By Tyler London
An open letter to the leaders of Target and all other companies taking anti-gun positions:
I am writing to voice my disappointment with the decision made today requesting law-abiding gun owners to leave their firearms outside of Target stores. Before I elaborate, though, I’d like to tell you a little about myself. I am a 30 year old father of three. I served as a firefighter in the Air Force from 2003-2007. I am a psychology honor student at my local college with a 3.9 GPA. with one semester left before earning my AA I shop at your store frequently; in fact my last visit was two days ago with my two daughters . . .
I am hardly the prejudicial/stereotypical, hot-tempered, itchy-trigger-finger, “Just give me an excuse” Yosemite Sam type that many anti-gun advocates try to portray gun owners as. I hope, at least for my own sake, that I never have to shoot anyone. If I have things my way I will leave people alone and in return be left alone. I am usually a very relaxed, easy-going guy. I treasure my privacy and tranquility.
Knowing that, you may be surprised to learn that for the last four years or so, I have carried at least one pistol (sometimes more) everywhere I go, nearly every day. I have never broken the law or acted recklessly with my firearms. They are there solely as a last-resort in case of dire emergencies in which all other measures have failed or are inadequate. As a father, it is important that I be able to protect my family from harm as much as reasonably possible. My carrying of a firearm is but one of many useful tools I utilize for such a purpose (along with multi-tools, jumper cables, emergency candles, etc.). As the saying goes, “It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.”
I am quite dismayed to see you have added yourselves amongst the several companies who have recently taken the position that legally carried firearms are requested to remain outside your stores. Time has proven that places with anti-gun policies tend to be magnets for the homicidally psychotic. (Luby’s, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Century Movie Theatre, Washington Navy Yard, UC Santa Barbara, just to name a few. In fact, these are just the most popularly-known shootings. I have found evidence of at least 19 military base shootings since 1994.). As such I refuse to do business with establishments where the murderous deranged know they can go to play fish in a barrel and maximize their body counts (compared to places where they know armed resistance is present). How many mass shootings have occurred at gun stores, gun shows, NRA meetings, police departments, etc?
Even if you were to place armed security in your stores, at the end of the day no one is going to defend my life and the lives of my family as quickly and with as much passion and die-hard determination as I am. Or as another saying goes, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” A publicly announced anti-gun policy is, in my estimation, a nationally-broadcast duck-call for those with malicious intent toward their fellow men.
What makes thing worse is this decision seems to be made based, at least partially, at the encouragement of an anti-freedom organization called Moms Demand Action. This organization has been spreading lies, lies by ommission, and half-truths since its beginning. It deals in lies, propaganda, fear and accusation rather than rational facts. While presenting itself as a grass-roots campaign headed by a humble house-wife, the truth is it is funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg and headed by Shannon Watts, whose LinkedIn profile boasts of a long and prestigious career in public relations (i.e. “Corporate propaganda”) for several major corporations, including Monsanto and GE.
During its brief but vociferous existence, MDA has claimed dodgeball, chocolate candies, and the story Little Red Riding Hood are banned in America (but guns aren’t). The same people subscribing to this (il)logic have now launched an internet campaign called, “Off Target” in which they post pictures of themselves shopping at Target’s competitors, in the hopes that Target will cave in to their demands of customer disarmament. Of course, the fact that many of those photographed are shopping at stores with the same lack of policy is never mentioned.
Unfortunately, MDAs plan worked anyway, and we law-abiding gun owners are left making the decision to honor the requests of a private business we can live without, or honor the freedoms earned for us by men who gave life and limb for out Bill of Rights. For me, at least, there is an easy choice third option. I will respect you private property rights, this country’s fallen patriots, and the concepts of armed liberty all at the same time by simply spending my money elsewhere. And you see, that is a major problem: you can’t give into the minority of people who advocate disarmament and still please those who value responsible freedom. I’ll remind you it is still speculated K-Mart’s 1999 decision to stop selling ammunition in order to appease anti-gun filmmaker Michael Moore led to their financial woes shortly after.
