back on the issue or Target restricting open carry in their stores.

[mamabearCali]

I'd like to knock some sense into that Dad.

Rule #1 of OC. Don't play with your firearm. Unless you are going to shoot someone who needs shooting, don't touch it!

Rule #2 of OC. Have retention on your holster and keep your gun holstered.

Rule #3 if OC. Realize you are visible and that the manner in which you comport yourself reflects on the gun community as a whole. Don't act like an idiot or dress like a gangster. No showboating.

There are more rules, but those are the big three he broke in that picture.

As a person who would like to see more legal and normalized OC of handguns this type of stuff makes me want to .

I'm with you on the , and while I'm not against OC, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you'd want to. I understand carrying a defensive firearm but giving up the advantage of surprise that you get from CC seems counter-intuitive.

The idea is deterrence. That if a criminal is looking for a victim they are going to choose a soft target not a armed person to tangle with. I will say there are gives and takes to OC.

What is being done in TX with people acting stupid is not helping any of us. Our local target has no signs so far.

[Ânthony]

Somebody didn't get the message.

[steveincowtown]

I'd like to knock some sense into that Dad.

Rule #1 of OC. Don't play with your firearm. Unless you are going to shoot someone who needs shooting, don't touch it!

Rule #2 of OC. Have retention on your holster and keep your gun holstered.

Rule #3 if OC. Realize you are visible and that the manner in which you comport yourself reflects on the gun community as a whole. Don't act like an idiot or dress like a gangster. No showboating.

There are more rules, but those are the big three he broke in that picture.

As a person who would like to see more legal and normalized OC of handguns this type of stuff makes me want to .

I'm with you on the , and while I'm not against OC, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you'd want to. I understand carrying a defensive firearm but giving up the advantage of surprise that you get from CC seems counter-intuitive.

The idea is deterrence. That if a criminal is looking for a victim they are going to choose a soft target not a armed person to tangle with. I will say there are gives and takes to OC.

What is being done in TX with people acting stupid is not helping any of us. Our local target has no signs so far.

And it wouldn't matter if they did. Signs in VA have no force of law (IIRC), like many states.

You have to be asked to leave, and then not leave to be charged with a crime. Even then it is not a crime that will affect your right to carry.

VA and many other states are like this. But I am sure you know this already...

[mamabearCali]

I do know this, but in TX they carry the force of law. Anyway, if there is a sign I generally try to respect their wishes and take my business dollars elsewhere. But if they can't be bothered enough to put up a sign, I say carry on!

In VA if you don't leave when asked it becomes trespass offense. Just in case inquiring minds are curious.