RIP OC - Man Banned from Walmart in Lexington, KY - Page 7

RIP OC - Man Banned from Walmart in Lexington, KY

This is a discussion on RIP OC - Man Banned from Walmart in Lexington, KY within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by RedSafety If they are not posted as no open carry, then I hope he sues and wins. If it's not posted, its ...

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 229
Like Tree487Likes

Thread: RIP OC - Man Banned from Walmart in Lexington, KY

  1. #91
    Member Array Henry9008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Cowtown, USA
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by RedSafety View Post
    If they are not posted as no open carry, then I hope he sues and wins. If it's not posted, its NOT a prohibited location.
    To my knowledge, Walmart has not posted any stores yet. At least, not in Kentucky.

  2. #92
    Senior Member
    Array Wavygravy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    That raises a question, though: ARE they the real people behind it? Or do the other customers really not want him there, doing what he's doing? If the latter, we can hardly blame the store or the police.

    Recently, I saw someone OC'ing in a Target store for the very first time. As I passed him in the aisle, I thought, well, finally, that's cool (though my pistol was concealed as always). But sure enough, I got to the other end of the aisle, and there was a woman and her teenaged daughter, watching him and whispering nervously. Maybe 20 minutes later I passed them again after checking out, and they were still talking about him. I caught some words of the daughter: "I don't care, we should be able to go shopping and feel safe." I don't know if police were called or if the guy got hassled.

    It's a very serious mistake to ignore public sentiment about guns, or assume that it falls largely in our favor. These folks may be wrong, they may be misguided, but they're not idiots, and their votes each count just as much as ours (as they should). The 2A does not mean a right to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for any purpose whatsoever, and there are important things that can be lawfully taken from us. If a pro-gun person decides to push such people into doing so, then yes, I will blame him for his foolishness and hubris.
    Agreed strongly. +2 here.
    maxwell97 likes this.
    Charlie Co. 101st Assault Helicopter Battalion (Wings of the Eagle), 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile)
    Phu Bai, Vietnam 1971-72

  3. #93
    Senior Member
    Array Wavygravy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    1,163
    @since9 and others have talked about enemies.

    My father died 6 years ago. He was a decorated WWII fighter pilot with six kills. He was not anti-gun, but a liberal (more than me for sure) and advocated limits on assault-style rifles, extended mags, etc. until his death. He said "No civilian needs those kinds of weapons."
    Is/was he "the enemy?" His enemy was the Nazis, I believe....

    After my service, I got an education, taught public school, and ended up being a university professor for some years, besides performing music at nights. The teachers and professors I worked with weren't particularly anti-gun or anti 2A for the most part, just WAY more of the opinion that guns were for home defense, hunting and such if they had a gun at all. Most just weren't ever around guns, and guns made them uncomfortable. That was before all these recent mass shootings. I'm sure they are more scared of seeing people with guns nowadays. Are they "the enemy?" Some of them are what most of you here you would consider socialists. They weren't and aren't my enemies. Some of them are close friends.
    <edit> Some of my close friends think Trump is the best thing since white bread. I think he sucks. They're not my "enemies." </edit>
    My sisters, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law are against guns, especially public display. That would scare them to death. Are they my "enemy?"

    Who is your "enemy?" Who is "Them?"
    Last edited by Wavygravy; September 11th, 2019 at 03:45 PM.
    maxwell97, Cuda66 and since9 like this.
    Charlie Co. 101st Assault Helicopter Battalion (Wings of the Eagle), 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile)
    Phu Bai, Vietnam 1971-72

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #94
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    848
    I could tell folks about my now gone father and his shadow box full of medals that used to hang on the wall but instead I'll just say....

    Rights are not dependent upon personal experience, emotion, or opinion.
    Aceoky and tcbradbury98 like this.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  6. #95
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I could tell folks about my now gone father and his shadow box full of medals that used to hang on the wall but instead I'll just say....

    Rights are not dependent upon personal experience, emotion, or opinion.
    I take the point as this: we may have enemies in the politicians who misrepresent, dissemble and lie in an attempt to violate our rights. The people who vote for them in good faith - mistaken or hoodwinked though they may be - are our countrymen, not our enemies.
    Wavygravy likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  7. #96
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,909
    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterGranny View Post
    SO WHAT THE HECK DID HE DO? Refuse to leave when they asked him to? That would be a trespassing charge but the one LEO said he had done nothing illegal. And this in Kentucky, one of the most pro-second amendment states?