In short, I disagree with your decision on every level. What exactly is this policy supposed to accomplish? Making customers safer? There has yet to be any incident I know of involving a legal gun carrier endangering anyone inside a Target. Reducing crime? The Texas DPS website shows that CHL holders committed 0.1987% of all major crime in Texas in 2012 (and similar numbers for all other years records have been kept on the subject). Also remember that those who carry firearms illegally do not care about the law, and most surely do not care about Target policy. The recent incident in which a loaded Hi-Point handgun was found in a Target toy aisle revealed it was left there by a felon. As such he is not even allowed to possess a firearm, let alone carry one.
This policy is going to accomplish nothing for the store but boycotts by those who value freedom, safety, and the blood shed by our patriots which earned us the right to possess firearms. I know because I am one of those boycotting. And while I may be but one voice, I am certain I am speaking for many. Out of respect for freedom, safety, and our honored dead and wounded, I urge you to reconsider your decision. There is nothing wrong with making a misstep in business. Refusing to fix that mistake, however, is enough to permanently send many customers “off Target.”
Yours in Liberty,
-Tyler London
Very well written, but a bit long. I’d bet most heads of companies would never read any letter this long. Target probably already has the shredder bin ready for the giant piles of pro-gun letters they will be receiving.
Three, maybe four short paragraphs, nax.
I’m interested in guns and I tuned out about about 2/3rds through.
John
Nax… Natural Maximum?
Good word, I like it.
I agree with the above, too long. It will never be read by anyone in authority.
This letter should have ended right before after the paragraph about public anti-gun policies equating to an increase in armed robberies. All the talk about MDA and other groups being dishonest means nothing to corporations like Target. The part concerning how much money that they lose from robberies and lawsuits is the only part they would care about.
Yeah. Too long and full of points that non-2A people would find “shocking.” Like you are responsible to be your own first responder.
Here’s my open letter to Target:
“Dear Target,
Heard about your new policy.
I respect your right to operate your property how you see fit.
I’ll shop at Target again if you change your tune.
Thanks,
FoRealz?”
I personally disagree with carrying long guns and chest rigs around in public. It’s dumb. I can’t see how it will turn on the fence or uninterested citizens into pro 2A people in any large numbers. I think it has the opposite effect in most cases.
Nailed it. Pretty good article.
I think your outrage is misplaced. These guys (retailers) are just trying to sell stuff to consumers and have no desire to get into the gun debate. The open carry in your face crowd are the ones that made this into a big deal. They are making people that don’t have an interest in guns, one way or the other, think we are all a bunch of gun nuts.
+1.
Also, Target’s public relations department might not appreciate the phrase “Corporate propaganda”.
Truth. This wasn’t an issue until a bunch of clowns started carrying their guns into Target.
Self-gratifying articles like this don’t stop the fact that even most “gun people” think that it’s just plain weird to walk into a store and see some fat pud with an AR slung over his back.
You are correct on that Don. Thanks to these open carry idiots, big victory for MDA (that’s how they’re going to spin it).
My take on Targets response is, “we’re asking you not to bring guns but we’re not putting up the gunbuster sign either.” I hate to see that they made the statement at all but what retailer really wants an open carry demonstration on their property? NONE!
I’ll continue to carry (CCW) into Target until they make an announcement that guns should be outlawed and then I’ll take my business away.
As I am not in a position to influence things (being in the UK), this is how I also feel regarding the situation. The must be better ways to campaign for OC of pistols.
I have to respectfully disagree with you. Just look at the timeline of events. Neither Target, nor any of the other businesses that caved, did so in response to the OCers. The pics MDA used in this particular campaign were at least one month old and Target never said word one about them. None of the businesses did until Shannon started squawking.
Again, I think we can get a lot farther by contacting OC groups amd asking them to tell their members to keep their hands off their rifles and their rifles on their nacks amd muzzle down. We’re getting angry at people who aren’t breaking any laws and I think arguing amongst ourselves only helps the Mother of Disarmament.
