Moms Targeting Target

[maintenanceguy 510]

I'm on the Moms Demand Action email list.  You know, keep your friends close but your enemies closer.  I get an email about once a week trying to rally the troops to call some senator or email some company.   But things have changed this week.

 

Moms Demand Action just got a $50 million boost from Bloomberg.  They've had some small successes getting a few small restaurant chains to sort of take a stance against carry in their restaurants.  The did get Starbucks to write an open letter that they preferred that people didn't carry in Starbucks.  Even though Starbucks stopped short of putting up "no guns allowed" signs, MDM declared a victory.

 

But now, they're going after a bigger target: Target.  I'm getting bombarded with MDM emails asking me to call, email, fax, post to facebook to convince Target to prevent carry in their stores.  MDM has figured out that they won't get legislation passed so they're going to make carry impossible by creating a patchwork of places where American's can carry.

 

Most of the posts on the Target facebook page are in support of carry.  This will be a very public defeat for MDM if Target doesn't fold, I'm wondering if MDM had already struck a deal before they went public - otherwise they have a lot at risk.   I'll be watching closely.

[ogfarmer 138]

yes this is their next move, they been sending these out for a few weeks,

 

this thread has some of the discussion in it stems from the Chipotle open carry situation.

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/69401-no-guns-at-chipolte/page-5#entry883946

The gun found in Target also seems fishy days after they announce their Target attack.

[ogfarmer 138]

LOL 12 people showed up to their Stroller Jam Protest at Target shareholders meeting

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/moms-demand-action-protest-draws-12-people

[checko 180]

If you carry concealed, they shouldnt know anyway.

[glockamole 0]

I just conceal carried in a delaware target today just because. I bought a coke so it was a win win. I don't think we will see any major big bix chains listen to them. I went to target, walmart and lowe's today.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

 

[1LtCAP 4,264]

I'm on the Moms Demand Action email list.  You know, keep your friends close but your enemies closer.  I get an email about once a week trying to rally the troops to call some senator or email some company.   But things have changed this week.

 

Moms Demand Action just got a $50 million boost from Bloomberg.  They've had some small successes getting a few small restaurant chains to sort of take a stance against carry in their restaurants.  The did get Starbucks to write an open letter that they preferred that people didn't carry in Starbucks.  Even though Starbucks stopped short of putting up "no guns allowed" signs, MDM declared a victory.

 

But now, they're going after a bigger target: Target.  I'm getting bombarded with MDM emails asking me to call, email, fax, post to facebook to convince Target to prevent carry in their stores.  MDM has figured out that they won't get legislation passed so they're going to make carry impossible by creating a patchwork of places where American's can carry.

 

Most of the posts on the Target facebook page are in support of carry.  This will be a very public defeat for MDM if Target doesn't fold, I'm wondering if MDM had already struck a deal before they went public - otherwise they have a lot at risk.   I'll be watching closely.

actually, THEY have had zero success. those chains taking a stand against carry, were all handed to them by those stupid asshammers playing open carry billy badass.

[CMJeepster 2,781]

Hopefully someone will tell bad guys that they can't carry either.

[glockamole 0]

Jack in the box robbed 4 times since banning guns...

 

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/06/gun-free-restaurant-chain-becomes-easy-target/

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

 

[mark_anthony_78 0]

In most states, where "no gun" signs do not have the force of law, the most the business can do is ask you to leave IF they notice your concealed firearm.

 

So basically, nothing changes.

 

Now, whether you still want to patronize a business with that policy is another story.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

It would appear that Target did, in fact, comply with MAIG/MDA....

 

Target bans Firearms in its stores.

 

 

 

[Vlad G 345]

Yeah well no. 

 

First of all they are talking about open carry, secondly the OC idiots first started carrying rifles in Target to make a point. What did anyone actually expect to happen? Also note, they didn't ban anything, here is their statement: 

 

 

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.

 

They request you don't bring guns into their stores. Guess what, it is private property. They never had a problem with this, but then some idiots decided to effectively shit on their floors, give the opposition something to bitch about, and Target would like to just sell stuff not be in the middle of a political fight. 

 

Of course we are free to not shop there, but don't blame Target for this one. 

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Yeah well no. 

 

...

 

Of course we are free to not shop there, but don't blame Target for this one. 

 

I'm not blaming them.... and all I did was quote the article's title in my link.  So it's really the article's writer that is inaccurate. But no surprise there.

 

And I agree, actually, with an owner's right to dictate what happens on their private land. 

 

I'm only relaying the fact (and frustration) that they did it, and had to "request" it so formally. 

[Vlad G 345]

I didn't mean "no" to you, I know it was the link that was alarmist not you, sorry if it came across otherwise. 

 

That request is as polite as it can be.  We now have 3 examples (including Starbucks and Chipotle) of businesses who took no position and no problem with people carrying guns responsibly on their premises that basically were thrown into a fight they wanted no part of.  They were basically on our side, allowing people to legally carry guns in their businesses. Some jacksasses decided to make a point and everyone suffers because of it.  These were unforced errors, the anti-gun groups would have had nothing to bitch about if our own side didn't behave like idiots. 

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

It would appear that Target did, in fact, comply with MAIG/MDA....

 

Target bans Firearms in its stores.

 

 

 

Accurate language matters here.  Target did not "Ban" firearms in stores.  They requested that people not bring them in via a press release.  There have been no reports of any Target stores in jurisdictions where carry is commonplace doing anything to enforce a legal "ban", such as putting up signs that meet legislated requirements.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I didn't mean "no" to you, I know it was the link that was alarmist not you, sorry if it came across otherwise. 

 

That request is as polite as it can be.  We now have 3 examples (including Starbucks and Chipotle) of businesses who took no position and no problem with people carrying guns responsibly on their premises that basically were thrown into a fight they wanted no part of.  They were basically on our side, allowing people to legally carry guns in their businesses. Some jacksasses decided to make a point and everyone suffers because of it.  These were unforced errors, the anti-gun groups would have had nothing to bitch about if our own side didn't behave like idiots. 

 

Not a problem...   It would seem, perhaps, we need to do a bit of "self-policing" among our 2A brethren. But that's the problem, I guess. Some believe theirs is the "right way.  That, in this case, more displays of OC will get the non-2A (not necessarily "anti-2A") public "used to it."   Or that their RKBA is "unconditional..." allowing them to do the equivalent of "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater."   You may very well have that right...but exercising it causes consequences, which can affect us all. 

  

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Accurate language matters here.  Target did not "Ban" firearms in stores.  They requested that people not bring them in via a press release.  There have been no reports of any Target stores in jurisdictions where carry is commonplace doing anything to enforce a legal "ban", such as putting up signs that meet legislated requirements.

 

Again, if you read my reply to Vlad_G, I only quoted the article's title in my link. It would seem that language didn't matter so much to the author, who was just trying to attract more readers to the article, where I believe he did tell the truth (i.e. state that it was only a request, etc.)...

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

Again, if you read my reply to Vlad_G, I only quoted the article's title in my link. It would seem that language didn't matter so much to the author, who was just trying to attract more readers to the article, where I believe he did tell the truth (i.e. state that it was only a request, etc.)...

Yeah, my post is better directed to the author of the article.  I'm just fed up with "baiting" headlines that have very little correlation with the truth.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Yeah, my post is better directed to the author of the article.  I'm just fed up with "baiting" headlines that have very little correlation with the truth.

 

Sadly, that's what journalism is about these days... "ratings"... They'll do what they need to, in order to not be accused of "bad journalism," but the rest they spin to their heart's content to get all the ratings they can as long as they can get away with it....

[Midwest 28]

This link is pretty much the same as the 247 Wall St Link however this link contained some more items.

 

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=151&sid=30552296&title=target-asks-customers-to-leave-firearms-at-home

 

 

"Target is "respectfully" asking its customers to not bring firearms into its stores, even where it is allowed by law."

 

Differs  from the 247 wall St Link

 

"Target Corp. made the announcement as it faced pressure about its policy on the "open carry" of firearms in its stores. A group called Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America gathered nearly 400,000 signatures for a petition asking Target to prohibit shoppers from carrying guns into its stores."

 

Also this

 

"It introduced the campaign after gun rights groups carrying loaded rifles frequently gathered in Target stores including Texas, Alabama and North Carolina to demonstrate in support of "open carry" laws."

.

[CMJeepster 2,781]

"Target’s Gun Ban Has Unexpected Results As Assailants Attack Store’s Unarmed Customers"  http://www.inquisitr.com/1343779/targets-gun-ban-proves-to-be-absolute-rubbish-as-assailants-attack-stores-customers/

[jm1827 284]

"Target’s Gun Ban Has Unexpected Results As Assailants Attack Store’s Unarmed Customers"  http://www.inquisitr.com/1343779/targets-gun-ban-proves-to-be-absolute-rubbish-as-assailants-attack-stores-customers/

I hope some of the main stream media gets a hold of this and it gains some traction, maybe at least FOX News network will bring it up.