New store in Lafayette

[Mgderf]

I help teach the NSSF "First-Shots" program at Applied Ballistics. I shoot there, I buy/sell/trade guns there, I chew the fat there, I arrange business meetings there, once in a while I even help out behind the counter, or as a volunteer range safety officer.

Stan, Dan, Ed, Shelby, Leo, it really doesn't matter much who you get to assist you.
They don't have a problem with people carrying, concealed or open. They just have a problem with idiots!

I'd not even heard of ERG? until this thread.

 

[thebishopp]

An apology to Whittakers. I went there today and the sign on the door states "all weapons must be checked at the desk." I asked one of the clerks if that meant we weren't allowed to carry in there. He looked surprised and said, "Sure you can carry here. That sign means to have your weapon looked at as you come in if you are going to trade." I was wrong and want to let everyone know that they are carry-friendly. But, why the confusing sign? To me "check" could mean turn it in at the door.

Good to hear. I have been shopping at Whittakers since the mid 90s and love that place. I was actually told about it by an old co-worker of mine back when i was "on the job" in KY. He had his own FFL but still bought a lot of his guns there (said their prices were so close to what he could buy guns for that it was easier to just buy them there and let them handle the paper work lol). I just wish they were closer to me but it's probably a good thing they aren't as I would probably be spending money I don't need to be spending lol.

 

[Benny]

An apology to Whittakers. I went there today and the sign on the door states "all weapons must be checked at the desk." I asked one of the clerks if that meant we weren't allowed to carry in there. He looked surprised and said, "Sure you can carry here. That sign means to have your weapon looked at as you come in if you are going to trade." I was wrong and want to let everyone know that they are carry-friendly. But, why the confusing sign? To me "check" could mean turn it in at the door.

Now that you mention it, I have seen that sign before...I can definitely see how it could be confusing, but I always read it as they explained to you; that could easily be because I like the place so much and didn't want to believe they'd disarm their customers. That's just not something I could see Big D doing.

Oh yeah, who does your transfers and how much do you pay?

 

[Hammerhead]

Sure, we all have the right to choose where we shop. But, I sometimes wonder if it ever occurs to some folks that the property owners have rights, too. Your rights do not over ride anybody else's rights!

No one said anything about them changing (at least the OP didn't). Of course our rights don't override theirs, that's why we shop elsewhere.

Hell, Bill even said that he won't even go in to look around as per the business' request. The business can only post the sign an enforce it if they see a weapon, they don't have the "right" to make it illegal to carry.

And not to sound rude (ok, maybe a smidge) but I don't have to abide by a request, either. If I chose to enter a place that aside from a stupid sticker on a surface is legal to carry my sidearm into, that's my choice. I don't honor every request made of me. My answer to their request or "policy" is simply "no."

Of course they can ask me to leave. That's not the request the sticker or sign is making, unless it's specifically worded (Chuck E. Cheese comes to mind). I don't have an issue when they ask me to leave (posted or not). I do business where I please. I don't have to do business where my inanimate possessions are scoffed at and misunderstood at the least, or feared at the most.

It hurts a business more than it hurts me for me not to spend my money there.

 

[Homebrew]

That store is around the corner from me. I'll go in and ask what it's all about.

 

[DRob]

Amazing

Does nobody see the irony in a person demanding their rights while simultaneously ignoring the rights of others?

 

[ATM]

Does nobody see the irony in a person demanding their rights while simultaneously ignoring the rights of others?

Nobody sees that as irony because it just isn't the case.

 

[Benny]

Does nobody see the irony in a person demanding their rights while simultaneously ignoring the rights of others?

Well,

Nobody sees that as irony because it just isn't the case.

This.

Try to keep up.

 

[TMU317]

So, for those of you who do not patronize stores with such signs, do you also choose to not visit the 1500? I am just curious.

 

[DRob]

Interesting

Nobody sees that as irony because it just isn't the case.

Trampling all over the right of the property owner to prohibit guns in his business place "isn't the case"?

I'm not agreeing with the blanket policy but he does have that right, you know!

 

[ryanbr]

I was going to say the same. I have been to 5 or 6 of the gun stores around the Indy area in the last week, every one of them had a sign on the door say no loaded firearms.

So why point the finger at this one store? What gun store do you typically buy from that does not have a similiar sign?