Kumbaya
“Just look at the timeline of events. Neither Target, nor any of the other businesses that caved, did so in response to the OCers. The pics MDA used in this particular campaign were at least one month old and Target never said word one about them. None of the businesses did until Shannon started squawking.”
Agreed, and thanks for posting this.
So long as we keep blaming the OC-ers, it is that finger pointing that is giving MDA their power.
But, alas, the finger pointing will continue as POTG carry on eating their own.
You clearly don’t understand PR and Shannon Watts and company do. Timelines don’t matter and truth doesn’t matter. All that matters is that their position appears to wins. Like the French in 1940 you don’t understand the rules.
Target and these other companies have taken a position of aggressively sitting on fence. They want pro-gunners business and they want anti-gunners business. All they have done is thrown a sop to MDA. They are not going to post, especially in pro-gun states, because once they do they will lose a lot of business to Walmart which never take an anti-gun position. ..
Let’s keep open carry actions with long guns in public space . We can make our point without playing Shannon’s game.
The day Walmart posts “No guns” signs is the day we would know we had lost. I agree whole heartedly with your point that OC rallies should be held in public spaces only; Target and every other retailer doesnt want pro-gun demonstrators freaking out their customers by carrying rifles, and they dont want anti-gun demonstrators pestering customers to sign petitions. They want to sell people stuff and either of these incidences could cause them to lose business. The best thing for OC Texas to do is stop having rallies at places of business: it puts the business in a bad spot, and gives MDA new targets to declare “victories” over…
Just yesterday TTAG posted an article about the Mothers showing up in a Target parking lot with petitions to get guns banned in Target. Target gave them the boot off the property because they didn’t want to get into the debate. They just want to sell stuff to consumers. Then the Open Carry crowd got into the act in a Target so Target posted the request (not a demand, sign or other with the force of law) to not carry in the stores. Meaning, please keep it down here, we’re just trying to sell goods and not get in the middle of someone else’s food fight.
There has been a lot of progress recently in carry laws around the country but these in your face folks are hurting the cause and distracting from the real issues.
@Don: Exactly.
Don,
The best way for these companies to not get into the gun debate is to not take sides, to ignore both groups. Or possibly to expel protesters from either side.
Bingo, that’s exactly what they’re doing. The Mothers got tossed out too. Both are bad for business.
Exactly. And MDA doesn’t HAVE to actually win as long as the can CLAIM a victory and get their story reported to the public.
They can lose every confrontation, get themselves thrown out, too, every time. But if their story is the only one actually reported to the general public, they will win.
It’s nit about who is right. It’s about who controls the story. They KNOW they can’t win in the rightness of the cause (even though they believe their cause is right), so they’re going to win by public acclaim.
Bingo! Absolutely right.
Anyone from either side who interferes with customers should be removed.
In TX the long gun group was on the public sidewalk well away from the store.
The demanding moms were blocking the entrance.
No, this problem was not created by OC citizens, it was created by the demanding moms.
I’ve shopped at Target here & there, always armed, usually carrying openly, and there’s never been a problem.
Granted, people should not carry long guns into businesses. But as long as muzzle & trigger safety is observed, it’s really no different than a pistol.
(Very hard to maintain a safe muzzle direction & I’ve never seen a covered trigger on a long gun.)
We open carry. You only think it is “in your face” cause you are conditioned to think that there is something untoward about open carry.
It is high time we reestablish open carry as the norm. It’s honorable.
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington quotes (American commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-83) and subsequently 1st US President (1789-97), 1732-1799)
Nice letter, Tyler.
It’s a no win scenario for target. If they did nothing the MDA fools would have them in the press screaming think of the children.
They respectfully requested you leave your guns at home. They didn’t invoke states with laws that have no firearms signs carry weight of law, They asked that activists don’t put them in the position to have to fight.
