Adventist Online

2 July 2014 Last updated at 16:04 ET

Target to customers: No guns in our stores please

US retail giant Target has asked customers not to bring guns into its stores, after Texas gun rights activists demonstrated in a Texas shop with rifles slung over their shoulders.

CEO John Mulligan said guns were at odds with its family atmosphere.

Many US states allow people to carry guns in some fashion, but businesses may ban them.

Gun control activists applauded the new rule, coming as many states loosen laws restricting the carrying of firearms.

"[We] respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target - even in communities where it is permitted by law," Target CEO John Mulligan wrote in a statement on the company's corporate blog.

"We've listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved," he added. "Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so.

'Horrified'

"Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create."

Target - which operates more than 1,700 stores in the US - now joins fellow large retail chains Starbucks and Chipotle in disallowing guns inside their establishments.

National advocacy group Moms Demand Action applauded the decision on Wednesday, noting it had gathered 400,000 signatures on a petition to persuade Target to ban guns.

"Moms everywhere were horrified to see images of people carrying loaded assault rifles down the same aisles where we shop for diapers and toys," Shannon Watts, the group's founder wrote in a statement.

"Target recognised that moms are a powerful customer base and political force - and you can respect the Second Amendment and the safety of customers at the same time."

Ms Watts was referring to a clause in the US constitution that gun rights activists say limits the government's authority to restrict firearms.

In mid-June, members of a group called Open Carry Texas demonstrated with rifles in a Dallas-area Target, garnering a rebuke from the National Rifle Association for their tactics.

US President Barack Obama has proposed several federal gun control measures in recent years - including tightening the background check system to make it harder for convicted criminals to buy guns - but Congress has declined to act under pressure from the powerful gun lobby.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday a Georgia law - known to detractors as the "Guns Everywhere law" - took effect that dramatically expands the locations in which people may carry guns in public. Those include pubs unless otherwise expressly banned by the proprietors, churches, unsecured areas of airports, and government buildings.

Views: 2281

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

My response.  Target is now completely responsible for the safety of its patrons.  Should they be robbed, assaulted, or shot by a criminal they should be held liable under a tort.  The first thing legal gun owners should do is simply boycott target.  For the most part, in Texas, they will be hurting for business.  They will probably loose several stores as a result of their rash decision making.  This sort of nonsense may play well back East.  However, Texas are hunters and growing up with firearms is almost ingrained in the DNA.  So, I say, don't shop there.  And if you do and are assault, sue.

I can't boycott Target, 'cause I don't shop there anyway.  They never have what I'm looking for, and if they do, the price is 20% higher than Wal-Mart.

Target does not write state law; carry anyway if you feel like it. The criminals do not obey store policy. I dont think there's a lot of crime in Target but some cities you never know. 

I as a general rule do not go where I feel it is not safe, including entire cities or certain states, unless it is a must. There's usually no need to. Plenty of safe places to live with no need to carry firearms.

What they can do is put up an official state sign that states no concealed carry is allowed on their premises.  Then, if you are caught, it turns into a mess.  There isn't a lot of crime at Target, however, Target just made themselves a "target" for criminals by publically announcing their policy.  Now, criminals know they have a safer set of victims.  Most criminals prey on the perceived weak.

My wife used to like to go to Target when we got into a city that had one.  No longer.

If I was forced to go to a Target, which it is hard to find a scenario where that would happen, I would go to the manager and explain to them, that they are now responsible for my safety in their store.  Should a criminal act be perpetrated against me due to their policy, I  would file a law suit.

However, as a rule, places that declare that they are an establishment that rolls out the welcome mat for criminals and seeks to disarm the law abiding, I don't do business with.

So basically what you are saying is that no allowed guns in any given area or less guns in the hand of civilians lead to more crimes?

If that is the case please give me some numbers which actually support this statement.

Not what you think is true but actual facts please.

Is there any study which even hints or proves that "less guns / restrictions of guns = more crime" is a correct statement?

There is no "official state sign" they can put up.  It will never be a crime to carry a firearm there.  It is a civil property issue.  The worst that can happen is that you are asked to leave and are banned from going on Target property in the future.  If you defy that request, you can be charged with trespass.

Just as I can tell people wearing tie-dye shirts to not come on my property, so can Target tell people with guns not to come on their property.  In either case, if someone defied the request, the police are called for trespassing.  Wearing tie-dye is not a crime.  In many places it is not a crime to carry a gun.  But Target is still able to exercise their property rights.

Actually, in Texas they are required to put up an official sign that they must obtain from the government of Texas stating officially that they do not allow concealed carry on their premises.  Otherwise, they cannot forbid it.

Learn and know your laws:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) 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:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(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 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; 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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a 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.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, Sec. 23, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.24, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

No state sign...

And just as added information:

Churches and places of religious worship are off limits for concealed carry as well:

Places Off-Limits Even With A Permit/License
Title 10 Chpt. 46 § 46.03

.....

In any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court.
*on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
*On the premises of a Hospital licensed under the Health and Safety Code

....

...

I know the law, I took a class.  You are making grand assumptions from Austria.  Come take a CCL  class in Texas and get an education.  Those who wish to ban firearms from their property must properly display and official sign citing the specific section of law.  Throwing up a cute poster board with some of the letters backward means nothing.

Sorry to inform you your understanding of the law is flawed.

the only official state signs are in regards to the 51% law section.

They look like this:

For a normal Sec 30.6 become force of law any sign following the outlined criteria in Sec 30.6 is valid. Looks like this if you print it at home:

Go ask your lawyer about it and maybe consider to retake that class you took you failed miserably. The "official state signs" are for Sec 46 outlined places not for private businesses which ban concealed carry and handguns under Sec 30.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm#30.06

Have a nice day.

I know the law.  As far as Texas CCL laws, you are as lost as last year's Easter egg.

LOL

You are so funny when you try to twist around. makes you look so funny.

Look what the Pro CCL Lobby states on their website:

"Private property owners are allowed to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns on their property if they provide proper legal notice of trespassing by a CHL holder with a concealed handgun given in compliance with Texas Penal Code §30.06. Notice may be given verbally or in writing with a statutory warning or by signage with the statutory warning in English and Spanish, in one inch high block letters posted in a conspicuous place."

https://www.texaslawshield.com/portal/texas-gun-law/

Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?

“YES”

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/texas.pdf

Read FAQ 31 + 32

 Do business owners have the right carry a handgun on their own property?

Yes. If the owner is on their own premises or premises under their control.

If you want to prohibit license holders from carrying concealed handguns on your property, state law requires you provide notice to potential trespassers, either orally or by posting a sign that says:
”Pursuant to Section 30.06,....

http://www.texaschl.us/faq.htm#ownercarry

Need more or did you just remember now that maybe a Sec 30.6 notice is valid in Texas and maybe you just accidentally mixed Sec 30.6 with Sec 46.03

Honest mistakes can happen you know..

Regards

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2021   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service