"We aren't asking you to leave, we want you to stay and shop"...

[daddymikey1975]

So you allowed them to lecture you for exercising your rights because they were polite about it?

They didn't lecture me, they simply made a request, which I politely, and respectfully denied.

You're a far more patient man than I, politeness or no.

I'm a window tinter by trade. This requires TONS of patience. (moreso than raising children LOL)

I would have smiled all the way to the door.

This wouldn't have accomplished as much as I believe I accomplished. Besides, I was really trying to get them to ask me to leave, which they failed to do.

Ya know, the interesting thing to me in this encounter, is that they seemed to be "somewhat" educated in that they understood your right "and supported it". This to me seems like progress. Also, I think you made a really good point with them by challenging the fact that they should have educated the complainer. We need to keep working to get progress in this area too. I am maybe like some of the others here... CCing all the time and on the verge of testing the OCing waters.

Meet me at Meijer sometime. We'll pop your cherry properly (thanks for the kind words. This is exactly what my intentions were after they asked me to cover it)

It isn't just some "thing", is it? You said you were carrying TWO sidearms. Both exposed.

True. I missed the (s) then, didn't I? (I normally don't carry both of the sidearms that I happened to be carrying. My wife and I had intentions of going shooting afterwards, but our plans changed.

What would they have done if you'd said you WERE a LEO? They would have gone back to the scared shopper and said something like, "It's ok, we've checked him out, nothing to be afraid of, he's an off-duty policeman/deputy/etc."

My wife was pondering the same question (and presented the same).. I never got a straight and satisfactory answer beyond "the police are allowed to do lots of things that normal civilians aren't allowed to do such as carry in a courtroom (this, by the LP guy).. Didn't satisfy her curiosity, but she allowed me to be precise, and matter-of-fact with him. Again, I can't emphasize enough that neither the LP guy, nor the manager were being douche nozzles about things during the encounter. I want to make sure everyone understands that. Had they been douches, I would have dumped a bucket of sarcasm on them and treated them like crap.

Why could they not do the same here? "It's ok, sir/ma'am, we've checked him out, nothing to be afraid of, he's licensed and he's not doing anything illegal. Thanks for shopping with us and bringing your concern to our attention. Have a nice day."

I first asked if they did follow this course of action.. when they replied to the negative, I suggested the same.. They looked as if it was well received and one of those "why didn't I think of that" moments.

By being patient and polite, what the OP may have done is left them thinking that maybe, just maybe, gun owners are thoughtful and responsible. If he simply turns and marches out the door with a smirk on his face, he will reinforce negative stereotypes and be dismissed as just another gun nut.

^ This 110% .. I could have easily been a jackwagon about things, but I remained calm, collected.. and polite. I believe this set the tone for the entire encounter and helped me cover lots of ground.

I think I will just put Meier on my do not shop list based on this. Not worth the effort.

Why ?? I live really close to this store and OC regularly. This is the first time I've ever had anyone say anything to me about it. I honestly believe had some idiot sheep not said anything, the management/LP guy would have cared less based on this interaction.

Good to know you are an equal opportunity troller. I was concerned you were limiting yourself to the "fed up" thread. Not going so well for you there, either...

^^ THIS (thanks Stocks.. gotta love the haters)

I thought there were going to be many more haters that commented on this thread than what there were. I was expecting lots of CC advocates spewing the normal "if you covered up to begin with... snarf snarf" nonsense. I'm amazed at the amount of support that's being displayed here. Certainly appreciate it.

Normally, when a situation arises similar to this, my wife is like "shut up, let's go" type of thing. In this instance, she was miffed about the whole 'LEO' thing and did allow me to speak to the folks about things without interfering. I was very proud of her.

Carry on

 

[MikeDVB]

Side thought, are you impersonating an officer if someone asks "Are you LEO" and you simply respond "yes" presumably ending the conversation?

As near as I understand the law saying "Yes" when the answer is really "No" would be a Class D felony:

IC 35-44-2-3
Impersonation of a public servant
Sec. 3. A person who falsely represents that the person is a public servant, with intent to mislead and induce another person to submit to false official authority or otherwise to act to the other person's detriment in reliance on the false representation, commits impersonation of a public servant, a Class A misdemeanor. However, a person who falsely represents that the person is:
(1) a law enforcement officer; or
(2) an agent or employee of the department of state revenue, and collects any property from another person;
commits a Class D felony.