Carry concealed. Who cares. Let the morons think they won and let target save face and shut up the pearl clutchers
Agree 100%.
They actually could have split the difference better by asking customers to conceal carry instead of open carry (assuming that is legal). That wouldn’t have satisfied MDA (though they would still have claimed victory, of course).
Someone posted in another thread that a target in Aurora IL actually posted their store with what is (in Illinois) a force-of-law sign.
Yes, but it *is* IL, a state full of pearl clutchers.
I’m not back home in NC, when I am, I’ll look. If they do post, then we have a problem.
“They respectfully requested you leave your guns at home”
They respectfully requested you leave your cross at home.
They respectfully requested you keep your black skin out of the store.
They respectfully requested you leave your women at home.
None is acceptable, all should cause outrage across the country, and a federal investigation into civil rights violations.
And no, I will not carry (even concealed) into a Target.
I will not spend my money there.
I will not give them any encouragement to think that their position is reasonable, rational, or supported.
I will not enter a criminal empowerment zone.
What they should have said to both sides is, “leave us out of your demonstrations; if you’re shopping, you’re welcome to be here, otherwise stay on the public sidewalk”.
They didnt put up a 30.06 sign in Texas so I will still shop there.
Put up 30.06 and I agree with you.
Well said!
Target probably only put that out over open carry, not CCW, even though they didn’t draw a distinction in their letter. While I would allow open carry in my store, I hardly get upset if a main-stream business does not want people carrying AKs slung on their back.
Unless Target posts their TX stores with “no guns” signs, then I will just take this as a way for them to shut the Moms up rather than they really mean it regarding CCW.
I’m waiting to hear if anyone actually gets asked to leave (or whatever) over OC in any of these businesses that have asked people (but not demanded) to leave their guns at home. If I hear that they do not, then they can be back on the ok to shop list. Otherwise they have well and truly caved.
I seriously wonder if letters like these don’t just fall on deaf ears…
I believe that is probably the case. Still, they need to be written and sent, IMHO, on the of chance that someone pays heed.
A change in profitability never falls on deaf ears.
I agree with the second sentence of Don’s post above. And for that reason alone, I do not expect Target to revisit this issue at all. Their public statement was for the most part a wishy-washy hash of weasel words meant to straddle the fence and offend as few people as possible under the circumstances. It was directed at the vast majority of sheeple who don’t carry and really don’t think about the issue much and would really prefer not to think about it it at all. To the extent that they did in fact take a side, that’s whose side they took. The story has already pretty much disappeared from the news portals I see on the net, the sheeple having moved on to something else. The last thing Target wants is for it to reappear.
Agreed. Target is just trying to offend nobody and placate the harridans from MDA while trying to dig out from the disaster that we refer to now as The Security Breach.
I’m thinking at this point, we are giving the MDA side way more credit than they are actually worth the battle for.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
Again, there is a strategy playing out below the surface here, and everyone is getting distracted from it by the OC brouhaha. MDA has held “protests” that were really press conferences at Starbucks, Chipotle, and now Target 2 weeks before each of these chains later put out statements very much like this one. It’s a coordinated campaign, and some sort of backroom intimidation from the rich Mr. Bloomberg and/or the White House is involved.
This isn’t foilhat, it’s just basic knowledge of how politics and PR works. The rifle OC folks may not be helping matters, but they are certainly not causing the adverse public statements that always come on the heels of an MDA media event.
Note to Dan: Good Job!
“. . .It’s a coordinated campaign, and some sort of backroom intimidation from the rich Mr. Bloomberg and/or the White House is involved. . .”
