Kicked out of Woodman's Gorcery Store in Onalaska Wisconsin

Cadet Joined: Dec 15, 2009 Posts: 60

Whether it is a home or a business, it is still private property.

You also have a 1st amendment right to free speech. But if you exercise it in a way that makes other customers uncomfortable, the business has a right to ask you to stop or to leave. You have a right to walk down the street without a shirt or shoes on, but that doesn't mean a business is obligated to serve you.

Discrimination is when someone treats you differently because of who you are, like being black or Jewish. But carrying a gun is a behavior. Stores can (and should) have rules about how they expect someone to act. The policy isn't "No Gun Owners Allowed," it is "Don't bring your gun in here."

I wouldn't like a rule about not carrying weapons either (although I prefer concealed to open carry myself, where there is less likely to be an issue), and I might not even shop at such a store if I was feeling stubborn, but I'm not going to act like I have a right to tell them how to run their business.

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:29 pm

Discrimination is discrimination. It isn't necessarily good or bad. There are good forms of discrimination, and bad ones. Good discrimination, for example, is using your toothbrush and toothpaste to clean your teeth. Not using discrimination here could have you using your razor and shampoo to clean your teeth, and that would not be pleasant.

Discrimination is actually required by many laws regarding hiring, education, etc. Discrimination is not illegal, in many cases it is enforced as being mandatory based on race (bad policy in my opinion, as race should never come into law).

Most stores discriminate against people without shirts and shoes. This is their right, and they post it. It is common and accepted practice, and to my knowledge there isn't really any backlash for such discrimination. There aren't many people who passionately believe in bare chests and feet and want to shop that way. At least not today.

No one is arguing whether or not they can discriminate. This is NOT a property rights argument. I don't think you have a position at all in this discussion. I think you are trying to argue, and habitual postings like that on this forum is something WE discriminate against.

I will discriminate when I choose which store to shop for groceries at. No one is talking about suing Woodman's for their policy - they can do that. Instead we will get them to reverse such policy - if it really even exists (many times such policies have never been adopted by any body politic) - through polite and respectful dialogue. Otherwise we can discriminate against them and shop elsewhere.

My letter to Woodman's corporate is going out tomorrow.

Member **Founders Club** Joined: Dec 12, 2007 Posts: 4436

ShaunKranish wrote:

Discrimination is discrimination. It isn't necessarily good or bad. There are good forms of discrimination, and bad ones. Good discrimination, for example, is using your toothbrush and toothpaste to clean your teeth. Not using discrimination here could have you using your razor and shampoo to clean your teeth, and that would not be pleasant.

Discrimination is actually required by many laws regarding hiring, education, etc. Discrimination is not illegal, in many cases it is enforced as being mandatory based on race (bad policy in my opinion, as race should never come into law).

Most stores discriminate against people without shirts and shoes. This is their right, and they post it. It is common and accepted practice, and to my knowledge there isn't really any backlash for such discrimination. There aren't many people who passionately believe in bare chests and feet and want to shop that way. At least not today.

No one is arguing whether or not they can discriminate. This is NOT a property rights argument. I don't think you have a position at all in this discussion. I think you are trying to argue, and habitual postings like that on this forum is something WE discriminate against.

I will discriminate when I choose which store to shop for groceries at. No one is talking about suing Woodman's for their policy - they can do that. Instead we will get them to reverse such policy - if it really even exists (many times such policies have never been adopted by any body politic) - through polite and respectful dialogue. Otherwise we can discriminate against them and shop elsewhere.

My letter to Woodman's corporate is going out tomorrow.

Perhaps you could post the letter here and we could use it for the 1 letter a week for next week?

I hadn't thought of the discrimination angle before. That's a valid point. Just not shopping there wouldn't do anything because they wouldn't know why people wouldn't shop there. They need to be informed of why they are losing business. Also, it sounds like there isn't any corporate policy, so hopefully this will be a chance to kindly educate them about the benefits of firearms

Private Joined: Jan 13, 2010 Posts: 268

I believe this is a great opportunity to educate the public and specifically a business owner who has influence over many people who walk through their doors.

If through polite and articulate conversation the point can be made that it is the law-abiding people that carry openly and it is the criminals who hide their weapons, they might understand it is actually a benefit to have armed trained citizens in their store(s).

Nevertheless, I am not sitting in judgement of anyone's choice of how to handle this situation. I hope that when all is said and done, we have done more to help our cause than hurt it.

Please don't take this as an invitation to be a doormat. That is not my message. I believe we can speak honestly, clearly and without apology, and without the need for an apology.

Imagine if the outcome of this exchange of ideas was that the owner allowed OC in their store(s) and posted signs at the entrances that explained that 'Good Guys' carry openly and are here for your protection.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:02 am

The Woodman's here in Rockford would not have the signs up since we can not carry anyway. Would be hard to boycott the Illinois stores because of what Wisconsin does, even though they are all connected and all family run.

This does seem to be another good reason for CONCEALED Carry....

Lieutenant Joined: Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 2429

MarkPalmisano wrote:

I believe this is a great opportunity to educate the public and specifically a business owner who has influence over many people who walk through their doors.

If through polite and articulate conversation the point can be made that it is the law-abiding people that carry openly and it is the criminals who hide their weapons, they might understand it is actually a benefit to have armed trained citizens in their store(s).

Nevertheless, I am not sitting in judgement of anyone's choice of how to handle this situation. I hope that when all is said and done, we have done more to help our cause than hurt it.

Please don't take this as an invitation to be a doormat. That is not my message. I believe we can speak honestly, clearly and without apology, and without the need for an apology.

Imagine if the outcome of this exchange of ideas was that the owner allowed OC in their store(s) and posted signs at the entrances that explained that 'Good Guys' carry openly and are here for your protection.

what we need is a chain of stores that gives an open carry discount..

figure if it's 5% that can add up to some nice savings over a year and then you can afford a backup ankle gun.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:11 am

HEY 6010Rocks
""what we need is a chain of stores that gives an open carry discount..

figure if it's 5% that can add up to some nice savings over a year and then you can afford a backup ankle gun. ""

I do not think the ankle gun would classify as open carry.... Shocked

Cadet Joined: Dec 15, 2009 Posts: 60

If you read the transcript of the blog post that started all this, I don't think it qualifies as "polite and respectful dialogue." It was attacking someone for a policy he didn't like and people with views he disagreed with. That is why I challenged it, although perhaps initially more bluntly than I should have.

I'd like to see the store policy change as well. However, I think the best way to do that is to be respectful and begin acknowledging the rights of others as well as our own.

Lieutenant Joined: Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 2429

XDFlash wrote:

HEY 6010Rocks
""what we need is a chain of stores that gives an open carry discount..

figure if it's 5% that can add up to some nice savings over a year and then you can afford a backup ankle gun. ""

I do not think the ankle gun would classify as open carry.... Shocked

didn't say which state I would be in. Open carry where it's legal and conceal carry where its legal.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:32 am

6010rocks wrote:

XDFlash wrote:

HEY 6010Rocks
""what we need is a chain of stores that gives an open carry discount..

figure if it's 5% that can add up to some nice savings over a year and then you can afford a backup ankle gun. ""

I do not think the ankle gun would classify as open carry.... Shocked

didn't say which state I would be in. Open carry where it's legal and conceal carry where its legal.

Yes, ok

Lieutenant Joined: Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 2429

mercutio34 wrote:

If you read the transcript of the blog post that started all this, I don't think it qualifies as "polite and respectful dialogue." It was attacking someone for a policy he didn't like and people with views he disagreed with. That is why I challenged it, although perhaps initially more bluntly than I should have.

I'd like to see the store policy change as well. However, I think the best way to do that is to be respectful and begin acknowledging the rights of others as well as our own.

David: My Question is in regard to the carry of handguns in your store.

Quint Woodman: ah-huh.

