Kicked out of Wal Mart...What to do next?

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

imported post

Brokensprocket, it wasn't a criticism, please don't get defensive, I am merely trying to make sure that the law-abiding members here don't give anyone any extra legal ammunition so to speak.

I am not a lawyer, I don't know what does or doesn't 'technically' constitute trespassing but I DO know that 100's of pages of this forum have been entered into evidence in the Federal Cases that are currently in litigation.

I'm just saying in an abundance of caution, don't hand someone a rope they could use to hang you. I don't know if they could or would.

We know police make mistakes, and we know that when they do (racine as an example) they try to retro-actively justify their actions.

What if you went into that Wal-mart, got arrested for trespassing and went to fight the ticket and the prosecuting attorney had a page from this thread printed out where you acknowledged that you knew another member had been asked to leave, you knew another member was told by management that firearms weren't allowed in "that" store and you went in there anyway.

Again.. I am not a lawyer I was just trying to offer caution.

Carry on.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

We are equal or we are not, right Doug ? NONE of your associates have this and that. Why do you always have to come across to everyone like your BETTER THAN THEM.................Because Doug, that's the way EVERYONE takes your posts & comments. You have never felt equal to anyone here, you think your better than us ALL. God your so well educated, well to do, live on your little secluded Island....God I wish I could someday be as GREAT & PERFECT as you Doug.:?

Want in one hand and wish-wish in the other and see which one fills first.

Dougy here is a test for you...:lol:

 

[range rat]

imported post

Junkie:

Here is the phone number too the Corp Office,1-800-925-6278. I can tell you now that the managers will first go to there computer an check there web site [corp ] and if nothing is there, policy wise, they will either refer to state law, or will ask you to leave.. this is fact, per a manager i know.

We have to get wal-mart to give these managers some guide lines too work with.. in reguards to Wisconsin Open carry.

 

[junkie]

imported post

So can I get in trouble for going back? I am not going back there, but I am curious. I was told to leave once. I was told by a manager that it was private property and if an associate feels uncomfortable then I would have to leave, but Wal Mart does not have a policy regarding guns in the store.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

junkie wrote:

So can I get in trouble for going back? I am not going back there, but I am curious. I was told to leave once. I was told by a manager that it was private property and if an associate feels uncomfortable then I would have to leave, but Wal Mart does not have a policy regarding guns in the store.

At this point, don't go back to that Walmart. Stick to trying to talk to the regional manager next.

The issue here is, it doesn't matter if their associates are uncomfortable or not. If they have a corporate policy, ALL employees follow the policy or WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE!

When you talk with the next guy/gal up the food chain, as him/her if they would be OK with an associate asking a minority to leave because they felt "uncomfortable?" Ask them why they would want to condone prejudice? It is obvious someone in the store has a prejudice, don't they have a policy against prejudice?

Start a log, keeping track of who you talk to, when, and for how long.

It took me about six weeks to get my issue with the Plover Walmart corrected.

The views expressed here are my views only, they are NOT the views of any organization I may be a part of.

 

[Dustiniac]

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

Congrats DOUG, I hear you will be featured on next weeks issue !!!!!

LOL Glock, I'm sure he has a lifetime subscription.

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

Well if you listen to this Judges Opinion, although he uses Starbucks as an example, Walmart cannot legally kick you out for Open Carry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE


This should pose some interesting response from Walmart.

 

[junkie]

imported post

Can't you still get hit with a trespassing violation if you are told to leave and don't? I think that video can give some people the wrong idea. It really won't help our cause to have a whole bunch of people getting taken out in cuffs for trespassing.

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

Does it help our cause to have legal, law abiding citizens arrested for open carrying?

No one is saying you should leave if it is demanded. However, any arrest for not doing so is subject to damages.

I think the judge here has a point. The stores are open to the public for legal use within the laws. How is singling out an individual who is legally and lawfully open carrying a firearm and making them leave the store any different then singling out the individual who may be wearing a yamika? Or who is an African American who is in a store in a predominately White neighborhood? Or how about singling out a shopper who is speaking to another family member in a foreign language? Maybe they are poltting to rob the store!

Judge Napolitono it very well known and very well respected. He is just one of our greatest advocates of civil rights.

As Per, Cornell Law School:

"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual preference. "


Civil rights
"TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > §1983 Prev | Next §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."

Seems to me this goes in line with what the judge said.

Maybe it is time to sue Walmart!

 

[hardballer]

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Does it help our cause to have legal, law abiding citizens arrested for open carrying?