It is, indeed, well coordinated and well funded. Bloomberg has hired media-professionals who are very good at what they do. But they don’t have the moral high ground when it comes to gun-rights. People Of The Gun do hold the moral high ground and we win on the issues when we make unalloyed defenses the 2nd amendment. Bloomberg’s hirelings attempt disrupt this advantage with gloss and artifice. Grass-roots groups like OC Texas are not very good at gloss and artifice and so they shouldn’t even attempt to compete with the Mom’s on that playing field because they’ll always be outclassed. By attempting to move beyond public space demonstrations focusing on gun rights, OCers attempted to further dramatize their issue by open carrying in private businesses. In doing this they moved onto the media professionals’ truff . . . whereupon they got handed their heads. OCers can handily turn a rather large media/PR fail into a stunning victory by doing one simple thing: return to open carry demonstrations in public places. Oh, and tell the Chipotle Ninjas to either stay home or stop posting poseur Facebook photos of themselves with their hands on their weapons.
“The rifle OC folks may not be helping matters, but they are certainly not causing the adverse public statements that always come on the heels of an MDA media event.“
Thank-you.
FINALLY some correlative data, qualitative as it is.
Thank you for writing that letter.
Tyler,
Hello from the land of Target HQ. Many of us here in MN have worked for or know someone who works for Target. I’ve worked security for target myself, back in the day.
This is a great customer feedback letter; logical, concise, factually based, and personalized. You hit all the relevant points in a passionate and rational manner.
Unfortunately, this company does not seem to see you as their customer base.
Next time you are in Target, take a look at the merchandise they don’t carry; guns, ammunition, hunting supplies, knives, etc. Automotive parts? Nope. Decent tools that would last for more than a few hours of use? Nope. Home hardware items beyond the superficial consumables any unskilled homeowner might require? Nope.
Again, great letter – but Target moved away from supporting gun owners, hunters, and outdoors enthusiasts long ago.
Brother, I agree with you and support your perspective – I’m just afraid this letter is about 15-20 years too late to have any relevance on Target’s current business model and priorities.
I think you’re on to something there.
I don’t like that they made this announcement and I don’t plan on spending any money there again but from a business point the choice was probably pretty easy. If they went with either extreme, either taking all legal measures to prohibit legally carried guns by posting proper signs or making a public announcement that all gun carriers, open or concealed, are welcome the other side would continue making noise. What they did is probably the only thing they could do that would ease most of the attention without making any real change. The MDA will call it a win for what I see as little more than a statement asking them to shut up. Like Starbucks who even went as far as saying it is a request and they won’t even have employees ask open carriers to leave it is as close to not doing anything that they can get away with.
Great letter by the way. Doesn’t matter how long it is, could be a page or a paragraph they probably don’t go past the first sentence either way.
Great letter, get a buddy to edit it JIC 🙂
Some will lose the value of a good argument when they find issues etc.
Now this one did it for me, Tyler. Just brilliant. I totally envisioned myself in your recount of facts and concepts. I am a 46 years old father of 2 but the most part, it’s like you described me (and many more I’m sure). Way to go.
I think it’s a great letter.
I also love the fact that Target/Starbucks/Chipotle have thrown the doors wide open to being held liable in the event that someone is the victim of a gun crime on their property.
Ok letter but would anyone be discussing this if OCT hadn’t been Target ninjas? I quit shopping at Target last year over horrible customer service & bad prices/selection. Don’t care if Target stays in business. Or Kmart. Or Sears…but I can buy guns & ammo at Wal-Mart.
If you have a Target credit card cut it up and include that also.
WalMart and Sam’s Club credit AND Amazon credit are done through (anti-gun) GE Capital.
The REDcard (Target) credit cards are issued by TD Bank USA.
THAT still may be a good enough reason to get rid of it.
So on top of all the other reasons I loathe GE Capital, they are anti-gun?
Wow the goodness just doesn’t end with them!
You can “respectfully request” that I not bring my gun into your store. I can “respectfully” refuse.
Refuse to spend your money there. That will hit them where they live.
Otherwise they will laugh at you all the way to the bank.
yep you are right, and if you have a target credit card, do not use it.
I think Target’s PR dept did a horrible job of straddling the fence. Seems to me that if they simply requested no open carry, they would have pissed a lot fewer of us off and the other side wouldn’t have even noticed they didn’t mention concealed carry.
As it is in reality, they aren’t banning carry, just throwing the foaming at the mouth mongrel that is Shannon Watts a little bone to get her to stop barking. But, idiotically, they did it in a way that will have people like myself chose other places to do business. They could have crafted their words more wisely, now they’ll certainly have less business.
Agreed.
Not complicated. Like brushing your teeth in the morning. Common sense will prevail.
Thanks for the *between the lines * analysis. usriflecaliber good job.
usriflecaliber.30m1 says:
July 3, 2014 at 15:11
Nailed it. Pretty good article.
Considering that gun toting men are about as far from Target’s demographic as Joe Biden is from sanity, I think that Target is trying to be nice to us while not offending the harridans who actually buy their bath towels, juicing machines and made-in-China frilly panties.
According to a Target spokesman, the request was just that — a request. There’s no ban. I’m fine with that.
Uhm nothing against this man’s opinion, but there hasn’t been any policy change what so ever. Starbucks, Chipotles, Jack in the Box, not one has actually changed anything. They have simply asked nicely. Shannon Watts throws a yippe, and everyone carrys on, just like they always have. Feel free to carry as you always do.
If they in fact had made a legal change, then there would be signs in their door ways announcing a gun free zone. So pop a beer, relax.
“there hasn’t been any policy change what so ever. Starbucks, Chipotles, Jack in the Box, not one has actually changed anything. “
Thanks. This needs to be said and repeated.
Former target “team member” here:
If you really wanted to ruffle some feathers, you should have also mentioned that you will no longer use their target credit or debit card in addition to no longer shopping with them. And maybe adding a little bit about how you don’t trust them with your personal safety in addition to your credit card/debit card information would have hit home for them as well.
Good letter, but as soon as they see you’re a gun owner, it’s going to get tossed in the trash.
I’m sorry to say, you are probably right. I have a Target store credit card I haven’t used in years. I think I will go in and ask for the store manager, then when he appears, cut up my card in front of him. If thousands of folks would do this, it might have some effect??
Nothing in Target’s response says ban. just please don’t bring them, same as mcD, starbucks, and chipolte.
Nice letter but a bit long. My two comments. If you are anti gun for whatever reason, you more than likely will stay anti until something tragic happens in your family. Second, until 2006, the local school district would not put security guards in k-8 campuses because that would mean they would have to admit there was a problem.
I went to Target today with my concealed pistol, out of my home state no less. Zero were given.
Concealed carry with no regret. Make Target a safer place and its customers unaware of the danger lurking will eventually be glad also.
As for me and my house, we will not shop at Target. There are competitors. Even those competitors who expanded their hours and availability for the Salvation Army kettles when Target refused to allow them. Vote by your money. There are many alternatives to Target in my community and some we have not tried yet. I should have stopped altogether shopping at Target when my credit card was compromised due to Target refusing advise and strong cautions to upgrade their card swiping machines and reporting software and costing my bank (and me) so much trouble. This is the end for me at Target…so long empty target….
To be fair, Target does not allow anybody to solicit, not even for charity or fund-raising. I’m not saying that is a good thing, just that they say no to everybody so it isn’t like they, at least legally, were aiming specifically at Salvation Army. They covered their legal butts by saying nobody could (MUCH harder to prove discriminatory practices that way.)
Also, technically, once it was brought on their private property, BOTH OCT(more passively) and MDA (more actively) violated that same policy.
I disagree with only one thing.
This will not be a boycott.
This will be good citizens, lawfully-armed citizens, citizens who respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights, honoring the very publicly stated wishes of the company and staying away.
(And for those who claim that it’s not really a ban, or that they’re only against OC, re-read the statement Target put out. They don’t want guns in their stores at all – not long guns, not pistols, not concealed, not proudly worn. Though I suppose they’d still allow cops in.)
The only way to respond to Target’s statement is to stop shopping there.
