search
top

Target’s Statement on Open Carry

From Target:

The leadership team has been weighing a complex issue, and I want to be sure everyone understands our thoughts and ultimate decision.

As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry” should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved. In return, we are asking for help in fulfilling our goal to create an atmosphere that is safe and inviting for our guests and team members.

This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.

So, they’ve made clearly that they will continue to follow local laws on the issue, and they are specifically targeting “open carry” in their statement. This goes to that carrying guns just to get attention is the problem.

It’s funny to read some of the “mommy” comments on the post. Most are pretty much in the “we’re declaring victory even though the said they would keep their same policy” category, but one woman seems to realize that the stores aren’t going to actually enact a real gun ban:

Nice request but when they show up carrying today, in droves, to protest your decision, what are you going to do? Will you ask them nicely to leave (they won’t) or will you have them removed from your private property?

UPDATE: There’s this article that notes an important statement from Target’s spokeswoman:

Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said the retailer will not post signs at its stores asking people not to bring guns inside. “It is not a ban,” she said. “There is no prohibition.”

90 Responses to “Target’s Statement on Open Carry”

  1. Tam says:

    will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

    Well, okay, Target.

    Unfortunately, my firearm is in the same pants as my wallet, which kinda sucks, because you were convenient.

    Since you asked politely, I will comply with your wishes and no longer bring any firearms into Target.

  2. Jim M says:

    If we understand that there are no unlimited rights on someone else’s property, and that if we want respect and recognition of our rights we must grant the same to others, we can have no problem with Target or other businesses with similar policies. Concealed carry and abiding by the law is the obvious answer. I understand and agree with Target’s policy, and I deplore the in-your-face actions of the open carriers, especially the long gun ones, whose behavior does nothing to help preserve our right to keep and bear arms, and gives a bad rep to all gun owners.

    • Tam says:

      I understand and agree with Target’s policy…

      What kind of car-mounted pistol lockbox do you use while shopping at Target? Asking for a friend.

      • Aces says:

        For me, being right-handed, I went with a GunVault MiniVault, mounted under the Driver’s seat, pointing towards the backseat. This works well, if you understand the Ergonomics of getting the pistol off and on you discreetly. I can sit down in the backseat, on the same side of the car as I drive on, with my feet out of the car at 90°. In this position, I can scan around to make sure no one is watching me, then unlock the box by braille, using my Right hand. I carry on strong-side in Kidney area (IWB holster). So my body naturally blocks the transfer of the pistol to/from the box.

        I do this usually twice a day during the work-week; because my employer has no understanding of what a safe work environment means. I find this type of lock box setup works really well. It’s important, BTW, that the box be bolted to the floor of the car. That way it won’t shift around when you drive, risking it to become visible (inviting a break-in). I was able to find a place to put a single bolt in; then glued Velcro hook material to the bottom of the vault. That way it can’t rotate about the single bolt.

      • Matthew Carberry says:

        In -my- little German coupe I have a Gunvault simple key-only clamshell, cabled to the underside of the passenger seat and kept on the passenger floor of the back seat.

        I can unholster *gasp*, reach back and put the gun and mags in, lock it and slide it out of view without changing position much.

        Definitely secure against a no tool smash and grab.

    • Allen says:

      Ahhhh. You’re one of the good ones.

  3. Dave says:

    You’re seeing what you want to see so that you can justify continuing to shop at target.

    But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

    • Tam says:

      Some people are having a hard time realizing that, yes, Target wants them in the back of the bus, too. Even us nice concealed carry people.

      The rifle OC crowd ruined it for everybody. Of course, now they’ll leave their rifles at home and keep shopping at Target like nothing happened.

      Thanks, clueless douchebags.

      • Dave says:

        that’s a little bit of revisionist history there. The fact is that Bloomberg’s groups have been selecting private companies to receive feedback since before Open carry was even on the blogosphere’s radar. They did it with Starbucks, chipotle, sonic, target and are actively targeting other private companies to basically make it impossible to carry firearms on private property.

        and get this – they’ve been doing this since before OCT was even formed !

        They have been generating outrage and delivering it to companies who will listen. We have been sitting on blogs complaining about OCT, open carry, the state of Texas, and anything else we can think of to make ourselves feel superior while the antis were -quite effectively – lobbying for a policy change.

        Their strategy was superior.
        that’s a bitter pill, but the fact is the other side beat us at a game we have traditionally owned.