No one is saying you should leave if it is demanded. However, any arrest for not doing so is subject to damages.

I think the judge here has a point. The stores are open to the public for legal use within the laws. How is singling out an individual who is legally and lawfully open carrying a firearm and making them leave the store any different then singling out the individual who may be wearing a yamika? Or who is an African American who is in a store in a predominately White neighborhood? Or how about singling out a shopper who is speaking to another family member in a foreign language? Maybe they are poltting to rob the store!

Judge Napolitono it very well known and very well respected. He is just one of our greatest advocates of civil rights.

As Per, Cornell Law School:

"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual preference. "


Civil rights
"TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983 Prev | Next § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."

Seems to me this goes in line with what the judge said.

Maybe it is time to sue Walmart!

I agree.

I don't see the difference between this and asking "all you black people please leave the store." Just happened in New Jersey. Oh, the outrage. They are suing.

Let's hear Wisconsin Carry's take on this one.

 

[Dustiniac]

imported post

That kid was simply exercising his First Amendment rights by asking that over the PA

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc.]

imported post

I have filed an official complaint with the Walmart corporate office.

I have been keeping count, and we have had TEN Walmart stores violated corporate policy in Wisconsin within the last year. I was polite and contrite, but demanded answers.

I will keep you all informed.....

 

[hardballer]

imported post

As a matter of fact, those Black and Asian people wearing gang banger clothes, ooooohhh! They scare me. So, let's ban them.

How 'bout banning everyone with a tattoo or piercing? I mean, what is wrong with those people? How 'bout those people who carry pocket knives. Those biiiiiig ones. Ooooooh! Scary. Let's ban those in Walmart too.

Just what do you need a knife for in Walmart anyway. 'Course the last assault I'd heard about in a Walmart was with a knife. Hmmmmm?

By the way, before I git flamed here, the above examples I presented are rude and irrational. Based on fear and ignorance. My wife'll vouch for the ignorant part but really, they do not represent my true feelings and are simply an example of how absurd it is to ban a gun carrier.

Well maybe those tattoos and piercings. . . . .

 

[Dustiniac]

imported post

Ban tattoos and piercings? Wal-Mart would go under without that demographic.

 

[hardballer]

imported post

Dustiniac wrote:

That kid was simply exercising his First Amendment rights by asking that over the PA

I agree with your comment Dustiniac

That might be the defense they use. Rude behavior but Illegal beyond trespassing or some other misdemeanor offense, I don't know.

'Course. . . I would not be surprised if they used some Patriot Act or Hate Crime Act law to nail his be-hind to the wall.

But suing Walmart? These folks ought to be listening to Bill Cosby and his take on things like this. He does not pull punches.

 

[hardballer]

imported post

Dustiniac wrote:

Ban tattoos and piercings? Wal-Mart would go under without that demographic.

Yup. . . right you are.

Scorpio_vette ought to be along soon to fight for his rights. :lol:

 

[hardballer]

imported post

This should be able to be handled like Woodman's. Articulate discourse backed up by a large bunch of us who would not spend our money in their store unless they relent.

They came to agree after the alternative was 'splaned to them and I think Walmart will do the same. Regardless of how big they are, the bottom line is the point.

 

[scorpio_vette]

imported post

hardballer wrote:

Dustiniac wrote:

Ban tattoos and piercings? Wal-Mart would go under without that demographic.

Yup. . . right you are.

Scorpio_vette ought to be along soon to fight for his rights. :lol:

you know......i was just starting to like you. i had a feeling your friendliness was fake when i met you. go drive a prius.......:lol::lol::lol:

 

[hardballer]

imported post

scorpio_vette wrote:

hardballer wrote:

Dustiniac wrote:

Ban tattoos and piercings? Wal-Mart would go under without that demographic.

Yup. . . right you are.

Scorpio_vette ought to be along soon to fight for his rights. :lol:

you know......i was just starting to like you. i had a feeling your friendliness was fake when i met you. go drive a prius.......:lol::lol::lol:

Hey, hey, hey. . . No call to get mean and nasty. I mean at least a Suzuki Samurai. I mean a 4x4 at least. come on. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Edit: Why you rat, Prius is an electric hybrid! Green! Kaliforia Liberals drive those. That was low, man. I'm so hurt. Heck, I'm watching Oprah Re-runs, and crying and stuff.

 

[scorpio_vette]

imported post

LOL i've made the prius comment my own new version of a "go screw yourself" or "get hurt" comment. LOL kinda like somebody telling you to go jump off a bridge.:lol::lol::lol: