Cabellas is anti OC

[Griffworks]

Kind of a big assumption saying he was acting like a jerk and that he started demanding his rights (or had a attitude, or unprofessional) considering none of us who posted were there.

Nicely said, sir.

Get over it! And take your business elsewhere if you don't like it. Meanwhile, respect private property and the rights of the owners. Cabela's is private property.

With respect, you might want to read a bit further in to the thread before jumping someone's backside like this. b1780 already clarified quite a bit - and multiple times. He's gotten over it, but posts like this just throw fuel back on him to get spooled up all over again.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[boricua]

IMHO, this was a case of a misinformed and inexperience employee, thinking that he was doing the right thing. We've all experienced it, from McD's to Macy's.

Now, what troubles me is that in this case, seems that the store manager did not know the store policy, otherwise he would likely had apologized to the OP and corrected the young employee.

[yale]

I went to a quiznos for lunch and the store owner thanked me for being armed in their place of business.

Now that's weird. Of all the comments I've ever gotten while OCing that's one I've never heard. Why the heck would a store owner thank someone for being armed? Thank them for buying a sandwich, sure. Thank them for having corect change, I can see that.
If some employee told me "Thanks for wearing that gun in here" I'd be sort of freaked out for a minute then probably say something like, "Yeah well, thanks for wearing that nice Casio wristwatch while you rang up my purchase". I mean, What's up with that?

[Cosmo]

IMO, both parties were at fault here. Cabellas for not knowing their own policies, and you for not simply covering you handgun and going on about your business. When the "manager" of a business asks you to CC your weapon, he/she has been authorized by the corporation to act as the "owner" of the property...you should have done as asked and contacted Cabella's corporate office afterward. Did this make Cabella's look bad, probably not...did this make you look bad to anyone within hearing distance, probably...and to most people that don't carry...it made all of us that do carry look bad. We get enough of a bad rap without making a scene in a crowded store for the "antis" to use to paint us all with the same brush.

[peckman28]

To all those crying "private property", apparently you missed the part where the manager was acting in contradiction to corporate policy. I agree with those who say the correct course of action is to leave and contact corporate HQ after getting the name of the offending manager. This is not a property rights issue unless it is corporate policy to ban OC. Since this is not their policy, that argument is unfounded.

[b1780]

IMO, both parties were at fault here. Cabellas for not knowing their own policies, and you for not simply covering you handgun and going on about your business. When the "manager" of a business asks you to CC your weapon, he/she has been authorized by the corporation to act as the "owner" of the property...you should have done as asked and contacted Cabella's corporate office afterward. Did this make Cabella's look bad, probably not...did this make you look bad to anyone within hearing distance, probably...and to most people that don't carry...it made all of us that do carry look bad. We get enough of a bad rap without making a scene in a crowded store for the "antis" to use to paint us all with the same brush.

Sir, with all do respect go read the other posts and then make you reply. This is not the way it went down and is far from your interpretation of the events.

[Grant48]

First of all, the Cabella's store in question did not infringe upon your right. Their property rights, trump your right to carry.

Exactly. I can't believe that some people have such difficulty understanding this.

That means I would have to NOT carry.. seeing how I don't have a CPL.. so what do you have to say about that?

That's irrelevant. The OP's situation occurred in MN, where one needs a license to OC or CC.

and yes "A Right Unexercised, Is a Right lost."

It's not a "right" when you're a visitor upon private property. You're being extended a privilege by the property owner. If you do not like it, do what I do... take your business elsewhere.

[CLASS3NH]

I just found this on youtube.
YouTube - Cabela's Open Carry Conundrum

VERY odd that the perspective buyer convieniently had his "cameraman" with him in order to record the events unfolding. Personally, I'm not sure what the intentions were by recording the events.
This was in Missouri. The clerk handled it in the proper way (carrying the gun out to the doorway, then handing it off to the Customer) Main idea is to NOT let the customer chamber a round into the weapon while on the store property. this is a SAFETY procedure, handled by the Store personel.
Didn't look like anybody way spooked by the person who O/Dd in the store.

[Raspy]

Maybe I came on a bit strong. But he did say he was pissed and the guy was a moron and a dope. He said he knew the law and he took it to the manager and reminded them of how much business they lost, etc. Clearly, he was upset and he was on private property and being addressed by a representative of the property owner.

The employee had reason to feel threatened in their place of business and that makes him out of line in my book. A customer with a gun on display demanding his version of his rights.

I don't want to start an argument, but I would not want that happening in any store of mine. If I was carrying on someone else's property and they simply asked me to cover it with my shirt, I would simply say OK, or I would leave. I would never start an argument while open carrying.

[ecrist]

... Let me ask you, how would you feel if someone infringed upon your right to OC, when corporate and state policy are in favor of it? I believe you would be upset too.

Your rights weren't trampled. You were on private property, you had the option to leave. I wasn't trying to poke at you or say you were wrong, simply a friendly look at the entire situation.

[Eagleks]

I have to jump in with a comment.

Seems want to stand up for a business's private property rights, but let that same business be a restaurant that is total smoking, and watch the legislature pass a law making it illegal. Where's the private business property rights ? No one had to go there ...... we "had" a restaurant here in town that posted "total smoking restaurant"... and they passed a law prohibiting it.

It seems to be used whenever it 'fits' someone's argument, and NOT , when it doesn't.