        We can deny it, and continue to be defeated, or we can realize we got our butts kicked and fight back.

        • Allen says:

          Fight back how? Open carry of flamethrowers?

        • HSR47 says:

          Nonsense.

          OCT, and one-upmanship on circlejerk sites (like TTAG, and various fora) lost us starbucks.

          Even so, without OCT the bloomberg funded moms demanding attention were not able to successfully lobby corporations to change their policies to match….

          Until OCT went and handed the opposition all the ammunition it needed.

          You can try to excuse OCT all you want, but they fucked us, and they fucked us BIG time.

        • SPQR says:

          No, Dave, you are revising history. We were beating them at Starbucks until the rifle open carry guys decided that the tactic of bad-visual demonstration was just invented for Starbucks.

      • Renegade_Azzy says:

        Did they ruin it, or bring to light the real deal… that our society and laws are driven by media, and the guy who owns the media empire that is in line with the party in power gets his message to resonate through corporate America?

      • The_Jack says:

        That really does show how the rifle-OC people are more 2nd-Amend cosplayers.

        Since it is extremely doubtful that they would tote the rifles for their day-to-day activities (thus making, at best, this an intrusion of a political act on private property that has not consented to said act.)

        But it also has the sense of someone being told not to play with his lightsaber in the line at Pizza Hut. He’s still going to go there for his weekly slice. Just without the Jedi robes.

      • Stephen says:

        This waffling stance is going to filter down to local employees and be understood as “No guns”, leading to “man with a gun calls” and all that ensues. I’d rather they pick a position — post or not post. Then we know with whom we’re dealing.

        • tkdkerry says:

          I’m employed part-time by my city. Laws recently changed allowing concealed carry in many city buildings, and management informed us that should a legal concealed carrier accidently expose their firearm, we are to call 911, since that is “a violation of their licensing”. ( Never mind we don’t call 911 when we see a driver run a stop sign, even though that is a “violation of their licensing”. ) Voicing my opinion that a 911 “man with a gun” call was likely to result unnecessarily in a tense and potentially lethal situation, I requested clarification on what we should say to the 911 operator. I have yet to receive an answer.

    • Chris from AK says:

      Yup, this.

      I don’t do a strict boycott of Starbucks, Chipotle, and now Target… but I do heavily weigh their request to stay out of their store. If there is an accessible alternative I usually opt for that over the store that has told me that I’m not welcome.

      All three companies could have issued a nuanced statement prohibiting OPEN carry of all types, or an even more tailored statement requesting no open carry of long guns. Instead they choose to tell concealed carriers to GTFO. Well, ok then. Walmart has better prices on day to day sundries, and anything of higher quality can be ordered online more easily than driving to the store anyways.

      Just read their statement:

      This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.

      Hear that? Carrying firearms is not “family friendly.” I’m married and have a kid. Does that mean that Target’s management thinks my wife and I (who both carry) are a danger to my child? Plenty of anti-gun people seem to think precisely that, so it seems plausible to me given that Target has said exactly that in their statement.

      Imagine if Target had released a statement like this:

      But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms Blacks to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

      Such policies were PRECISELY part of the battlespace prep that occurred in 1930s Germany, and the same tactic that was used in this country to target blacks in the South. It is an effort to turn a group (in this case, people who choose to own and carry firearms) into “the other,” undesirables who are not welcome. It is yet another front in a cultural clash intended to marginalize people like you and me.

      I’m sure there’s plenty of people of color that slunk around to eat out back behind the kitchen at segregated lunch counters, but history remembers the Montgomery Bus Boycotters, not the individuals that “sucked it up” and rode at the back of the bus, complying with policy. In a free society, Target can tell me to FOAD and I can choose to spend my money elsewhere.

      Why would I reward them for a policy that targets and excludes me? Just because they could have released a harsher and more effective policy (posting) but chose not to (today) doesn’t mean that they don’t view me as a menace to the society that they want to live in because I have a CCW.

      • The_Jack says:

        And they’re not posting because while they think gun-people are icky, they’d still like our money.

        This way they can have it be out of sight out of mind. If they don’t know you’re armed they don’t need to think that you might bet one of those people. Seems to fit with these stores not going with a distinction between types of carry. It looks like they don’t *want* any carry, but they only had to *think* about it as an issue due to the open carry and the subsequent pressure.

