Author Topic: Encounter today (with recording) Meijers in Holland (North) (Read 22907 times)

kc8swy · « **on:** May 27, 2011, 04:36:15 PM »

While shopping with my GF today, I was approached by a red shirt, and a member of Loss Prevention.

You can listen to the http://www.teamkls.com/meijers052711.wav for the full scoop, it's only about 10 seconds.

The only good thing about the trip is that I picked up 17 containers of the Prestone De-icer for $.74 each instead of $3. I'm set for 10 years. And some brown paint for $2.70-$3.00 gallon reg $17-20.

scot623 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2011, 11:35:53 PM »

Being private property and because a CPL is required to lawfully carry there per 234d, I wouldn't have much problem showing them my permit. It's a whole lot better than being kicked out!

fozzy71 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 28, 2011, 12:45:54 AM »

Quote from: scot623 on May 27, 2011, 11:35:53 PM

Being private property and because a CPL is required to lawfully carry there per 234d, I wouldn't have much problem showing them my permit. It's a whole lot better than being kicked out!

+1

ocdetroit · « **Reply #3 on:** May 28, 2011, 01:44:41 AM »

+2

kc8swy · « **Reply #4 on:** May 28, 2011, 08:19:02 AM »

I understand a CPL is required since they sell liquor. No problem with that. Asking me should be sufficient.

I have the same issue with this as I would have an issue with the police pulling me over for walking on the sidewalk with a firearm.

The store doesn't stop everyone getting into their car to ask them if they have a driver's license (and to produce it), so why would they stop everyone in their store asking them if they have a CPL (and to prove it). It isn't their job to enforce the firearms laws of the state.

JoeCar · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2011, 11:50:51 AM »

In my opinion, if you don't have compassion to teach the uninformed, and take a little time to help accustom them to the idea, then we'll have more push backs like the problems with the authority that runs the Lansing library.

duff1 · « **Reply #6 on:** May 28, 2011, 01:39:07 PM »

I sent an e-mail to Meijers June of last year asking what there policy is on open carry in there stores, This is there answer. Meijer abides by all state laws regarding the carrying of firearms, Meijer does not have any policies that ban the carrying of firearms in our stores if the activity is allowed under state and local laws. I carry a copy of this with me.

emt805 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 28, 2011, 06:11:14 PM »

it sounds to me like she is thinking you need a permit to open carry or is thinking that you are trying to conceal is why she wanted to see your license. I would not have provied either a cpl or ID in this case. Cops can't stop every car doing the speed limit to see if they have a valid drivers license just for the hell of it.

CV67PAT · « **Reply #8 on:** May 28, 2011, 07:25:05 PM »

Quote from: emt805 on May 28, 2011, 06:11:14 PM

it sounds to me like she is thinking you need a permit to open carry or is thinking that you are trying to conceal is why she wanted to see your license. I would not have provied either a cpl or ID in this case. Cops can't stop every car doing the speed limit to see if they have a valid drivers license just for the hell of it.

A permit is needed to open carry in Meijers.

And the police can ask for a CPL from anyone that is conceal carrying. The analogy of the DL and driving is not valid when comparing it to firearms statutes.

While the store employee has no lawful basis for requesting to see a permit, Joe Car makes a very valid point about friendly interactions with the public and it's positive influence.

ocdetroit · « **Reply #9 on:** May 28, 2011, 09:32:55 PM »

If you feel you will be shopping their in the near future, Go in early and talk to the Manager.
And I don't think you, or any other Open Carryer will have it as hard next time.I would but i don't shop at Meijers, and there's not one that close to me. If you can thanks. Carry On.

emt805 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 29, 2011, 06:49:17 AM »

Pat the drivers license does apply as you need one to drive. They cannot stop you just to see if you have a valid license they need a reason to stop you.

The store employee does not have authority to require ID or CPL

You can refuse to show your license and still inform them while being polite.

Christian Patriot · « **Reply #11 on:** May 29, 2011, 08:49:09 AM »

BUT...Remember... It is private property and have the right to refuse service and have you removed from the premises. You MUST have a CPL to even be on the property with a firearm. So... Refuse to show your CPL and I'm sure you will be removed. I would be pleased to present mine in the name of education. I don't wish to appear distant and/or secretive to people. It creates tension and a lack of trust.I want the opposite!

Daniel

scot623 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 29, 2011, 10:13:22 AM »

Will say it again, it's private property. IF they wanted to have a policy requiring open carriers show their CPL on request it would be lawful(though not ideal). A LEO stopping OCers to see if they a license is not lawful. Private property owners do not need RAS or PC to request a CPL. Now because it is only a request, not a requirement you do not have to provide it and can just leave your basket of groceries and go shop somewhere else. But I will say this, is it really that bad to show the CPL and continue shopping, letting all the other customers see OC is permitted by the store? Versus them seeing you having a debate about showing your CPL then leaving the store with no groceries? Which scenario shows OC in the better light? It's food for thought.

kryptonian · « **Reply #13 on:** May 29, 2011, 11:23:36 AM »

any time the driver's license analogy is brought up i feel the need to point out that we should also add that vehicles kill at least 50 times more people a day than handguns - so do cigarettes.

CV67PAT · « **Reply #14 on:** May 29, 2011, 01:16:08 PM »

Quote from: emt805 on May 29, 2011, 06:49:17 AM

Pat the drivers license does apply as you need one to drive. They cannot stop you just to see if you have a valid license they need a reason to stop you.

The store employee does not have authority to require ID or CPL

You can refuse to show your license and still inform them while being polite.

The driver license analogy does not apply because a LEO can request a CPL, and one must be presented, anytime while in possession of a concealed pistol.

And since a CPL is required to OC in Meijers, it very well may be lawful for a LEO to request to see a CPL in a restricted zone.

But your understanding of applicable statutes and interaction decorum is acceptable for you. It's just not for me.

ocdetroit · « **Reply #15 on:** May 29, 2011, 05:04:26 PM »

Ok Guys said more than twice, Good job. Either show CPL and school them, or leave, cut and dry. Carry On.

BTAvery · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2011, 10:17:40 AM »

Sorry for throwing my hat in late, but Meijer policy as it pertains to employees is that the possession of a "weapon" on or off duty at any meijer store is strictly forbidden. Obviously that is not what is be talked about but it sheds some light on their true feelings.

kc8swy · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2011, 04:09:48 PM »

Thanks for everyone's opinion.

redskin · « **Reply #18 on:** May 31, 2011, 12:35:22 PM »

Quote

Sorry for throwing my hat in late, but Meijer policy as it pertains to employees is that the possession of a "weapon" on or off duty at any meijer store is strictly forbidden. Obviously that is not what is be talked about but it sheds some light on their true feelings.

What does it show about them? Possession of a pistol by an employee presents a lot of problems, liability and insurance not the least of those. It can be argued that it is more prudent for a business to tell their employees not to carry weapons.

autosurgeon · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2011, 08:43:58 AM »

Quote from: redskin on May 31, 2011, 12:35:22 PM

Quote
Sorry for throwing my hat in late, but Meijer policy as it pertains to employees is that the possession of a "weapon" on or off duty at any meijer store is strictly forbidden. Obviously that is not what is be talked about but it sheds some light on their true feelings.

What does it show about them? Possession of a pistol by an employee presents a lot of problems, liability and insurance not the least of those. It can be argued that it is more prudent for a business to tell their employees not to carry weapons.

And that is a Bull excuse. Perhaps I can see it on duty... but if you are off duty you are not their responsibility nor can they be liable for your actions.

redskin · « **Reply #20 on:** June 05, 2011, 05:25:18 PM »

Quote from: autosurgeon on June 05, 2011, 08:43:58 AM

And that is a Bull excuse. Perhaps I can see it on duty... but if you are off duty you are not their responsibility nor can they be liable for your actions.

No bull. If you have employees carrying guns, and you are aware of it and authorize it, your insurance company will have a fit. There is no doubt about it, your premiums will go up. You might even have to go back to the table with negotiations to get a new insurance plan. Its an expensive thing. Most places are in the business of making money, and shoving it down the barrel of your cashier's pistol is not prudent.

Off duty, you're right. The liability claim doesn't fit. However, you now have a question of reputation and image. If an off-duty employee is strapping, concealed or otherwise, and their sidearm is spotted by a regular customer, on- or off-duty, on or off premises, and that regular customer is not friendly to firearms... well, you've got a problem. And it isn't a problem they'll like. With today's brands being multi-million dollar assets cultivated over decades or centuries, most companies won't want to be the brand that has guns crawling throughout their stores.

EDIT: Starbucks is a good example. They are adamant about their gun policy. They allow carry to the extent that state law allows it. If you turn around and say Starbucks is pro-gun, they'll stop you and say NO. We follow the law, we take no position on gun rights. And for the same reason, they worry about their brand.

Now, you can make whatever argument you like, but it comes down to simple dollars and cents, and its not picking on guns. I work in politics, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen the biggest, fiercest, staunchest Republicans refuse to put political signs in front of their homes or businesses because they worry about losing business. No matter how absurd it seems to me and you, it is a real, valid fear.

CV67PAT · « **Reply #21 on:** June 05, 2011, 06:00:52 PM »

This is precisely what happen to a friend. His sister didn't like him and others with guns in their business and posed the question of liability to the insurance carrier. All employees were required to sign affidavits of notification that the company's insurance would not be in force if they were in possession of firearms anytime they were on the premises. nd yes premises included the parking area. And it also included while conducting company business off site. This extended to all coverage. Not just liability.