David: Can you explain to me your corporate policy on that?

Quint Woodman: Ahh. . . Yeah, we don't allow the carry of any weapons in our stores.

David: Posted at every entrance that says; “No hand guns allowed”?

Quint Woodman: No Weapons, correct? (who is he asking this question to? Is someone coaching him?)

David: No weapons allowed, I see.

Quint Woodman: Yep.

David: Alright, very good, um, I ah, appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me. Ah, I was in one of your stores last night and was escorted out because I open carry in Wisconsin exercising my Second Amendment Rights. I respect your policy and will no longer ah, um, will no longer be shopping at Woodman's but I do appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me and I would like to let you know that I am posting this on several bulletin boards state wide and my blog site and I do appreciate your time and thank you so I'll make sure that anyone who carries a gun openly in Wisconsin knows that Woodman's is against the Second Amendment and has a policy stating that right on the front door. Is that fine with you?

uint Woodman: Well. . .ah. . .um . .how would you feel if somebody grabbed your gun and started shooting.

David: Well I tell ya, the incident of that happening is infinitesimal compared to bad guys. So that's something you should keep in mind in considering. . . . .if you're scared of somebody doing that, how would you feel if somebody broke into your house and took your guns? If I were you, I'd get rid of all your guns.

notice when David asked about the firearm policy they said no weapons of any kind and said weapon several more times. they didn't say firearm they said weapon.

fact is they sell many weapons in their store potato peeler very cruel weapon, meat thermometers stabbing a wide assortment of knives and many bottles that you can crack somebody over the head with and then use to cut you.

when he informed the store that he would be using his first amendment to let all gun owners about their policy he rambles this off. uint Woodman: Well. . .ah. . .um . .how would you feel if somebody grabbed your gun and started shooting.

with a reply such as that do you think he is in support of this policy, I think so.

the store was escalating the conversation at every point possible and seemed quite startled to be challenged.

To whom posted the phone call at the right site, It's still a bit confusing can you put some additional notes into it it's a bit confusing to follow and understand.

Private Joined: Sep 16, 2009 Posts: 171

I think we need to take into consideration, that WHEN CC legislation is drafted. It WILL somewhere, have in it, the option for businesses to opt out of allowing weapons into their establishment. Therefore, as the law abiding citizens that we are, we will surely comply and get used to it, I'm sure, not saying like it, just used to it. We have come a long way and still have some distance too go, but there is a time and a place for ALL arguments and I'm not sure "Stepping on Private Citizens dicks" is the way to go, as far as whatever 2nd A group said they were going to protest (if even true).

"Silent protest" works when informing the establishment of their poor choices, hens loss of business, too bad for them.

[quote] [ Ok your wife and child is in a . . .in a grocery store. Let's say a Woodman's for example that doesn't allow open carry and a bad guy with a gun is in that store, and there's nobody there to stop him. Nobody's there to stop him. The police are generally five minutes away average nation wide, that time frame is becoming longer and longer, and they're not even required to protect you anyway. By law, they don't have to protect you. So when. . . if that were to happen, how would you feel about your policy then?]

Does anybody see anything wrong w/ this quote regarding CC / OC?

It is the police, whos job it is to stop the guy.... unless you, yourself, life is in immanent danger, you walk away, not your problem. Sad too say, but those are the facts, CC/OC does not mean crime fighter, that is what police do. CC/OC protects you and yours, tough titties if someone else is getting robbed @ gunpoint, they should've CC/OC. Just want to get that out there, seems some people think that is the case, but they're mistaken. It is about protecting you and yours, from IMMANENT DANGER, otherwise call 911 and wait the 5 min "sorry he got away, but he wouldn't draw down on me" DANG.