Downham and Sons in Logansport!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Does nobody see the irony in a person demanding their rights while simultaneously ignoring the rights of others?

Who is doing this? If you mean me, how am I ignoring their rights? As I see it, they told me I'm not welcome there because I won't disarm. I didn't ignore their rights, I honored them, possibly to my own detriment: I might have found a good deal or a new friend there. I posted about it in hopes they would see this or be told about it, that they might have an opportunity to re-think their signage and policies. I had that influence on another store a while back that was going to start up with a "no loaded guns inside" policy (though admittedly, that store posted their planned policies here for comment prior to opening and after discussion, revised them, then opened; it looked to me like they wanted to go a different route than they were going, but wanted feedback before doing so. Please note that I'm not putting words in their mouths, this is merely my thinking.) I absolutely believe in their right to post that sign and said so. I chose to follow it and, since I wouldn't go in with an empty gun, I was left only the choice of not entering.

So, for those of you who do not patronize stores with such signs, do you also choose to not visit the 1500? I am just curious.

You know... I could probably come up with a reasoning that said that they don't own it, they lease it. I could probably say something about the NDs that have happened there, too... but I won't. The 1500 has gone on for so long and that policy of theirs is so "normalized" in recognition that while I might grumble about it, I guess I put 2 and 2 together and somehow came up with 3... You're quite correct, though, the analogy is perfect.

I won't say I've never been to the 1500, because I have. I won't say I've never disarmed there, because I have. I won't say I've carried an undetected BUG there, because that would be violating their rules and I don't think any applicable statute of limitations has run out.

Being a mod for INGO, I can't say I'll never go to the 1500 again, either, which is a bit hypocritical, I know. I don't really have an answer for this that is satisfactory to either you or me, and that disturbs me. Perhaps the reasoning is that I can't change the 1500, but maybe I can help a small change to happen that will hopefully "snowball" into a larger change: If the entire 2A culture gets used to seeing stores that won't give in to the insurance myth, that won't disrespect their customers, that actually honor and respect the 2A, maybe someday the 1500 will also change and their requirement will be "no unholstered/uncased loaded guns". (That is, if it's loaded, it has to be in a holster and stay there.) I'd really like to see that happen, and might (MIGHT!!) support their signage specifying that the person who draws a gun without a zip-tie will be treated as a trespasser and ejected without refund.

You have a rep inbound for pointing this out. You made me think about this. I like that and for that I thank you, but I'm not very happy with where that thinking led.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

Trampling all over the right of the property owner to prohibit guns in his business place "isn't the case"?

I'm not agreeing with the blanket policy but he does have that right, you know!

Your view on this supposed trampling of some right by ignoring a sign is the closest thing to irony I see in this thread.

 

[TMU317]

Who is doing this? If you mean me, how am I ignoring their rights? As I see it, they told me I'm not welcome there because I won't disarm. I didn't ignore their rights, I honored them, possibly to my own detriment: I might have found a good deal or a new friend there. I posted about it in hopes they would see this or be told about it, that they might have an opportunity to re-think their signage and policies. I had that influence on another store a while back that was going to start up with a "no loaded guns inside" policy (though admittedly, that store posted their planned policies here for comment prior to opening and after discussion, revised them, then opened; it looked to me like they wanted to go a different route than they were going, but wanted feedback before doing so. Please note that I'm not putting words in their mouths, this is merely my thinking.) I absolutely believe in their right to post that sign and said so. I chose to follow it and, since I wouldn't go in with an empty gun, I was left only the choice of not entering.



You know... I could probably come up with a reasoning that said that they don't own it, they lease it. I could probably say something about the NDs that have happened there, too... but I won't. The 1500 has gone on for so long and that policy of theirs is so "normalized" in recognition that while I might grumble about it, I guess I put 2 and 2 together and somehow came up with 3... You're quite correct, though, the analogy is perfect.

I won't say I've never been to the 1500, because I have. I won't say I've never disarmed there, because I have. I won't say I've carried an undetected BUG there, because that would be violating their rules and I don't think any applicable statute of limitations has run out.