The other family members were pissed at her. But as the co-owner they were powerless to do anything. And other carriers they contacted had the same provisions.

scot623 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 05, 2011, 09:35:34 PM »

A lot of companies do not allow employees to carry off duty. Mine is one of them. Sucks, but I need to pay the bills...I certainly don't visit my store off duty often because of it.

autosurgeon · « **Reply #23 on:** June 06, 2011, 01:34:33 PM »

It just bugs me that a company feels they should be able to tell an employee what to do when they are off duty when that thing is legal and a right to boot.

Again as I said on duty I undertand. I don't like it but I understand it.

I have always wondered how gun shops get away with having their employees strapped if this is such a huge ins. Issue. Hmm I will have to ask some of my LGS's as now I am curious!

Sent from my Droid Flipside using Tapatalk

CV67PAT · « **Reply #24 on:** June 06, 2011, 02:53:39 PM »

Gun shops have insurance that allows this because they are gun shops and they get insurance for gun shops that covers the liabilities associated with gun shop businesses.

redskin · « **Reply #25 on:** June 06, 2011, 11:34:43 PM »

Quote from: autosurgeon on June 06, 2011, 01:34:33 PM

It just bugs me that a company feels they should be able to tell an employee what to do when they are off duty when that thing is legal and a right to boot.

At-will employment is the fuel here. In states where employment must be terminated for a reason, this wouldn't fly. Because you're right, they have no right to tell you what you can or cannot do when you are off-duty (unless you're on their property). But if they can fire you at-will, they can pressure you into following their rules off-duty.

I've been in this predicament before, and I immediately resigned. Its just as much my right to.

autosurgeon · « **Reply #26 on:** June 07, 2011, 03:24:45 PM »

Quote from: redskin on June 06, 2011, 11:34:43 PM

Quote from: autosurgeon on June 06, 2011, 01:34:33 PM
It just bugs me that a company feels they should be able to tell an employee what to do when they are off duty when that thing is legal and a right to boot.

At-will employment is the fuel here. In states where employment must be terminated for a reason, this wouldn't fly. Because you're right, they have no right to tell you what you can or cannot do when you are off-duty (unless you're on their property). But if they can fire you at-will, they can pressure you into following their rules off-duty.

I've been in this predicament before, and I immediately resigned. Its just as much my right to.

Yep I concur....

CV67PAT · « **Reply #27 on:** June 07, 2011, 03:36:11 PM »

Quote from: autosurgeon on June 07, 2011, 03:24:45 PM

Quote from: redskin on June 06, 2011, 11:34:43 PM
Quote from: autosurgeon on June 06, 2011, 01:34:33 PM
It just bugs me that a company feels they should be able to tell an employee what to do when they are off duty when that thing is legal and a right to boot.

At-will employment is the fuel here. In states where employment must be terminated for a reason, this wouldn't fly. Because you're right, they have no right to tell you what you can or cannot do when you are off-duty (unless you're on their property). But if they can fire you at-will, they can pressure you into following their rules off-duty.

I've been in this predicament before, and I immediately resigned. Its just as much my right to.

Yep I concur....

So you would like some sort of "protection" from an employer that wants to run his business the way he sees fit? This would require some sort of labor organizing effort. Something along the lines of a... oh lets say "union". That might work. But I don't see it getting very far in today's political and economic climate. Most people seem to be opposed to this type of organization where the rights of a worker might be protected and represented.

autosurgeon · « **Reply #28 on:** June 07, 2011, 05:35:07 PM »

Not entirely true... many right to work states have provisions for protecting the employee from these types of intrusive employer policies.

Also I was agreeing that at will employment is the driving force along with ins issues behind this type of employer nosiness!

redskin · « **Reply #29 on:** June 07, 2011, 09:13:45 PM »

Quote from: CV67PAT on June 07, 2011, 03:36:11 PM

So you would like some sort of "protection" from an employer that wants to run his business the way he sees fit?

Never. I have all the protection I need: I can quit whenever I want to. Finding and training new employees is costly. If people had any balls whatsoever, they'd do a little more quitting on principle. Then employers would treat us all a little better. I don't need legislation to fix the problem for me. Nor do I need to gang up and make threats (read: unionize). All I need is self-empowerment.

autosurgeon · « **Reply #30 on:** June 08, 2011, 12:32:24 PM »

Good points Redskin! Yep a little less bowing and scraping does wonders for how we are treated in many aspects of life!

