They were, unfortunately, forced to say SOMETHING....But in placating one market segement, they chose to alienate another one. I am a part of that alienated portion.
Sadly(for them), my firearms is attached to my pants....which is also where my wallet and money clip reside.
Therefore, if my gun (and therefore my pants) aren't welcome, then I will stay away...and so will my wallet and my money clip.
Unless, and until Target is willing to also take responsibility AND liability for my safety from any shootings, stabbings, assaults, or other mayhem which might happen in their store (and this would require more than one elderly security guard, more like 15 per store to be effective) then they cannot have my business.
I probably spend 3-4 thousand dollars a year at Target. Now my gun, my pants, and my wallet will be forced to accompany me elsewhere for my shopping needs.
There are a LOT of retailers out there.
9 comments:
Blame our laws. The law says that Target is liable if a COW holder that they permitted to carry a weapon shoots someone. They are not liable if they prohibit carry and a criminal shoots someone.
I do blame Target. They didn't 'have' to say anything. They could have simply replied "no comment" to MDA and the media.
They chose their response. Like you, I'll respect their choice.
I also agree with Divemedic that our laws are out of whack.
Divemedic:
I think you are wrong. the states I am aware of that have CCW laws don't hold a business owner liable. Might be different wherever you are from.
Had they not taken a stand, they';d have no liability.
IF they "welcomed" CCW or open carry, then they MIGHT have an issue of liability. Otherwise, no statement about lawful CCW carry leaves them without any liability. Simply requiring that their customers "obey the law" leaves them held harmless.
I am afraid I can't stop going to target because of this issue. I haven't darkened their doorstep since the banned the salvation army collecting at their door in 2004. Nope, no use for them at all.
@B this is not CCW law, but general liability. If a property owner knows of a hazard, but takes no action to mitigate it, he is liable. A lawyer could easily make the case that the risk of a person being shot by a CCW holder was an easily forseeable hazard that the owner failed to mitigate by allowing carry.
However, if a no carry policy is in place, they can make the case that they tried to mitigate the hazard.
Here is a good explanation
http://m.injuryclaimcoach.com/
Divemedic: Nothing in your link discusses robberies or illegal firearm use.
It has long been held that a property owner cannot be held liable for the criminal acts of others that take place on his property, as long as the property owner takes reasonable steps to mitigate the risk.
For example, lighting a parking lot is reasonable, but providing armed guards is not. What is reasonable is generally a matter to be decided by a jury, as it is a matter of fact and not law.
Post a Comment