 

[KG1]

So, the moral appears to be: "be confrontational as much as you can, as often as you can"? The OP was asked nicely, politely, and more than once. A simple request turned into a confrontation.

Looks like nothing more than another story on INGO of a legal gun owner creating issues where there are none, for apparently NO reason other than 'he can'.

Yet many of these SAME people, IF I walked in smoking a cigar would have a damn hissy-fit, screaming and shouting about how *I* have to "respect THEIR rights!" They 'demand' others be courteous and respect to THEM, yet feel NO obligation to extend the same courtesy and respect to others.

This confrontation accomplished NOTHING except perhaps create some 'bad blood' between those who carry a gun and those who don't. And perhaps with the LP guy and Manager, who are already pro-gun. Won't be surprised to see "No Guns" or "NO Open Carry" signs going up at Meijer now, because of incidents just like this. Thanks.

All that "I don't give a f$%@ whatever other people think sounds really 'cool' on INGO. BUT, what these SAME people don't seem to realize is that the non-gun lady ALSO votes, and ALSO has a voice in her community about YOUR gun rights.

The "I have the RIGHT!" crowd can spew all the rantings they want, but they also KNOW that the right is not 'unlimited'. Neither is free speech, and so on. Maybe he'll be happier when OC'ing is prohibited because of 'too many complaints from non-gun (or gun neutral) people?

Don't Obama, 'Double Barrel Biden', Feinstein, et. al. already have ENOUGH people on their side without US intentionally adding to their numbers? Isn't the idea is to ADD people to the pro-2A side of the debate, NOT drive them over to the gun-haters?

Hey, this guy "has the RIGHT!", no doubt. For NOW. But it would appear he's doing whatever he can to help abolish that right.

GOOD JOB!

Seems to me this post is more confrontational than anything described in the OP's encounter.

Methinks you over played your hand with this rant. I gotta give it a

 

[Smokepole]

"Tim: I'm a security officer with Meijer loss prevention. Are you a police officer?"

You: Sir, I am not at liberty to disclose my employer. Can you spell your last name for me?

ROFLMAO! I love it.

 

[actaeon277]

Are you a police officer?

Why? Are you a criminal?

 

[MikeDVB]

I would just outright stop shopping there but thats just me.

Probably easier to just not carry with that sort of attitude.

It doesn't take much to upset you, does it?

 

[ThoughtPolice]

Probably easier to just not carry with that sort of attitude.

It doesn't take much to upset you, does it?

Not really, but then again I carry concealed to prevent these situations. Also if they are willing to call the police (no matter how far in the wrong they are) it shows me they could care less about me as a customer.

 

[MikeDVB]

Not really, but then again I carry concealed to prevent these situations. Also if they are willing to call the police (no matter how far in the wrong they are) it shows me they could care less about me as a customer.

 

[sig-guy]

I actually had a similar encounter at an Indy area Hooters.

I was with a group coming from the last 1500 and the Mgr was eyeing me several times, like he was trying to figure out how to approach the topic. Eventually, he came over and asked if I was a LEO. Told him "no" and he told me that another patron had given him an ultimatum. Either he confronts me and "the firearm leaves or she was calling the police."

I informed him that I have my LTCH and that I was infact legal in what I was doing... Even offered to show him the LTCH & talk with the other patron about the legalities of what I was doing. He explained that he was fine with what I was doing and is a 2A supporter, himself. Unfortunately I had missed the "No Guns" sticker in the very top-left door on the second layer of doors entering the store. Like you, he didn't want me to leave, but he had to be sensitive to the other patron's concerns.

He wasn't being a jerk, and we actually have had a few conversations about firearms that night and since that night. I asked him about trying to inform / educate those that express concern about infringing on our Rights, but his response was that he wasn't the Big Boss & wasn't in a place to take that stance... especially with the Corp sticker on the door...

So what's the 'rest of the story'?
Did you have to remove it from the store, keep it, cover it, etc?

It's not fair when you leave us hangin'.

 

[sig-guy]

Effect is a noun. You meant "affect." Affect is a verb.

Just be glad that's the only error you found.
My English teachers had their hands full with me as one of their students!

Now math, was a piece of cake. You know 1+2+3=4 No really, it was second nature for me. Never had to study and I was the quickest and had the highest grade for my entire class every year.

History was an absolute chore. I hated that subject!

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, the moral appears to be: "be confrontational as much as you can, as often as you can"? The OP was asked nicely, politely, and more than once. A simple request turned into a confrontation.