        (Which is where the OC-rifle twits give them the impression of “those people”)

        Or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

        • Renegade_Azzy says:

          Yes, Its OK to ride my bus, just stay in the back, so I dont get any of your…. you… on me.

    • Right, they request it, but they are not saying what happens if we deny their request and continue to open carry (pistols in my case).

      So what has changed? This is exactly in line with other statements. The rifle open carriers- while dumb- haven’t hurt or helped us.

      • mike w. says:

        They issued an overtly anti-gun, anti-carry public statement which is a clear PR victory as far as the Mom’s Demand anti-gunners are concerned. Prior to OCT toting rifles around target they didn’t have a public position. Now they’re telling me (and millions of gunnies) that we aren’t welcome in their stores. There’s no way that’s a win for us.

        Given that, it’s pretty damn hard to say that OCT hasn’t hurt or helped us.

        • Tom Evans says:

          As I understand it, they asked you “millions of gunnies” to just leave your weapons at home or in your vehicle. Why is that such a problem? It does not sound anti gun or anti anything. It sounds pro common sense. It seems like every other day we have another public slaughter via some fruitcake with a firearm. You would think that watching the carnage on a daily basis would be enough for a Christian nation to disavow all firearms, not clamor for the right to swagger around pretending to be Rambo. God, you all sound like a bunch of heroin addicts needing your fix. Just as deadly. Grow and get a life.

          • Chris from AK says:

            @Tom Evans:

            Concealed carry permit holders and those lawfully carrying without a permit in states like Alaska are not causing carnage on the streets. If you live anywhere outside the most antigun of jurisdictions you unwittingly interact with armed citizens nearly every day.

            Crime is at a record low for the last few decades. While we hear about mass killings on the news, you’re more likely to be killed by drowning, a fire, or hands and feet than a “fruitcake with an assault rifle.” Such fruitcakes are almost never in possession of a concealed weapons permit… we have decades of experience with letting peaceable citizens carry sidearms in public and the data shows that they are overwhelmingly exceedingly peaceful.

            The fact that you cannot differentiate between Adam Lanza, a Chicago gangbanger, and a middle class family man or woman with a concealed weapons permit is troubling.

          • Patrick H says:

            Its a problem because we are defenseless without a gun. That’s why we carry them. A carrier helped prevent more bloodshed with the two crazy cop killers in Las Vega.

            Your problem is “watching the daily carnage on a daily basis”. That is all media fueled- in fact with more guns, we have less gun crime and less overall crime.

            And a Christian nation would embrace guns, because Jesus preached self-defense.

          • HSR47 says:

            “As I understand it, they asked you “millions of gunnies” to just leave your weapons at home or in your vehicle. Why is that such a problem?”

            Replace “gun owners” with “Jews” “Blacks” or “homosexuals.”

            The issue is the otherization of gun owners: They’re trying to portray us as something abnormal, alien, and/or dangerous; In fact, quite the opposite is true.

            In this country, we have two distinct gun cultures:

            Criminal gun culture: People acquire firearms illegally, and use them to commit crimes; and

            Legal gun culture: People acquire firearms legally, and use them for lawful purposes.

            Overlap between the two is statistically insignificant. Those in the latter group (like the adults engaging in discourse in this thread) are absolutely normal people, and are not a threat to the safety of those around them.

            “Grow and get a life.”

            You’re coming to a blog where the prime purpose is the discussion of the most fundamental and unalienable right of man, in order to tell us that you think we’re a bunch of children….

            Maybe you need to look in a mirror?

          • The Jack says:

            “Christian nation”

            So…. concern trolling thinking anyone who cares about the 2nd amendment will be swayed by argumentum-ad-Jesus?

            Or are theocratic government policies okay when they’re ones you support?

            Also… do you actually think “public slaughter via some fruitcake with a firearm” would be reduced by a little sign saying “No guns”.

            Are you honestly thinking someone who is a murderous fruitcake will obey such a sign? If so you’re amazingly ignorant. Because the vast majority of mass shootings have taken place in areas under such prohibitions.

            If you know the signs won’t stop these people… well then you’re deliberately lying… to the the folks most likely to be informed enough to counter your claims.

            • tkdkerry says:

              “…you’re amazingly ignorant.”

              I would have gone with that and that alone. But then I’m not too charitable before my third cup of coffee.

        • Patrick H says:

          Its a PR victory but nothing else. I would say they haven’t hurt us.