Sent from my Droid Flipside using Tapatalk

scot623 · « **Reply #31 on:** June 08, 2011, 02:56:21 PM »

I agree with your point, but with 12% unemployment, there are a lot of people in line to take your job. Principals only get you so far when you have a mortgage, 2 car payments, various other bills, a wife who had 3 cancer surgeries in the past year(without insurance who knows where we'd be) and a 5 week old baby. Sucks, but it's life.

CV67PAT · « **Reply #32 on:** June 08, 2011, 03:13:38 PM »

Those goons have managed to do the following for me:

Negotiate a living wage so that I only have to work one job
Establish a living retirement fund for me to draw from at an early age.
Establish a annuity fund
Provide healthcare insurance for me that carries into periods of unemployment
Supplemental Unemployment Fund that helps through periods of unemployment
Guaranteed rates of pay for work performed outside of the normal work periods.
Established tool requirements that I provide so that I don't have to provide my employer with equipment and tools.

These are all provided and funded directly by myself and my fellow union members of IBEW Local 58.

There is a reason why there is a need for a Federalist Healthcare Program.
There is a reason why there is a need for a Federalist Retirement Program (SS)
There is a reason why there is OSHA
There is a reason why there are Child Labor Laws

And it doesn't take a genius to figure out the answers.

Standing alone will only get you so far. MOC is a perfect example of this.

The OP would not have even been able to get inside Meijers while OC to have his encounter if not for the joint efforts of this "union".

kc8swy · « **Reply #33 on:** June 08, 2011, 03:20:33 PM »

No union here, and I enjoy all of those except for an annuity.

Considering MOC hasn't successfully lobbied for an OC law (as one isn't needed) I completely agree with your last statement. Now if you met to say that the collaborative efforts of MOC members have helped educate the public, I would agree with that. Or if you were to rephrase that and say attempt to undo the damage of the liberal media, I'd also agree with that.

OP

CV67PAT · « **Reply #34 on:** June 08, 2011, 03:31:04 PM »

Quote from: kc8swy on June 08, 2011, 03:20:33 PM

No union here, and I enjoy all of those except for an annuity.

Considering MOC hasn't successfully lobbied for an OC law (as one isn't needed) I completely agree with your last statement. Now if you met to say that the collaborative efforts of MOC members have helped educate the public, I would agree with that. Or if you were to rephrase that and say attempt to undo the damage of the liberal media, I'd also agree with that.

OP

Chances are that you get to enjoy those benefits directly as a result of organized labor. In those states where organized labor does not have a presence, the situation is completely different.

ocdetroit · « **Reply #35 on:** June 08, 2011, 05:41:33 PM »

+1. Carry On.

redskin · « **Reply #36 on:** June 08, 2011, 05:49:30 PM »

I don't see any reason why this thread should be hijacked to support unions, and I am loathe to respond and continue it... but I will.

Union people are quick to tout their indirect benefits, but they aren't as quick to talk about downsides.

Union dues, which are often exorbitant.
Wages negotiated by Unions are often much higher than fair-market value. For public sector unions, this creates an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.
Unrealistic wages create higher cost-of-entry into unionize markets.
Union membership is often not optional. If I don't want the benefits of your union, well, too bad. I don't even get the choice (support Right To Work people!).
Some nasty acts perpetrated on workers by their fellow union members because a "majority vote" somehow makes it okay to let a guy lose his job.
Violence perpetrated by Unions.
And many more...

You can love your Union all you want, but don't dress it up in angel wings and pretend it sings soprano. Be honest with yourself and your fellow man.

autosurgeon · « **Reply #37 on:** June 08, 2011, 06:12:53 PM »

Nah my union rides Harleys and sings bass.... I kid I kid!

Shadow Bear · « **Reply #38 on:** June 10, 2011, 12:31:29 PM »

Quote from: redskin on June 08, 2011, 05:49:30 PM

I don't see any reason why this thread should be hijacked to support unions, and I am loathe to respond and continue it... but I will.

Union people are quick to tout their indirect benefits, but they aren't as quick to talk about downsides.

Union dues, which are often exorbitant.
Wages negotiated by Unions are often much higher than fair-market value. For public sector unions, this creates an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.
Unrealistic wages create higher cost-of-entry into unionize markets.
Union membership is often not optional. If I don't want the benefits of your union, well, too bad. I don't even get the choice (support Right To Work people!).
Some nasty acts perpetrated on workers by their fellow union members because a "majority vote" somehow makes it okay to let a guy lose his job.
Violence perpetrated by Unions.
And many more...

You can love your Union all you want, but don't dress it up in angel wings and pretend it sings soprano. Be honest with yourself and your fellow man.

There was a time when they were appropriate and necessary. I submit that time has passed. If people got up on their hind legs and walked away from abusive employers, the situation would change. Freedom isn't free, change costs, but the result is priceless.

News:

Author Topic: Encounter today (with recording) Meijers in Holland (North) (Read 22907 times)