Looks like nothing more than another story on INGO of a legal gun owner creating issues where there are none, for apparently NO reason other than 'he can'.

Yet many of these SAME people, IF I walked in smoking a cigar would have a damn hissy-fit, screaming and shouting about how *I* have to "respect THEIR rights!" They 'demand' others be courteous and respect to THEM, yet feel NO obligation to extend the same courtesy and respect to others.

This confrontation accomplished NOTHING except perhaps create some 'bad blood' between those who carry a gun and those who don't. And perhaps with the LP guy and Manager, who are already pro-gun. Won't be surprised to see "No Guns" or "NO Open Carry" signs going up at Meijer now, because of incidents just like this. Thanks.

All that "I don't give a f$%@ whatever other people think sounds really 'cool' on INGO. BUT, what these SAME people don't seem to realize is that the non-gun lady ALSO votes, and ALSO has a voice in her community about YOUR gun rights.

The "I have the RIGHT!" crowd can spew all the rantings they want, but they also KNOW that the right is not 'unlimited'. Neither is free speech, and so on. Maybe he'll be happier when OC'ing is prohibited because of 'too many complaints from non-gun (or gun neutral) people?

Don't Obama, 'Double Barrel Biden', Feinstein, et. al. already have ENOUGH people on their side without US intentionally adding to their numbers? Isn't the idea is to ADD people to the pro-2A side of the debate, NOT drive them over to the gun-haters?

Hey, this guy "has the RIGHT!", no doubt. For NOW. But it would appear he's doing whatever he can to help abolish that right.

GOOD JOB!

I'm with you. +1 Meijers management. Meijers is a company that doesn't have to, nor care about ANYONE'S rights. They are in the business to make money, and offend the least amount of people possible. They allowed the OP to keep his weapon, but only asked that he cover it up. Geez, HOW many other places DON'T do this, and simply ask that you leave? We gun owners can sometimes be the most obtuse people (I'm not saying you were rude OP, and I appreciate you being polite in the instance). The fact is, this whole "people should get used to sight of seeing firearms," is a very niche belief.

But that aside, there needs to be an acceptable middle ground, especially when dealing with those that need not observe your "rights." OP, had he dones so, would've kept the ability to defend himself, and the business customers who they may have lost due to a stranger walking around with a firearm in plainview.

Who really loses in this situation? We the gunowners. The person that complained made the OP voluntarily expel himself, so the next time she sees someone with a firearm, ole busy body is going to dime them out too. Had the OP complied, he would have been proving to the woman (who surely was observing the situation) that carrying a firearm isn't in the least bit verboten. And had she complained again, the Meijers manager could have told her nosey butt to pound sand.

Over the years, I have seen people kicked out of stores for wear offensive clothing, speaking in an unacceptable way, and for simply hanging around a store not buying anything. Those too are rights... speech, assembly, and what have you. What was their alternative? Nothing they had to leave, because the business didn't want not, nor need to observe their constitutionally protected rights. OP, unlike them, you were given MORE than a fair choice, you were allowed to keep your firearm. The 2nd Amendment, has no more precedence over any other right, but that thought is often lost, obviously, by a great many.

Disclaimer: ***sigh*** yes it is your right to OC

 

[jmiller676]

I'm with you. +1 Meijers management. Meijers is a company that doesn't have to, nor care about ANYONE'S rights. They are in the business to make money, and offend the least amount of people possible. They allowed the OP to keep his weapon, but only asked that he cover it up. Geez, HOW many other places DON'T do this, and simply ask that you leave? We gun owners can sometimes be the most obtuse people (I'm not saying you were rude OP, and I appreciate you being polite in the instance). The fact is, this whole "people should get used to sight of seeing firearms," is a very niche belief.

But that aside, there needs to be an acceptable middle ground, especially when dealing with those that need not observe your "rights." OP, had he dones so, would've kept the ability to defend himself, and the business customers who they may have lost due to a stranger walking around with a firearm in plainview.

Who really loses in this situation? We the gunowners. The person that complained made the OP voluntarily expel himself, so the next time she sees someone with a firearm, ole busy body is going to dime them out too. Had the OP complied, he would have been proving to the woman (who surely was observing the situation) that carrying a firearm isn't in the least bit verboten. And had she complained again, the Meijers manager could have told her nosey butt to pound sand.

