Kroger joins Walmart in asking customers not to openly carry their guns

[Dashinka 24,493]

10 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Well, it just isn't that big on MY list. That's not to say it isn't important -- duh, it's a Constitutional amendment -- but not everything is equally important when it comes to amendments. I mean, the 27th, dude, not a biggie. I have preferences, you have preferences, We can disagree on what's in the top ranking. Do I think the 2nd is as important as the 4th? No. Do I think it's more important than, say, the 27th or the 20th or the 11th? Yep.

I believe the 17th is the one that has lead to the absolute quagmire we now have in Congress.  Now that did not happen immediately, but now that Senators are beholden to special interests and popular state election, it really changed the dynamic of that body.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

How about  this being put on as a MA ballot question? 

 

                       SUMMARY OF NO. 19-02
     This proposed law would hold gun owners in Massachusetts
liable for harm caused by anyone using an unsecured weapon
obtained, with or without consent of the weapon’s owner, from
any residence, business, or vehicle.  It would require all gun
owners in Massachusetts to keep all weapons in their residence,
business, or vehicle secured in a gun safe.  The law would apply
to gun owners residing in or visiting the state.
     Within six months of its enactment, the law would require
any rifle or handgun owner to acquire a gun safe as well as a
device to secure weapons while in transit in a motor vehicle.
Any expenses incurred in complying with the law could be
deducted from the gun owner’s Massachusetts income taxes.
Starting six months after the law’s enactment, no weapon could
be sold without the purchaser proving ownership of a gun safe to
house or transport the weapons to be delivered.
 

 

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/09/04/FINAL SUMMARY 19-02_1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2BNu95eM58lTck1uc0L90YjNFY4GTowRfrfhGfdMmh7uvai_-t5NuxmP0

Edited September 12, 2019 by spookyturtle

[spookyturtle 9,465]

And on a Federal level, this passed by the House.

But they aren’t after our guns.

 

https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/09/11/dem-controlled-house-passes-magazine-ban-more/

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, spookyturtle said:

How about  this being put on as a MA ballot question? 

 

                       SUMMARY OF NO. 19-02
     This proposed law would hold gun owners in Massachusetts
liable for harm caused by anyone using an unsecured weapon
obtained, with or without consent of the weapon’s owner, from
any residence, business, or vehicle.  It would require all gun
owners in Massachusetts to keep all weapons in their residence,
business, or vehicle secured in a gun safe.  The law would apply
to gun owners residing in or visiting the state.
     Within six months of its enactment, the law would require
any rifle or handgun owner to acquire a gun safe as well as a
device to secure weapons while in transit in a motor vehicle.
Any expenses incurred in complying with the law could be
deducted from the gun owner’s Massachusetts income taxes.
Starting six months after the law’s enactment, no weapon could
be sold without the purchaser proving ownership of a gun safe to
house or transport the weapons to be delivered.
 

 

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/09/04/FINAL SUMMARY 19-02_1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2BNu95eM58lTck1uc0L90YjNFY4GTowRfrfhGfdMmh7uvai_-t5NuxmP0

Thanks, but I'll have to pass.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

5 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Thanks, but I'll have to pass.

I initially read this as "it'll have to pass."

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

11 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

How about  this being put on as a MA ballot question? 

 

                       SUMMARY OF NO. 19-02
     This proposed law would hold gun owners in Massachusetts
liable for harm caused by anyone using an unsecured weapon
obtained, with or without consent of the weapon’s owner, from
any residence, business, or vehicle.  It would require all gun
owners in Massachusetts to keep all weapons in their residence,
business, or vehicle secured in a gun safe.  The law would apply
to gun owners residing in or visiting the state.
     Within six months of its enactment, the law would require
any rifle or handgun owner to acquire a gun safe as well as a
device to secure weapons while in transit in a motor vehicle.
Any expenses incurred in complying with the law could be
deducted from the gun owner’s Massachusetts income taxes.
Starting six months after the law’s enactment, no weapon could
be sold without the purchaser proving ownership of a gun safe to
house or transport the weapons to be delivered.

 

more blaming the lawful gun owners......

[spookyturtle 9,465]

6 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

more blaming the lawful gun owners......

That always seems to be the case. The criminals don’t have to worry about the law, just us law abiding citizens. 

[TBoneTX 45,284]

21 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

acquire a gun safe as well as a device to secure weapons while in transit in a motor vehicle

Satisfy the criterion by storing them in a codpiece.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

Satisfy the criterion by storing them in a codpiece.

Needs a lock to be a safe and that makes a codpiece more of a chastity belt

[TBoneTX 45,284]

Think of it instead as guarding the family jewels, si man.

[Falcon Cara 378]

I'm in Texas, I checked out my local WalMart this morning there is no signage saying anything about open or concealed carry being prohibited.

 

I will check out Kroger this weekend

[DaveE 178]

I was in Walmart last night and saw a guy open carrying. No one seemed to notice nor care.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 hours ago, Falcon Cara said:

I'm in Texas, I checked out my local WalMart this morning there is no signage saying anything about open or concealed carry being prohibited.

 

I will check out Kroger this weekend

 

    Walmart's current policy (quoted below). My guess is they are trying to figure out a way to have their cake and eat it too. It's not driven by guns or no guns. It's driven by maximizing the number of customers.

 

Quote

 

A Walmart spokesperson told The Hill that employees are not instructed to approach peaceful shoppers who may be carrying guns in areas where hunting is popular. The goal is to maintain a “non-confrontational approach," the spokesperson said, citing the language Walmart president and CEO Doug McMillion used in last week’s announcement.

However, the spokesperson said the company has provided guidelines for store managers if a customer is making employees or customers uncomfortable. Managers are expected to take the advised protocol for different situations, which in some instances may mean calling law enforcement.

 

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

I will say this for Kroger. Where else can a person work part time, with a very flexible schedule and get full coverage health insurance for 20 bucks a month. I am talking about good reasonable deductible Medical dental and vision 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

On 9/10/2019 at 8:04 PM, ALFKAD said:

That's horrible, the accident and all.  Hope he recovers completely.  Thanks for sharing, makes my sh1tty day seem... not so bad.  

 

And don't hold your breath on those 7 figures.  Lawyers tend to take most of that, yanno?  Freaking thieves...

Thanks. He's hanging in there. We spent last weekend up in the Bay Area trying to figure out if doing a SF-LA relationship would work if he got a job out there. I think it could, potentially for a short run. I'd want a ring on my goddamn finger before then though!  And yeah, I know about the cut a lawyer can take -- standard contingency on this one. Pre-trial settlement: one third to the lawyer, another third to the medical professionals, and one third to my boy. Even if we get to $1m, which we all think is potentially doable considering the damages incurred (medical care, plus quality of life, plus the fact that he was a high earner before the accident), $333k is no joke. We'd have enough to invest in real property, which is the plan. Having his attorney one door away from me helps me keep snapping the whip! Trial is set for May, so fingers crossed we get a realistic settlement offer in March or April of next year,

 

My firm is billable hours only, no contingency, so our fees can be even higher.  

On 9/11/2019 at 1:06 AM, TBoneTX said:

Asked this of Maven in another thread, but more appropriate here:  would dig an analysis of why Bram v. U.S. (1897) isn't good law today, even though it seems to prevent extracted police confessions very well and as Miranda (1967 or whenever) doesn't address.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/168/532.html

As far as I can tell from a Westlaw search, it's still good law? Curious to know where you saw it wasn't.