Being a mod for INGO, I can't say I'll never go to the 1500 again, either, which is a bit hypocritical, I know. I don't really have an answer for this that is satisfactory to either you or me, and that disturbs me. Perhaps the reasoning is that I can't change the 1500, but maybe I can help a small change to happen that will hopefully "snowball" into a larger change: If the entire 2A culture gets used to seeing stores that won't give in to the insurance myth, that won't disrespect their customers, that actually honor and respect the 2A, maybe someday the 1500 will also change and their requirement will be "no unholstered/uncased loaded guns". (That is, if it's loaded, it has to be in a holster and stay there.) I'd really like to see that happen, and might (MIGHT!!) support their signage specifying that the person who draws a gun without a zip-tie will be treated as a trespasser and ejected without refund.

You have a rep inbound for pointing this out. You made me think about this. I like that and for that I thank you, but I'm not very happy with where that thinking led.

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks for the answer. It's an interesting topic, and I can understand both sides of the argument. I do not necessarily agree with the signs or the policy, but I can understand why they would not want someone handling a loaded firearm in their store. I would not appreciate someone standing next to me playing with their firearm, whether it is "unloaded" or not. However, this is where I agree with previous posts which stated that it would be better to post that it is against policy to unholster/handle a loaded firearm. I can only imagine the negative press that would result from an individual accidentally firing a round and striking another customer or an employee. In the end, I agree with you that it is mostly a matter of personal choice. They can choose to post such signs, and potential customers can then choose whether they patronize such shops or not.

 

[Six Forty-Two]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Applied Ballistics had a "No Loaded Guns" policy. With some input from patrons, they changed it. Perhaps input from potential customers will change the policy at this new store. If nobody says anything, how does this guy know he is offending people and losing business? I'm sure not every gun shop owner follows this website on a regular basis.

 

[DRob]

Sorry about that

Your view on this supposed trampling of some right by ignoring a sign is the closest thing to irony I see in this thread.

Sorry you see it that way. All I'm saying is those who get wrapped around the axle over this and declare they will ignore the sign and enter with their gun are doing exactly the same thing to the owner they accuse him of doing to them. If you choose to go elsewhere, go ahead. No problem.

I just can't buy the concept that disagreement gives a person license to refuse to comply. It's not a one-way street. You can't expect the world to respect your rights if you have no respect for the rights of others.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Applied Ballistics had a "No Loaded Guns" policy. With some input from patrons, they changed it. Perhaps input from potential customers will change the policy at this new store. If nobody says anything, how does this guy know he is offending people and losing business? I'm sure not every gun shop owner follows this website on a regular basis.

Prior to opening, yes, they did.

I don't expect every shop to follow INGO, of course, nor do I expect my opinion and practice to change every mind. I do know that if enough people do see it my way and follow that practice, the owner will change his policy or go out of business (presuming he doesn't get enough business from others who don't carry as to make our opinions insignificant to him.) Of course, if potential customers are insignificant, I still don't want to shop there.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hammerhead]

Sorry you see it that way. All I'm saying is those who get wrapped around the axle over this and declare they will ignore the sign and enter with their gun are doing exactly the same thing to the owner they accuse him of doing to them. If you choose to go elsewhere, go ahead. No problem.

I just can't buy the concept that disagreement gives a person license to refuse to comply. It's not a one-way street. You can't expect the world to respect your rights if you have no respect for the rights of others.

You're confusing a right with a request. They are requesting that you not carry. They can't make it illegal, nor can they forcibly remove your firearm from you. The property right they have is asking you (royal you) to leave, or make your business conditional. They don't have to do business with you and can trespass you. That is their right. The signs mean nothing and are only a notification of "policy" or "request." That doesn't make it a conditional notification.

I'm not trampling anyone's rights. I'm ignoring their stupid policies or anti-personal responsibility requests.

 

[DRob]

You're confusing a right with a request. ....................

It is a request he has a right to make, though. And a request which we have no right to ignore.

We do have the right to take our business on down the road but I guess this means many of us will be boycotting the gun shows.

 

[Chase515]

I've been to 4guns. Nice folks......stock was pretty thin.

I've been to 4guns also guys behind the counter both unholsterd there weapons, one had a sig and the other a glock, to show them off to me. Neither guy unholstered in a safe direction or made an attempt to clear the weapon before waving it around. I was picking up rounds for my 380 and it created a stir among the staff as to who's carry weapon was better. Those holsters the staff were wearing, looked nice with the guns in them.