There are plenty of other places to get what they sell.
Do NOT give them any more money.
Don’t give them the idea that people support their bad policy.
Make them regret their decision.
Amen!
“I’ll remind you it is still speculated K-Mart’s 1999 decision to stop selling ammunition…”
Huh, I guess the one in my hometown never got the memo. They didn’t even phase out their rifle rack until around ten years after that, and they still carried limited ammo last time I checked (basically shotgun loads I’d never use and rifle calibers I don’t have, and not at good prices).
Well, my family and friends will not be spending time NOR money at Target from this point forward.
An other “gun free zone” for the lunes to take advantage of. Just hope one of those “house wives” with MDA is not there that day. Like they shop their anyway. I have not been to an enclosed “shopping center” since 2000. There is not enough places to hide in my opinion.
Target and a few others were the last ones to have an entrance to the outside world. Oh well.
See you on the stock market with K-mart I am guessing.
I cut up my target credit card already any way.
Did you actually mail it anywhere or just post it online for the head of Target to read?
Target Corporation
1000 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55403
(Address of principal executive offices)
Gregg W. Steinhafel
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President
Nicely written but a bit too long. I understand and appreciate your point but the reality is nothing has changed. I shop at a Target in an open carry state and I’ve never seen one in all the times I’ve been there. If there were concealed weapons, I never knew about them. The sad truth is that the majority of people didn’t grasp the truth of the statement by Target. They’re not banning weapons, they just “prefer” that you not open carry in the store. Big deal! No harm no foul and I will continue to do business with Target.
They have been called for clarification and they have been clear that they prefer NO firearms be brought in; open or concealed.
Our moronic “friends” and dishonest enemies put them in a bad position so they made a meaningless PR statement. I’m not the least bit bothered by it. I feel bad that morons who think walking into a public retail store with rifles is smart are giving the anti gun crowd the “hillbilly gun-nut” photo ops they crave. By all means demonstrate safely and politely but stow that shit before going into someone’s business. Also sling them, don’t walk around with your hands on them. Look like a good guy.
I decided a couple of days ago to never shop at a Target store again.
Some clarification, Target is “asking” that you not bring guns into the store, but they’re not going to put up signs banning them. The long and the short of this? Leave the Scurry Black Rifles at home and continue to conceal carry.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-target-guns-in-store-20140702-story.html
So, basically, Target wants to appease the soccermom contingent, but recognizes that a total ban is pretty much impossible and doesn’t want to lose the 49% of Americans who own guns as customers. Classic “have my cake and eat it too.”
I don’t plan on open carrying, Conceal carry every day, and rarely shop at Target anyway, so I guess I’m not overly concerned.
And for the sake of John Moses Browning, if you just have to carry a rifle in public, get a scabbard for the thing. A scabbard serves the same function as a holster, in the sense that it clearly indicates the weapon is present but is holstered and in a safe condition.
Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create,
If I were to spend money at Target then I would be agreeing with this very public statement. I cannot do that. I will not support them with my presence or my money.
Besides, calling customer service has resulted in being told that they prefer NO guns be brought in, concealed or openly. They don’t want you, me, or anyone else there carrying a firearm.
I’m all for a place that says to advocates having a large gatehring “Do it elsewhere.”
If you’re planning a large gathering at a place of business, you have to let them know ahead of time how many and generally what it’ll involve. If it involves a lot of accoutrements, you don’t pile all of it inside; like in my army days going in for chow: leave them stacked outside, carry your discrete sidearms, and leave a guard with the pile (or shift them to somebody’s vehicle to leave them locked up in a vehicle that has somebody nearby watching it.
I used to be with an outdoor roller-skating club. As drunk and rowdy as we got sometimes, we never had too many skates or helmets or other road gear inside. Too much space,too distracting for other diners.
No problem with a restaurant or business telling a large group on a mission of advocacy to tone it down or take it off the property.
The OC error wasn’t in carrying long arms, it was too many people in too small a venue, that wasn’t set up for a convention with all their favorite gear, packed inside.