Quote:

Lieutenant Joined: Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 2429

[quote="frizzyt"]I think we need to take into consideration, that WHEN CC legislation is drafted. It WILL somewhere, have in it, the option for businesses to opt out of allowing weapons into their establishment. Therefore, as the law abiding citizens that we are, we will surely comply and get used to it, I'm sure, not saying like it, just used to it. We have come a long way and still have some distance too go, but there is a time and a place for ALL arguments and I'm not sure "Stepping on Private Citizens dicks" is the way to go, as far as whatever 2nd A group said they were going to protest (if even true).

"Silent protest" works when informing the establishment of their poor choices, hens loss of business, too bad for them.

Quote:

[ Ok your wife and child is in a . . .in a grocery store. Let's say a Woodman's for example that doesn't allow open carry and a bad guy with a gun is in that store, and there's nobody there to stop him. Nobody's there to stop him. The police are generally five minutes away average nation wide, that time frame is becoming longer and longer, and they're not even required to protect you anyway. By law, they don't have to protect you. So when. . . if that were to happen, how would you feel about your policy then?]

Does anybody see anything wrong w/ this quote regarding CC / OC?

It is the police, whos job it is to stop the guy.... unless you, yourself, life is in immanent danger, you walk away, not your problem. Sad too say, but those are the facts, CC/OC does not mean crime fighter, that is what police do. CC/OC protects you and yours, tough titties if someone else is getting robbed @ gunpoint, they should've CC/OC. Just want to get that out there, seems some people think that is the case, but they're mistaken. It is about protecting you and yours, from IMMANENT DANGER, otherwise call 911 and wait the 5 min "sorry he got away, but he wouldn't draw down on me" DANG.

Quote:

when i read that quote it sounded like she was suppose to be the one carrying, it didn't sound like him stepping in.

it is the job of the police to protect you but they have no obligation to protect you catch 22

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:47 am

[quote="frizzyt"]I think we need to take into consideration, that WHEN CC legislation is drafted. It WILL somewhere, have in it, the option for businesses to opt out of allowing weapons into their establishment. Therefore, as the law abiding citizens that we are, we will surely comply and get used to it, I'm sure, not saying like it, just used to it. We have come a long way and still have some distance too go, but there is a time and a place for ALL arguments and I'm not sure "Stepping on Private Citizens dicks" is the way to go, as far as whatever 2nd A group said they were going to protest (if even true).

"Silent protest" works when informing the establishment of their poor choices, hens loss of business, too bad for them.

Quote:

[ Ok your wife and child is in a . . .in a grocery store. Let's say a Woodman's for example that doesn't allow open carry and a bad guy with a gun is in that store, and there's nobody there to stop him. Nobody's there to stop him. The police are generally five minutes away average nation wide, that time frame is becoming longer and longer, and they're not even required to protect you anyway. By law, they don't have to protect you. So when. . . if that were to happen, how would you feel about your policy then?]

Does anybody see anything wrong w/ this quote regarding CC / OC?

It is the police, whos job it is to stop the guy.... unless you, yourself, life is in immanent danger, you walk away, not your problem. Sad too say, but those are the facts, CC/OC does not mean crime fighter, that is what police do. CC/OC protects you and yours, tough titties if someone else is getting robbed @ gunpoint, they should've CC/OC. Just want to get that out there, seems some people think that is the case, but they're mistaken. It is about protecting you and yours, from IMMANENT DANGER, otherwise call 911 and wait the 5 min "sorry he got away, but he wouldn't draw down on me" DANG.

Quote:

You never know with CC. In Texas, you are allowed to legally concealed carry onto someone else's private property even if they have a 30.05 sign posted that reads no firearms allowed or something akin to that.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:18 pm

EVERYONE RELAX - PROBLEM IS SOLVED

I just spoke with CLINT WOODMAN (1:15 PM on Jan 27) (it's Clint with a "C" not Quint, etc). They received a number of calls about this and they have decided that as long as it is legal, they don't want to get involved in it. So you can open carry as long as you're following all applicable laws. In Illinois you can container carry (yay for me!!!!).

So please update this thread accordingly. Let's not have people calling them outraged when they have already changed this policy. It is our duty to update the information put out on the net.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to respectfully take this up with them.