Here, they are looking at a law requiring any business which "posts" to provide security, metal detectors, etc. to protect the customers while they are there.... since they took that ability away from them protecting themselves when they posted their business.

The Govt could care less about "property rights" , if it decides it wants to.

And if their property rights over-rule our individual rights ... where does that STOP... or does it apply ONLY to the 2nd Amendment. What about the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, etc. too ? Why wouldn't it apply to all of them ? ?

[Spec]

Exactly. I can't believe that some people have such difficulty understanding this.



That's irrelevant. The OP's situation occurred in MN, where one needs a license to OC or CC.



It's not a "right" when you're a visitor upon private property. You're being extended a privilege by the property owner. If you do not like it, do what I do... take your business elsewhere.

Ok first off I live in Michigan and DON'T need a permit to OC, second off since corporate policy of Cables is to follow state law I don't care what the managers opinion is because it is only his misguided opinion. He is the one who is going against his company policy he is at fault. Since the last time I checked "managers policies" don't trump corporate policy. END OF STORY. I don't see where everyone is missing this. The OP was completely legal in his actions, yet everyone just keeps telling him that he should have "covered it up"... why because the manger (who is still going against corp policy mind you) doesn't like OC?

If we all listened to others' opinions what type of world would that be? It is like when the LEO stopped me my first ever OC... They didn't like me OC and told me it is not smart to OC... BUT GUESS WHAT? It is my right, it is the law. THE LAWS/POLICIES win every time. Opinions not so much.

[NIS350ZTT]

It seems to be used whenever it 'fits' someone's argument, and NOT , when it doesn't.

And if their property rights over-rule our individual rights ... where does that STOP... or does it apply ONLY to the 2nd Amendment. What about the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, etc. too ? Why wouldn't it apply to all of them ? ?

The OP was completely legal in his actions, yet everyone just keeps telling him that he should have "covered it up"... why because the manger (who is still going against corp policy mind you) doesn't like OC?

If we all listened to others' opinions what type of world would that be? It is like when the LEO stopped me my first ever OC... They didn't like me OC and told me it is not smart to OC... BUT GUESS WHAT? It is my right, it is the law. THE LAWS/POLICIES win every time. Opinions not so much.

And yet again, I fail to see how anyone can assume that the OP 'argued' in the store or made a 'scene.' (or didn't CC after being instructed to)

If anyone wants to assume and/or judge the OP, go right ahead. I'll reserve my assumptions and just go off of the exact words the OP posted, as I was not there when it happened.

Seems like the negative comments are coming from those who likely CC as they are worried what other people will feel about them OC'ing. I wouldn't OC to make people feel threatened, I would carry to protect myself and my family. Would it make sense if your tattoos, body piercings, and gangster clothes were making an employee feel threatened and they asked you to cover up your tattoos, remove your body piercings, and dress more decent? They have the right to dress and portray themselves however they want, just as the OP had the right to OC, and not CC. Manager and employee are violating corporate policy which is to respect state law.

[Raspy]

Spec,

I don't see how anyone can argue with a company representative on their property about what is legal and come to a resonable agreement that is against the property owners representative. This situation was not being hashed out in front of a Judge or in front of a mutually agreed on arbitrator.

If it rose to the level that the employee went and got the security guard, the guy could have been arrested or thrown out. All while displaying his gun, which would raise the tension level even further. Sometimes you can be right and still lose. Sometimes you can be right and at the same time be rude. Sometimes you have to pick your battles more carefully.

If you simply want to argue the state's law as a defense, then why not argue the 2nd ammendment and claim it trumps any other law or rule? Forget the state law and walk in with a 50 caliber machine gun or a grenade and start arguing the constitution. There'd be a swat team there in minutes. It might be a silly example, but where do you draw the line?

It seems over the top, but where does the argument end? It should end at civility in a private business that has asked you not to open carry. Even if that request was not company policy, it is by default company policy at the time of the request. The next step is to clarify company policy (after leaving the store) with the higher ups and make sure the store manager gets tuned up. But it's really not the right time to force a company review of policy while in the store and while arguing with their manager.

You're right. Store manger's policies don't trump corporate policies. But, they are the policy at the moment, based on the manager's judgement, and until it gets straightened out. No store manager worth his position is going to let a customer, displaying a gun, set store policy, even if that customer may have a point. The customer is challenging his authority and he has a weapon. This is a recipe for a big problem.

I'm glad b1780 is making the effort to follow the rules and to push our rights farther forward. He is informed on the law. Good. But sometimes you have to win in other ways. Direct confrontation may do as much harm as good. Fortunately, the employee did not feel threatened enough to take it to the next level with security.

I'm not trying to blow this out of proportion and obviously I wasn't there. I'm simply asking how anyone there at the time, could effectively argue against the employee in this case. By the time you've won the argument you've lost it in another way.


b1780,

Thanks for knowing your rights, representing yourself and the rest of us in our quest for greater acceptance of carrying, and bringing your story here for all to hash out. It helps the whole cause.

[Raspy]

NIS,

Well, as I said I wasn't there, but he was the one who said he was pissed, the guy was a moron, a retard and a dope that had no clue. He also told the manager that he will have to clear this up before spending another dime in the store, he just lost a sale and that he'll be taking this issue up with others.

He also proudly states in his signature that he carries his gun because it enables him to be unafraid.

Sounds like a "scene" to me.

I've done similar and can get pissed too. I'm not getting on his case, just answering your question as to how anyone can assume he was making a scene. So there it is.