They hope that we forget they allowed a massive breach of privacy and gave out financial information to nefarious people. Well played Target.
If there not a Texas approved sign making the carry of gun a felony, I’ll go in spend my money and feel a hell of a lot safer walking back to my car, with CHL in my wallet and a gun snuggled into holster in pant pocket.
Since some retailers, have not violated my 2nd. amendment, see no reason not to give them my business. I’d do exactly the same thing they did, if I were in their shoes, give lip service to a small group of nagging, bored, women, to get rid of them.
If target had approached this a different way , as most of the problem comes from open carriers coming into the store with rifles slung on their shoulders , that needs to be addressed by the state they live in to allow concealed carry of handguns , the different way I am speaking of is place a sign on the front door that reads no open carry of firearms allowed , but those with concealed carry licenses are welcome , this would most probably not make everyone happy but would give a compromise , but of course the anti-gunners don’t want a compromise they want all firearms and total control over everything . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .
One other thing though , I won’t spend anymore of my cash at Target , and this is just another strike against them since they had their credit card readers hacked , and a lot of folks information is out there now , so if pro gun folks nationwide boycott Target , it just might show other businesses that we are not going to put up with a minority of anti gunners trying to push their agenda on everyone , I am one that believes that K-Marts woes were brought on by pro gun folks boycotting their stores . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .
That’s right. I won’t be shooting my money off to Target’s target anytime soon. Soccer moms, lawn manicurists, and anti-gun people can try to keep them afloat. At least I won’t have to deal with their ugly red plastic carts anymore.
Well said Tyler! Won’t be spending my money with target anymore. I’ll keep my Money, my Guns and my Freedom to carry.
Just for your general fund of knowledge I called Target the morning of July 3rd to clarify the distinction of open vs legally concealed carry. The agent, in the Philippines after putting me on hold to verify, indicated they were NOW including legally concealed carry in their “respectful request” despite NOT indicating that originally.
That’s fine as I’m done with Target. Straddling a fence is the wrong approach. One side or the other. I’ll let those “moms with strollers” as the news put it to depend on that unarmed security guard that roams the front registers.
the letter was too long BUT at least he made an effort, will target change probably not. as much as I blame MDA I also blame the Texas open carry movement. if it wasn’t for their arrogates none of this would be happening
Here is what you do. Go into the store,ask for the manager. Make sure it’s the real one,not an assistant . Open your wallet,pull out a 100 dollar bill and tell him ” I was going to spend this in your store today,until I heard your corporate HQ caved into a small minority. I think I’ll go to Wal-Mart” . The only way to fight back is their bottom line .
Here are a few facts that were not mentioned
1. This policy is sexist and/or discriminates against females due to the fact that it empowers criminals to more easily harm a defenseless female since the criminal knows that most law abiding citizens respect the property rights enough to disarm even if only requested.
2. This is a more criminal friendly version of Walmart since Walmart has not yet issued a statement telling everyone to leave their guns out.
3. policy unfairly discriminates against disabled people since they have little to no effective defense if prevented from carrying their gun.
4. They could have asked to not open carry rifles shotguns or rifle caliber handguns while in their store.
Law abiding gun owners and even some non-gun owners that value their lives will shop at Walmart and other competitors rather than risk their lives especially with the ridiculous prices. One reason why Walmart has been wise enough to avoid these no guns statement is because it would cripple their firearm and ammo sales as well as that of the firearm accessory sales.
Unless they want to hire enough armed guards to protect every shopper they will never have enough security. What would target’s response be to a female gun owner that was harmed due to respecting Target’s wishes? Would they blame the victim for not carrying a gun?
Disappointing that Target bends to the demands of Bloomberg’s money & “lobbyists.”
Sadly, ‘gun-free zones’ are in reality “victim-enrichment zones:” (where criminals know their victims will be unarmed.) I won’t be shopping a Target in the near future.
Comments are closed.