    We are all doomed. I guess we knew that but didn't think it was so soon.
    Well, Lexington is within KY (the state) but they lean more liberal by far than most of the state, though the WM manager violated the "no confrontation" policy and should be and likely will be fired IMO

    then there is this tidbit, WM not caring about the 1st either

    Risasi likes this.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  8. #97
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry9008 View Post
    To my knowledge, Walmart has not posted any stores yet. At least, not in Kentucky.
    They have not, CEO stated they're working on signs, of course signs don't carry FOL in Ky anyway and I've been told the GM's mostly won't post in gun friendly states & areas - we shall see. WM has stated (and internally through memos) they are not confronting OC folks - but simply requesting it not be done. Makes me wonder why the Lexington manager went WAY overboard to push a personal agenda and not follow WM Corp policy.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  9. #98
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Bob View Post
    He asked for attention and he got attention.
    I don't know about that Bob what he did was perfectly legal LONG before WM was even thought of much less came to Ky. Besides that fact, the WM manager on duty clearly violated Corp policy of "non confrontational" even calling LEO for a non crime on a legal activity. BIG fubar on WM manager's part IMO
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  10. #99
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    848
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    They have not, CEO stated they're working on signs, of course signs don't carry FOL in Ky anyway and I've been told the GM's mostly won't post in gun friendly states & areas - we shall see. WM has stated (and internally through memos) they are not confronting OC folks - but simply requesting it not be done. Makes me wonder why the Lexington manager went WAY overboard to push a personal agenda and not follow WM Corp policy.
    Knowing that Wal Mart has partnered with Everytown for Gun Safety is enough for me to stay out whether they sell ammo or ban open carry.... or not. I don't want a portion of what I paid for a loaf of bread funding the anti gun agenda through Everytown.
    Aceoky and ShooterGranny like this.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  11. #100
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,909
    Quote Originally Posted by RedSafety View Post
    If they are not posted as no open carry, then I hope he sues and wins. If it's not posted, its NOT a prohibited location.
    Signs are meaningless in KY , no force of law and even in the video the LEO told him "you're not in trouble with us, you did nothing wrong, WM wants you to leave" (close enough if not verbatim )
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  12. #101
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,909
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    The officer said he didn't commit a crime. Not sure about Kentucky, but in Minnesota, not leaving when asked is a petty misdemeanor, technically not a crime, but a civil infraction.
    $25 fine
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  13. #102
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,909
    Quote Originally Posted by ShenandoahValley View Post
    How do you know the entire situation or how do you know what the person will do when confronted by one officer. The officers so not deserve criticism for just doing their jobs.
    HUH? There was no crime committed, a totally 100% legal act , no need for one officer much less SEVEN........since when is it the job of any LEO to enforce a whim of a "manager" (likely former manager by now or soon IMO) especially since this was well before WM even announced their "non confrontational request"

    Being an LEO is dangerous, that is fact, confronting law abiding citizens is normally not "that risky" especially in public places with several witnesses. The whole thing is stupid, WM calling LEO in the first place over nothing at all, the one LEO giving a lecture, the shopper signing a WM document (he should have simply left ASAP and not signed anything- he was under no obligation to do so)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  14. #103
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,909
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    Oh please. That's Kentucky. I doubt seriously that a lone shopper legally carrying openly while minding his own business there is all that rare or alarming to anyone. This looks a lot like something that was orchestrated and filmed successfully for effect.
    OC in much (most ?) of Ky is as rare as seeing lines on the hwy, its rare to not see it especially in the smaller town (even in W KY) though I think I did see more (quantity) of folks in E Ky when we lived there OC. Since KY went Constitutional Carry it may not be as common, only time will tell.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  15. #104
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,909
    Quote Originally Posted by 1942bull View Post
    The question I have is what was the paper presented by the Officer? It was hard for me to hear the audio clearly (hearing aids). I suspect the paper was a citation for trespassing, but I am not certain of that. Could it have been a notice of being banned by Walmart? If it was the Officer had no business handing it to the man since it in not LE work. I do think the Officer was professional in his duty.

    As for the open carrying man who would not leave the store I think he did a disservice to us who carry. I know it was his 2A right to OC. However, in light of the recent Walmart shootings and the growing sensitivity about gun crime all he did (in my not so humble opinion) was to make gun owners seem recalcitrant and uncaring about people's perceptions. That is just bad PR for us. Which headline do you think reads more favorably for gun owners?

    Man openly carrying a gun in Walmart refused to leave the tore when ask to do so.

    Man openly carrying a gun in Walmart complies with the stores request that he not openly carry a gun in the store.

    I am a staunch 2A supporter, so I think that doing anything that makes some of the public question the actions of a gun owner is just foolish and does us no good.
    There is NO evidence he was ever asked to leave WM by any associates (which the LEO should have mentioned btw, ) the paper was to be signed saying he is banned permanently from WM and Sam's clubs nationwide. It's quite common for WM to ban folks for ILLEGAL (shoplifting, fighting , etc. ) first time I've seen them do it for a legal activity and Corp policy doesn't allow for what happened so ...
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  16. #105
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,909
    Quote Originally Posted by MB53 View Post
    So, if I understand this correctly, but without specific dates to match things up, the timeline of this is:

    Last week Walmart issues a statement via national news media that it no longer allows open carry in their stores.
    Then this guy challenges the policy by open carrying in one of the stores, where he is then issued a citation by local police and informed that he is now banned from all Walmart and Sam's properties nationwide.

    IF that is the correct timeline then all I can say is this guy was justly served.
    And, as usual, Stupid games = Stupid prizes.
    I think you certainly do not understand it at all.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •