Lowes Home Improvement Stores and their anti gun policies

[kittyhawk63]

I'll add my 2 cents. 3 Lowes within 20 miles in different directions and have open carried frequently in them all without a problem. Even had a couple of supporting comments from the staff.

You are fortunate. As you know, California stopped open carry this past January 1 in many areas where before it was legal to open carry. You won't find open carry in any of our Lowe's "that I know of."

 

[_Gladiator_]

It's hollow. It's not going to happen. Ever. No one has any right to be on any private property. No shoes, no shirt, no service? He must get past that in order to make the argument for being there armed. I don't want some huckalero deciding to open the ball in my place of business. As an instructor I see numbskulls, chimps in over-sized shoes, those looking for any reason to use a gun and a general population that can't hit the ground with their hat. I would prefer they take their business elsewhere. We really don't need their money. And if someone will only do business with others who allow him to carry a gun he's severely limiting his own options. But as a business owner he really doesn't matter to our bottom line.

Know how they say "never say never?" I'm saying "never."

The "no shoes, no shirt, no service" thing is not a fair comparison. Those things are not a constitutionally protected right. There are also health concerns that come into play with no shoes or shirts.

 

[ezkl2230]

G** I love that kind of talk. Why didn't I say that?? I hope you're gonna stick around for awhile.

Yeah, I'm planning on being around for quite a while.

I AM A STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST!!!

That means that I take the Constitution at its word, for what it SAYS - not what liberal courts have INTERPRETED IT to mean. So when the Constitution says in the Second Amendment that I have the right to bear arms, THAT IS WHAT I TAKE IT TO MEAN!!! If I am on someone's private property (by which I mean the property on which their residence is located) and they ask that I not carry, I will honor that request; THAT property is truly "private." When I am on property that has been opened to the public, however, that is a different issue. For the time being, if the owner of such property posts their business as "pistol free", I will honor that because Michigan law says that I must. But that isn't going to stop me from working to get that law changed.

I have said it before, and I will continue saying it: THE BILL OF RIGHTS (the name says it all!) IS THE ORIGINAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. Before the Bill of Rights was compiled, our Constitution didn't recognize the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights lists our inalienable, God-given civil rights - and that includes the most important one, the Second Amendment right to bear arms (the TEETH of the Bill of Rights), without which the Bill of Rights would be just another list of unenforceable pipe dreams as is true of the constitutions of nearly every other country of the world.

 

[jsimmons]

In Texas, a business MUST post proper signage at EVERY doorway that leads into the business. And they have to post a sign in both english and spanish. The letters have to significantly contrast from the background of the sign, the letters have to be of a minimum height, and as I said earlier, these signs have to be on EVERY door. If they're not properly posted, you are legally allowed to carry inside the business. If they ARE properly posted, the secret is to a) not get caught, and b) hope nobody does anything stupid (ie, bad guy) that forces you to draw your weapon.

 

[BC1]

The "no shoes, no shirt, no service" thing is not a fair comparison. Those things are not a constitutionally protected right. There are also health concerns that come into play with no shoes or shirts.

You have no rights on my private property. None. Can't speak freely. Can't carry a gun. Nothing. Go to the mall, get up on your soap box and exercise your first amendment right to freedom of speech. You'll be asked to leave. Refuse and the police will be called. Still refuse and you'll be arrested for trespass. When you get to court keep talking. You'll be charged with crminal contempt. Continue and they might tape your mouth shut like Larry Flynt. No. You have no right to even be on my property. When you get past that you can argue constitutional rights.

The courts are overwhelmingly in my favor.

• Supreme Court decision - Shopping Center v. Robins,447 U.S. 74, 1980, states that there is no constitutional right to free speech in a private shopping mall.
• Supreme Court also ruled that "The Constitution is a limit on government power, not a constraint on what private individuals or corporations may do. A municipal government may not forbid guns to everyone on the territory under its control. But, as far as the law is concerned, a private property owner certainly can. A federal court recently upheld the law, but not because of the Bill of Rights. It said that "the constitutional right to bear arms restricts the actions of only the federal or state governments or their subdivisions, not private actors."

So the law doesn't uphold gun rights on private property. This issue is long dead.

Thank God I live in a country where I can throw junior out by his ear.

 

[BC1]

Yeah, I'm planning on being around for quite a while.

I AM A STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST!!!

That means that I take the Constitution at its word, for what it SAYS - not what liberal courts have INTERPRETED IT to mean. Before the Bill of Rights was compiled, our Constitution didn't recognize the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights lists our inalienable, God-given civil rights.

Unless you were black or a woman. The bill of rights did not provide equal rights for all persons. It provided rights to white men. It allowed slavery. Women had no right to vote or own property and nothing in the bill of rights prevented it. Refer to the Dred Scott case.

 

[ezkl2230]

Unless you were black or a woman. The bill of rights did not provide equal rights for all persons. It provided rights to white men. It allowed slavery. Women had no right to vote or own property and nothing in the bill of rights prevented it. Refer to the Dred Scott case.

Which is why they were sensible enough to provide a mechanism by which the laws could be amended. The principles were there from the beginning; society had to change to assure that ALL RIGHTS of ALL PEOPLE were protected. That many in the society of that day were too ignorant to understand that these rights weren't merely for white men doesn't change the fact that the rights already existed. It was the existence of those rights that led to the struggle to insure that they would apply equally to ALL Americans.

On that note, just because many in society today refuse to accept the reality of the Second Amendment as a CIVIL RIGHT doesn't make it any less so. And I will continue the struggle to change the outlook of society to insure the free exercise of that right, in the words of the opinion of Judge Benson Legg, Federal Appeals Court (Maryland), 2 March 2012, Woollard v. Sheridan,

"self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be... A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right`s existence is all the reason he needs."

 

[Nightmare45]

Private property means exactly that, if a police officer comes on my property in Texas while not investigating a crime he can be tossed, criminal trespass, if checking on a crime different deal, no warrant have a nice day and leave.

 

[ezkl2230]

Please don't respond with these claims. This is complete ignorance of the law. The legal case law is so massive against what you claim that you are not understanding where your rights are drawn. I'm holding a pen. You might dearly want it to be a pencil. But the fact is, it's a pen. Education will set you free. Research the case law and reasoning on judges decisions. To keep making this claim hurts you in future posts. It expounds ignorance and lack of understanding of the law. It shows an inability separate your opinion from the law.

No -- you're the one who can't see what is happening here.

Those of us who contend that the Second Amendment gives us the right to defend ourselves while we are at work or out conducting business are far from ignorant of the law. To the contrary, we are painfully aware of how the law has been used to deny us our right to defend ourselves in these places. And once again, we have witnessed yet another incident where people on the job were killed or wounded because they weren't allowed to defend themselves from one deranged co-worker (Link Removed).

It has been argued that the Bill of Rights didn't cover everyone when it was first written. That is true. And because business people were more interested in protecting their income than protecting the rights of those who made that income possible, slavery was the law of the land until the civil war finally put an end to it. As one business owner posted to this forum, "For me the bottom line is more important than this topic. And that's how one becomes successful. Every single decision we make from morning to bedtime is based on the question "is this financially good for the company... and for me as the owner?" Another poster observed, "I'm in the money business. I'm not in the 'rights' business. Don't like it? Take your business or emplyment elsewhere. It's not negotiable." That is the attitude that kept slavery going for hundreds of years around the world in the past, and THAT is the attitude that makes the Minnesota, or Colorado, or V Tech shootings possible today. As the web site of Union Local 2544 of The National Border patrol Council, Tucson, AZ, observed regarding active shooter incidents:

"Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings (referring to Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Giffords shooting - added) would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage" (emphasis added).

But then something happened: the common people began to understand how their rights had been denied them. They began talking about how the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights - ALL of them - should belong to everyone. And because people began to talk, action was initiated, and eventually laws - a seemingly insurmountable number of them - were changed. THAT is what is happening here in this and other forums. People are recognizing that the law needs to be changed. It isn't about ignorance of the law, it is about a recognition that a right that exists in our Bill of Rights is being denied us simply because the government hasn't gotten around to declaring us a "protected group." It is about a recognition that the "golden rule" still exists, and that those who have the gold (the chamber of commerce and other groups that buy politicians) are still making the rules to benefit themselves at the expense of the rights of those who make it possible for them to be profitable - both employees and clients.

I have news for you, the Civil Rights Act was intended to do only one thing: assure that certain groups of people who had experienced discrimination - the denial of their Constitutional rights - no longer experienced that discrimination. That is all. It didn't set them apart for "special" treatment, although that is how it has been interpreted, and it didn't tell the rest of us to bug off, that OUR civil rights no longer meant anything compared to the rights of the few protected groups. It was created to insure that ALL the rights of ALL the people - without exception - were protected.

As I have said in other posts, I have been a business owner, and I am in the process of getting a new business up and running. I will have a sign like one of the following posted at the door of my business:

Link Removed Link Removed Link Removed

I will hunt for an insurance provider that will not require a "gun free" rider. I will be in business to both make money AND protect civil rights. The two are not mutually exclusive as some business owners on this forum apparently believe them to be.

It begins with people talking about it - and then doing something to change it. It has happened before, despite the efforts of monied businessmen to stop it, and it can and must happen again. THAT is what scares the business owners on this forum the most; the notion that, for all of their woofing about the power of the Chamber of Commerce and the pile of precedent on their side, they could actually lose the control they now maintain. There might actually come a time when they WON'T be able to tell their employees, "I don't care WHAT you believe about the Second Amendment; if you want to work for me, you'll abide by MY understanding of the Second Amendment. And if you choose not to, so what? There are 50 others waiting for your job." Because the reality is, most of these business owners WON'T close up their businesses if this ever happens. They have bills to pay and mortgages to maintain, and families to feed. They can say what they want to now, but at that time they will grumble a bit and then get on with business. In the meantime, there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that a business owner can prohibit those who enter his business from protecting themselves, and then when something terrible happens, as was the case in Minnesota this week, and people are injured or die, they can simply say, "Oh well, that's just the cost of doing business and protecting MY rights; screw the rest of you."

By the way, the following is on a bank door in Chappell Hill, TX:

Link Removed

Link Removed

 

[Sir Diealotz]

I frequent Lowes in Frankfort KY often while open carrying. Picking up more tile from Lowes again today.

Never been harassed but have conversed with a few gun owning employees regarding various sidearms.

 

[GOV5]

No -- you're the one who can't see what is happening here.

Those of us who contend that the Second Amendment gives us the right to defend ourselves while we are at work or out conducting business are far from ignorant of the law. To the contrary, we are painfully aware of how the law has been used to deny us our right to defend ourselves in these places. And once again, we have witnessed yet another incident where people on the job were killed or wounded because they weren't allowed to defend themselves from one deranged co-worker (Link Removed).

It has been argued that the Bill of Rights didn't cover everyone when it was first written. That is true. And because business people were more interested in protecting their income than protecting the rights of those who made that income possible, slavery was the law of the land until the civil war finally put an end to it. As one business owner posted to this forum, "For me the bottom line is more important than this topic. And that's how one becomes successful. Every single decision we make from morning to bedtime is based on the question "is this financially good for the company... and for me as the owner?" Another poster observed, "I'm in the money business. I'm not in the 'rights' business. Don't like it? Take your business or emplyment elsewhere. It's not negotiable." That is the attitude that kept slavery going for hundreds of years around the world in the past, and THAT is the attitude that makes the Minnesota, or Colorado, or V Tech shootings possible today. As the web site of Union Local 2544 of The National Border patrol Council, Tucson, AZ, observed regarding active shooter incidents:



But then something happened: the common people began to understand how their rights had been denied them. They began talking about how the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights - ALL of them - should belong to everyone. And because people began to talk, action was initiated, and eventually laws - a seemingly insurmountable number of them - were changed. THAT is what is happening here in this and other forums. People are recognizing that the law needs to be changed. It isn't about ignorance of the law, it is about a recognition that a right that exists in our Bill of Rights is being denied us simply because the government hasn't gotten around to declaring us a "protected group." It is about a recognition that the "golden rule" still exists, and that those who have the gold (the chamber of commerce and other groups that buy politicians) are still making the rules to benefit themselves at the expense of the rights of those who make it possible for them to be profitable - both employees and clients.

I have news for you, the Civil Rights Act was intended to do only one thing: assure that certain groups of people who had experienced discrimination - the denial of their Constitutional rights - no longer experienced that discrimination. That is all. It didn't set them apart for "special" treatment, although that is how it has been interpreted, and it didn't tell the rest of us to bug off, that OUR civil rights no longer meant anything compared to the rights of the few protected groups. It was created to insure that ALL the rights of ALL the people - without exception - were protected.

As I have said in other posts, I have been a business owner, and I am in the process of getting a new business up and running. I will have a sign like one of the following posted at the door of my business:

Link Removed Link Removed Link Removed

I will hunt for an insurance provider that will not require a "gun free" rider. I will be in business to both make money AND protect civil rights. The two are not mutually exclusive as some business owners on this forum apparently believe them to be.

It begins with people talking about it - and then doing something to change it. It has happened before, despite the efforts of monied businessmen to stop it, and it can and must happen again. THAT is what scares the business owners on this forum the most; the notion that, for all of their woofing about the power of the Chamber of Commerce and the pile of precedent on their side, they could actually lose the control they now maintain. There might actually come a time when they WON'T be able to tell their employees, "I don't care WHAT you believe about the Second Amendment; if you want to work for me, you'll abide by MY understanding of the Second Amendment. And if you choose not to, so what? There are 50 others waiting for your job." Because the reality is, most of these business owners WON'T close up their businesses if this ever happens. They have bills to pay and mortgages to maintain, and families to feed. They can say what they want to now, but at that time they will grumble a bit and then get on with business. In the meantime, there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that a business owner can prohibit those who enter his business from protecting themselves, and then when something terrible happens, as was the case in Minnesota this week, and people are injured or die, they can simply say, "Oh well, that's just the cost of doing business and protecting MY rights; screw the rest of you."

By the way, the following is on a bank door in Chapel Hill, TX:

Link Removed

Link Removed

Your post is a very well presented case for OUR cause. In a country that is founded on a Constitution, and that is our order of law first and foremost, our "backbone" if you will, ALL the RIGHTS of everyone should be protected and enforced if necessary. No one person, group, or business, is above the law of the land. A man's home is his castle. His business isn't. At home, he can call the shots. At his business, he can't...when it comes to public law. And like the owner said "If you don't like it, take your business somewhere else". Well, THAT is exactly what the BUSINESS OWNER can do if he/she doesn't like the LAW...take the business somewhere else. Doesn't sound so good when the same words are turned around on the business owners, does it OWNERS?

And besides, when an owner tries to tell you that YOU don't understand that HE can do whatever he wants because he owns he business, and you are ignorant for not understanding that, he is patently wrong himself. There are a multitude of laws he must follow if he wants to even open, much less run, a business. Tell the Fire Inspector, for instance, that you don't care what he says, you don't want an ugly fire extinguisher hanging on one of your business walls. Then see how long YOUR BUSINESS, where you supposedly "call the shots" stays open. LOL!!

Carry on your fight. You are right about your stance. And comparing it to the Civil Rights Law is a proper comparison too. The ability to defend one's life and well-being is the most basic of all civil rights.

 

[mappow]

OC or CC at Lowes both in SC and NC has never been a problem, at least for me. Of course, who knew at Lowes I was CC'ing.

As for ezkl, I would post the "Guns are Welcome" sign. Gotta Lov that Judicious Marksmanship.

 

[Gr8gunz]

No -- you're the one who can't see what is happening here.

Those of us who contend that the Second Amendment gives us the right to defend ourselves while we are at work or out conducting business are far from ignorant of the law. To the contrary, we are painfully aware of how the law has been used to deny us our right to defend ourselves in these places. And once again, we have witnessed yet another incident where people on the job were killed or wounded because they weren't allowed to defend themselves from one deranged co-worker (Link Removed). etc. etc.

This is the best post I have ever read on this subject. You are smack dab on target describing the attitudes of these business owners/employers as well as your assessment of the current laws that they egotistically tout as being so virtuous. They believe themselves to be so absolutely right about it it's maddening. Isn't it interesting how they resort to personal attacks and even name calling if you disagree with them about this? Their shrill is reminiscent of anti-gun liberals.

I wish I could be so eloquent. May I use this in other postings and personal emails? Giving full credit of course.

 

[eagleeyes]

just about anyting in homedepot or lowes can be used as a weapon and even deadly so for them to have a policy against 'weapons' of any kind would be kind of stupid imo

 

[ezkl2230]

This is the best post I have ever read on this subject. You are smack dab on target describing the attitudes of these business owners/employers as well as your assessment of the current laws that they egotistically tout as being so virtuous. They believe themselves to be so absolutely right about it it's maddening. Isn't it interesting how they resort to personal attacks and even name calling if you disagree with them about this? Their shrill is reminiscent of anti-gun liberals.

I wish I could be so eloquent. May I use this in other postings and personal emails? Giving full credit of course.

Help yourself. This is where and how the movement to take back our right begins.

 

[ezkl2230]

And besides, when an owner tries to tell you that YOU don't understand that HE can do whatever he wants because he owns he business, and you are ignorant for not understanding that, he is patently wrong himself. There are a multitude of laws he must follow if he wants to even open, much less run, a business. Tell the Fire Inspector, for instance, that you don't care what he says, you don't want an ugly fire extinguisher hanging on one of your business walls. Then see how long YOUR BUSINESS, where you supposedly "call the shots" stays open. LOL!!

I have made that very argument numerous times. The standard reply? Those laws/building codes exist to protect the groups listed in the Civil Rights Act or ADA. The Second Amendment isn't an explicitly protected right under the CRA, so you can't compare them like that. You can't compare the right to handicap accessible bathroom stalls or the prohibition of discrimination in hiring to a right to carry on the premises of a business. And most business owners still end that argument by telling me that NO ONE can tell them how to run THEIR business when, clearly, the government dictates how they may take almost every move they make!

 

[nofrets1]

Legal or not, walking around with a firearm on your hip just makes you a target. Anti-gunners are going to target you... So will the bad guy. Let's face it, it a bad guy come into rob a place, he's going to scout out opposition and eliminate it. Take the target off your back and just carry concealed (if possible) and bypass all the drama of demanding to be right. I've carried concealed from one end of this country to the other (where it was legal for me to do so) and I have never been asked to leave any business establishment. Why? Because I don't make a point to telling them (or showing them) I'm armed. I'm just sayin'...

 

[Icemanii]

Where my 'regular' job is it is no weapons policy. Told it isn't the owner, but the insurance company rates dictating his decision.

As for me, have CC'd in local Lowe's and Home Depot both, no signs what so ever posted at either one. And have seen OC in both.

 

[carracer]

Legal or not, walking around with a firearm on your hip just makes you a target. Anti-gunners are going to target you... So will the bad guy. Let's face it, it a bad guy come into rob a place, he's going to scout out opposition and eliminate it. Take the target off your back and just carry concealed (if possible) and bypass all the drama of demanding to be right. I've carried concealed from one end of this country to the other (where it was legal for me to do so) and I have never been asked to leave any business establishment. Why? Because I don't make a point to telling them (or showing them) I'm armed. I'm just sayin'...

Huh? What? Astounding realization that I just read about 6 open carriers killed during robberies and 7 others that had their firearms taken from them yesterday! With all these oc'ers loosing their firearms it's no wonder you cc'ers are so concerned about us! If we only had the wisdom imparted to you by your permission slips the world would be so much safer!

 

[tricolordad]

Legal or not, walking around with a firearm on your hip just makes you a target. Anti-gunners are going to target you... So will the bad guy. Let's face it, it a bad guy come into rob a place, he's going to scout out opposition and eliminate it. Take the target off your back and just carry concealed (if possible) and bypass all the drama of demanding to be right. I've carried concealed from one end of this country to the other (where it was legal for me to do so) and I have never been asked to leave any business establishment. Why? Because I don't make a point to telling them (or showing them) I'm armed. I'm just sayin'...

Prove this. With facts, events, etc all from a reliable source. And no, your instructor decal does not count.