      • beatbox says:

        Haven’t hurt us? Are you nuts? Their little stunts help portray all gun owners as delusional attention whores.

        And once again, you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to carry on private property.

        • Paul Kisling says:

          You do realize that most of America Idolizes delusional media whores???

          If I was wrong their would be no such thing as reality television.

        • Fishaddict says:

          So why is it that in areas all across the country, the anti smoking crowd was able to make all the private properties into public properties and ban smoking in bars, restaurants, outdoor malls, smoke shops, and so on? The claim was that if it was open to anyone then it was not private property but rather public.

          • Matthew Carberry says:

            First, because they were wrong, but swayed the general public to support them because, second, they claimed a direct health risk from “second-hand smoke” after decades of pushing it as a health risk.

            That other impositions on property rights have been allowed even though they are not proper (nor Constitutional) doesn’t mean we get to support one simply because we happen to agree with it.

            Not if we want to call ourselves principled adults who really believe in fundamental rights anyway. “Their” wrongs don’t excuse similar childish entitled behavior from us.

      • SPQR says:

        The rifle open carriers- while dumb- haven’t hurt or helped us.

        That’s some WMD grade denial there.

  4. Granny Grunch says:

    This is no big thing. I don’t frequent target so I can’t say I’m going to “Excommunicate” the store. If I ever go into one in the future, I will be carrying. I also believe that those carrying the long guns may have been working for the antigun psychotics.

    • Jake says:

      I also believe that those carrying the long guns may have been working for the antigun psychotics.

      Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

  5. ACS says:

    I’m pretty sure Target just wants all of this to go away. Business as usual until I see a 30.06 sign.

    • Yep exactly. They are trying to just get out of the debate.

      • Chris from AK says:

        They could have done that by issuing a statement specifically limited to open carry and/or long guns. Such a statement would have appeased the media, gotten them out of the debate, and still recognized that 99.9% of people carrying sidearms legally are completely responsible human beings who aren’t a danger to a “family friendly” seting.

        Instead they chose to tell YOU to get to the back of the bus.

        • Matthew Carberry says:

          True.

          Though it is unlikely that Target or their legal and PR teams really understand the issue and thus phrased it how they thought “sounded fair” but overly broadly. Still “back of the bus-ing” in effect but maybe not 100% in intent.

          I know I tend to ascribe knowledge of gun rights basics to others based on my own, not what is typical for the average person uninvolved in the issue.

    • dandydon says:

      Agreed, ACS. I pretty much ignore all signage unless it meets the state 30.06 specs.

  6. Harry Schell says:

    Y’all do what I have to do, Target, and I’ll do what I have to do.

    If your local store ends up as the fast food place that posted GFZ notices and promptly became a favored “target” for armed robbery, only those “families” will buy from your store.

    I won’t. Your goods are available elsewhere.

  7. Jake says:

    On the one hand, I can’t really blame Target – the OCT and MDA idiots dragged them into a fight they wanted no part of. From a business perspective, this statement is the least damaging way of handling the issue. It gets MDA to claim a victory and then move on to some other victim so they leave Target alone, while not making any meaningful changes to their actual policies and letting them continue to not post their stores. Sure, they may lose a little business from our side, but the vast majority of gun owners will probably either brush it off or remain totally unaware of the statement in the absence of signage.

    It pisses me off, though, because I do know and care enough to not brush it off, especially given the wording of their statement, and I despise going to Walmart, which is the only real alternative in my area.

    Fuck you, OCT, for giving MDA the ammunition they needed to turn Target against us. Fuck you from the bottom of my heart.

    • Jamfish says:

      ^^THIS! +25

    • MK says:

      ^^^This in spades

    • Paul Kisling says:

      Actually the vast majority of Gun owners will still carry regardless of Target policy.

      What is worse, getting arrested for having a gun or getting dead in a gun free zone??

      • Matthew Carberry says:

        Not a ban, no arrests will be made.

        It is, however, rude and entitled behavior to ignore the stated wishes of a private property owner.

        There is zero “right” to shop anywhere in particular on one’s own terms; and why anyone would want to give money to someone who doesn’t like them I have never understood.

        • Paul Kisling says:

          So if we use that same logic it is rude and entitled to go into a store that allows weapons carry Unarmed??

          • Matthew Carberry says:

            What? What you’re doing is a false equivalency, not logic.