Over the years, I have seen people kicked out of stores for wear offensive clothing, speaking in an unacceptable way, and for simply hanging around a store not buying anything. Those too are rights... speech, assembly, and what have you. What was their alternative? Nothing they had to leave, because the business didn't want not, nor need to observe their constitutionally protected rights. OP, unlike them, you were given MORE than a fair choice, you were allowed to keep your firearm. The 2nd Amendment, has no more precedence over any other right, but that thought is often lost, obviously, by a great many.

Disclaimer: ***sigh*** yes it is your right to OC

He made it a point, multiple times, that he would leave if need be. They said no don't leave. OK, then GTFO and mind you're own business. If the problem isn't bad enough for them to have him leave they need to shut-up and stop people from stuffing coolers full of other goods and walking them out the door. (My mom is Asset Protection an Commie Mart.)

 

[brotherbill3]

.... I never got a straight and satisfactory answer beyond "the police are allowed to do lots of things that normal civilians aren't allowed to do such as carry in a courtroom (this, by the LP guy)... Didn't satisfy her curiosity, but she allowed me to be precise, and matter-of-fact with him.

...


Normally, when a situation arises similar to this, my wife is like "shut up, let's go" type of thing. In this instance, she was miffed about the whole 'LEO' thing and did allow me to speak to the folks about things without interfering. I was very proud of her.

Carry on

I am not sure that LEO even get to carry in the court room unless they are ON DUTY for the court. If they are off duty - I think they too check their weapons. (but they get a handy little lock box in a special room for it too) - But that's all an IIRC ... not sure

As I said / implied - Good Job ... and it sounds like your wife is starting to get it. Good Job there too.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

So what's the 'rest of the story'?

Since I was with a group and not the driver, I chose to put it in my pocket (even less safe than in a holster) with the external safety engaged and left the empty holster in plain view. As the manager on duty said, "If I don't see it, they you don't have it... I'm not gonna frisk you, or anything."

The manager and I had a few other conversations away from my group's table that night. Very easy going and up front about things. A few weeks later my buddy and I dropped in for a bite. Toward the end of our meal the same manager walked around the corner. He looked at me and I looked at him... He commented on my outer layer and proceeded to sit down and chat about firearms and his history with them. Good times, since I also got a plug in for FNS...

 

[4evercoltsfan]

I have had that same problem there also except, I was CC'ing and when I reached to get something off the top shelf I "WAS EXPOSED" and didn't think about pulling my T-Shirt back over my FA. I was approahed by RM and both managers on site. They too wanted me to cover up. We had a full shopping cart and was just about to leave (we had been there for about 45 minutes) when I was approached. I did not get Tim I got some lady with a 80's style mullet (it was pretty sweet). I looked at my wife and said let's just head over to Target instead and the wife was cool with it.


We left the cart with them and walked out the door never to return!

 

[CathyInBlue]

They allowed the OP to keep his weapon, but only asked that he cover it up.

I don't beg to differ. I just differ. They did not allow the OP to keep his weapon. They allowed the OP to continue to patronize their establishment. He was going to retain his sidearm regardless of the status of their permission that he do so. The only thing they had any authority over him to permit him to do or forbid him from doing, was remaining on premises.

 

[jkaetz]

Something that always bugs me about complainers. Why is the complainee the one asked to leave? Why not simply tell the complainer that he/she is free to leave? Typically the store is going to loose a customer either way.

For that matter the whole country has this problem. Don't like something? Complain about it and get that something kicked out, prohibited, or otherwise removed. How about you yourself just leave? Much simpler for all involved. Here's an even better idea, is it hurting you? Is it preventing you from doing something? no? Then ignore it and go on about your life. /rant

 

[CPT Nervous]

Told him "no" and he told me that another patron had given him an ultimatum. Either he confronts me and "the firearm leaves or she was calling the police."

He should have let her call. They can't do anything about it. Why are people so ****ing stupid?

 

[ATM]

I don't beg to differ. I just differ. They did not allow the OP to keep his weapon. They allowed the OP to continue to patronize their establishment. He was going to retain his sidearm regardless of the status of their permission that he do so. The only thing they had any authority over him to permit him to do or forbid him from doing, was remaining on premises.

Bingo.

The OP offered to comply with the only factor within their control, his presence on their property.

He was at liberty to accept or decline any other requests made of him and did so politely during their conversation.

There are a few here who do not seem to understand this important distinction, but thankfully, those who were present and involved did and welcomed him to stay.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

He should have let her call.

If the guy had been a jerk about it, I would have seriously considered it.... He never asked me to leave, just please remove it from being easily seen.