            If I ask you to not do something on my property, and you do, that is rude. Legal or not.

            If you do so because you think you have a “right” to even be there, much less on your own terms, that is both rudeness and entitlement.

            If I -allow- carry, not require, or even request, and you do not, that is you politely exercising the freedom to choose I have allowed you on my property.

  8. labman57 says:

    Whenever these gun-toting knuckleheads see the Target logo, they get all moist in the loins and have an uncontrollable desire to whip out their weaponry for all the world to see.

  9. ASR says:

    If your state doesn’t have a clear “signage standards” law like Texas, this is a fine time to pursue one. Low key reform that cuts off at the knees any possibility a fence-straddling pander “statement” like this could get a good guy or gal tangled up.

  10. Bubblehead Les says:

    So Target has decided to not serve Negros at their Lunch Counters, eh?

    Oh, My Mistake! This is 2014, and according to the Liberals, we are moving forward into a New Progressive Age where Prejudice is being Eradicated!

    Unless you are a Law-Abiding Gun Owner with a Family, I guess.

    Good thing for me is that there’s a Wally World that’s closer to my home, is open 24/7 and sells Ammo.

    And I haven’t heard that Wal-Marts Credit Card Security is so poor that their Customers Plastics were Hacked for weeks, either.

    • beatbox says:

      It would be illegal for Target to not serve someone based on race. Being a firearm owner is not a “protected class.” It is a ridiculous comparison.

      • Paul Kisling says:

        Protected class versus Constitutional right???

        • beatbox says:

          Again, you have no right to carry on private property.

          • HSR47 says:

            Like it or not, businesses operate in a grey area between private property and public property.

            Generally, stores operate out of rented space, and furthermore invite the general public into their stores, without unreasonable conditions.

            Like it or not, this grey area in which business which serve the general public exist is beset with all manner of government regulation.

            To deny this and scream from the rooftops “it shouldn’t be like this” is to deny reality.

  11. Matthew Carberry says:

    Anything that looks like a “win” for MDA gives them the appearance of legitimacy. Low-information politicians take that appearance to heart and pander to them.

    In a hostile media environment the fact that this is only a “paper” win for MDA, and should be described as such, doesn’t change that “perception is reality” and the dualistic narrative of a “losing NRA”* and a “winning MDA” is the one that will get headlines.

    * to anti’s, and the general public due to media, any gun rights issue is “NRA vs. X”

    • Brad says:

      Good point. Yet if all the anti-gunners get is fake wins like this, I’m fine with that as long as our side keeps getting all the real wins.

      The fight over gun rights still has a long long way to go. And “victories” such as this are more likely to energize our side rather than theirs.

      • HSR47 says:

        The issue comes politically: It’s very common for politicians to not be particularly familiar with the issues at hand…

        Therefore, when they see day in and day out that the demanding moms are winning, they will assume that public sentiment follows them. This in turn will influence their voting.

        Thus, we cannot afford to let the other side have victories, even if they are victories that are completely without substance.

  12. Ian Argent says:

    I’m OK with private property owners declaring “no guns.” As long as they are forced to take legal responsibility for disarming their patrons.

    That having been said, Target is, in fact, trying to have their cake and eat it too. Post or get off the pot

    • HSR47 says:

      “I’m OK with private property owners declaring “no guns.” As long as they are forced to take legal responsibility for disarming their patrons.”

      This is something I’ve been saying for years: If you deprive me of the ability to exercise my fundamental right to self-defense, and I am injured thereby, I believe that you should be required to cover any/all associated costs (medical bills, funeral, pain and suffering, wrongful death, etc.).

      On the other side of the coin, I also argue that, should businesses allow (or at least not comment) on the carry of firearms on their premises, that they should have absolutely no liability for what happens on their premises.

  13. ASR says:

    Interestingly, Target’s spokespeople are giving quotes to media specifically denying that the chain is “prohibiting” or “banning” guns from its stores, and denying the intention to post signs. Check Dana Loesch’s twitter feed.

    So this really is doubletalk in the precise sense. Sucks that’s where we’re at, but there you go.

    • Patrick H says:

      That’s exactly what I thought. They looked at what Starbucks did and did the same thing:

      Saying we don’t want them, but we aren’t stopping anybody from following local laws.

  14. Ed says:

    It appears OCT has gone the MDA route and does not allow others to post on the FB page, or even comment on threads.

    If you can’t stand the heat, stop starting fires OCT.

  15. Aces says:

    After reading all the posts so far, and after re-reading Target’s statement, I come to the conclusion that they will not prevent me from concealed Cary in there stores (even if they could tell I was, which they can’t). But they’d rather, out of respect for them, that I not CC (nor OC) in their stores.

    So for me, that means I don’t need to use the lock box in my car, when I choose to shop there. But I will avoid shopping there, if I can find what I need elsewhere. That’s my way of respecting them back. It’s not personal, I’m just voting with my feet.

    The bigger concern for me is the political one. None of these businesses want to loose business from either side of this debate. I’m concerned they don’t really care either way on the issue. But if activists on either or both sides of this, make a big enough stink, the formal response will be very much like Starbucks and Target’s. And don’t think the next business to fold will make their decision sound different. On issues like this, for businesses there’s safety in numbers. They will all sound the same as this statement.

  16. Mark says:

    This is NOT a complicated issue, unless, of course, you’re completely insane, and it should not have taken this much pressure from the sane, and this long, for Target to finally do the right thing. Open carry is lunacy, plain and simple, because you can’t distinguish “a good guy with a gun” from “a bad guy with a gun” (unless he’s a uniformed police officer). If you’re walking around the public with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder, you’re clearly a bad guy with a gun (or at least a nut job with a gun), because, again, NO sane person would do that in this country. Thanks, Target, for FINALLY coming around, but I can’t say that I’m going to come running back to your store. I’ve got a bad taste in my mouth from all of this–the taste of cowardice. Sometimes, doing the right thing means doing it immediately.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      Wow, blanket facially false statement much?

      OC of pistols is fairly common in many places and has had zero negative outcomes for anyone involved in those places for decades.

      OC of long guns is a-historical and counter-productive, and weird, and I don’t know why anyone who didn’t have to would ever choose the inconvenience, but OC of pistols is a non-issue in places where it is done.

      Certainly neither is any reason to hyperventilate.

    • Paul Kisling says:

      That is the exact same argument the Anti-Gunners used against Concealed Carry back in the late 80’s…. Funny and still retarded even after all this time.

    • Chris from AK says:

      So, if you saw someone wearing a polo shirt and jeans open carrying a glock in a kydex holster while selecting something on the canned food aisle at a local grocer, you’d assume they were a bad guy with a gun and draw your CCW to employ deadly force?

      That’s completely insane. If that is your conception of deadly force law, I hope you get a refresher before you choose to carry outside the house. If you would not choose to draw your sidearm and engage the dude wearing a polo with a glock, then clearly you CAN differentiate between a “good guy” and a “bad guy” with a gun, and your statement above was horseshit.

      The majority of states allow OC and it is almost never an issue — especially with sidearms.

    • Patrick H says:

      No, only the insane thinks open carry is scary.

      You can distinguish a good guy with a gun from a bad one. How? The good guy isn’t shooting or threatening anybody. That’s not that hard really.

    • HSR47 says:

      Differentiating between “good guys with guns” and “bad guys with guns” isn’t exactly difficult…

      Use the simple expedient of looking at the holster: If it cost more than 60 bucks at retail, the person wearing it probably isn’t a criminal.

      • Jdude says:

        Hey now, some of us have used cheap holsters in the past. Don’t hate on me because I was po’. :D

    • tkdkerry says:

      Wow. O_o

  17. Ed says:

    Another clarification:

    Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said that Target’s move is a “request and not a prohibition.”

    “We don’t have any plans for proactive communication to guests beyond what Target leadership shared today,” she added.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/target-asks-customers-leave-firearms-home-24396275

  18. Paul Kisling says:

    I would have to drive 40 miles to go to a target. Why on earth would I go out of my way to visit a store that smells like damn popcorn, and thinks that disarming its customers is the “family” thing to do.

    I was puzzled to see one of the posters here say it is not Targets fault that they changed policy… Well that is just a stupid idea. Of course its Targets fault nobody put a gun to their collective heads and said change your policy or else.

    They made up their minds of their own free will. Anything derived from that is their own fault.

    Honestly I don’t understand the blame everybody else for the decisions we make mentality that permeates American society.

  19. Sprocket says:

    I think Target handled this admirably. They they’ve told the attention whores to work out their parental neglect issues on someone else’s property and left the door open for concealed carriers. Unfortunately, OCT has handed MDA another PR victory. You have to wonder if any amount of failure will dissuade these guys.

  20. Alpheus says:

    As much as I’m disappointed by this announcement, I can’t help but be struck by how the pronouncements from these different companies basically amounts to “Be sure to obey the law, but we’d rather not have you carry in our stores, so please don’t do that!”

    I think it’s a good sign that the best victories that MDA and their ilk can eek out are these rather non-committal “Please leave us out of this debate!” pronouncements…if we could stop these pronouncements from dribbling in, and perhaps even reverse an announcement or two, I think that would be good. Despite its faults, OCT has at least taken steps that would help with this direction.

    Several have mentioned that, to the average Low Info Voter, these things are going to help gun grabbers, but I’m not so sure: I think very few Low Info Voters, pro or con, are paying attention to these skirmishes. It’s likely that, even with MDA loudly proclaiming victory, they are mostly proclaiming victory to gun rights activists and the handful of gun banners that actually care; thus, this likely isn’t going to impact the gun rights movement all that much.

    Indeed, I suspect that Open Carry In Your Face causes more direct harm to legislation, than these business proclamations….

    • HSR47 says:

      The real issue is how much airtime they’re able to get for these “requests” on CNN et. al.: If they get airtime proclaiming victory, and there is no real counterpoint, then it will be used to help push bad legislation.

      Legislators often base their votes on less information than the people by whom they were elected…. As such, when they hear the same thing on CNN day in and day out, they get to thinking that what they’re hearing is an accurate depiction of public sentiment. Once that happens, it will make getting our bills through various legislatures that much more difficult…

  21. Tam says:

    There’s this article that notes an important statement from Target’s spokeswoman…

    Yeah, belatedly realized you stepped on it, didn’t you, Target?

    Sorry, but that retraction needs to go on the same page as the announcement and make it clear that you don’t mind me shopping at your store while legally packing heat.

    You don’t get to publicly denounce me and then issue a back-channel half-assed sort-of apology and expect we’re gonna be all kissy-face like nothing happened.

  22. Robert says:

    I was shopping at my local Target today and had a basket full of grocerys including a lot of frozen foods and ice cream when I remembered I was in violation of their policy. I left a note saying I had forgotten about their policy and was leaving.

    • Carl from Chicago says:

      And the poor person who had to clean up your mess … a person who has no control over any policy?

      I am not so sure that your actions accomplished anything positive.

      Anyway, it seems that a whole lot of people here are carrying more as a political act than simply as a sensible means of protection. I would imagine that if everything is seen as a political act, life would get pretty wearisome. Then again I suppose that many people, like those OCing rifles in shopping places, have nothing good to do with their time! What a shame.

  23. Roberta X says:

    They’d have to pat me down and search me to determine if I was carrying. DADT. I don’t carry a sidearm to make a statement, I carry it so my last thought won’t be, “If only I had a firearm.”

  24. Brad says:

    Well isn’t that Target statement threading the needle. Or at least trying to. Call this contest a draw.

  25. Steve says:

    While the statement mentions open carry, it does not limit the request to open carry. It does not say, “Please don’t open carry in our stores.” It says, “…request that guests not bring firearms to Target.” This includes concealed firearms.

    The real question is whether Target stores will now have “no guns” signs on the door, which is necessary under the law to prohibit them, or if this is simply a polite request.

    Personally, I do NOT feel safer – or family-friendly – in so-called gun free zones. If target is simply making a polite request, then I will politely decline. If, however, Target posts “no guns” signs at the stores where I live, then my family will no longer be shopping there (and we shop there a lot as the nearest Target is less than a 1/2-mile away).

    PS – It’s interesting that we are referred to as guests rather than customers.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Oh, properly… | TiaMart Blog - […] (h/t to Bitter.). […]
  2. SayUncle » Target to open carriers: stop - […] Keeping the same policy but asking open carriers to leave the guns at home. […]
  3. Target goes gun-free, becoming biggest US retailer asking customers to disarm … - TOP NEWS - […] effectively – lobbying for a policy change,” writes “Dave,” a commenter on the well-read “Shall Not Be Questioned” blog.…
  4. Target goes gun-free, becoming biggest US retailer asking customers to disarm … – Christian Science Monitor | LiveNewsTrend - […] effectively – lobbying for a policy change,” writes “Dave,” a commenter on the well-read “Shall Not Be Questioned” blog.…
top