I think it is less MDA and more corporate risk assessment lawyers. The MDA group is just taking advantage of the fact that our society love to file lawsuits, even in cases where no laws are broken. There are a number of cases where criminal procedings have found a person innocent of wrong doing, but the follow up civil suit has resulted in some sort of punitive action.
It is nothing more than extortion at the basic level. Hanging the threats of civil lititgation over the heads of just about everyone with a few 00's ahead of the decimal point in their bank account means most folks try to be pretty risk adverse. Now add to that a fortune 500 company with associated deep pockets, and you realize realy quickly that they are an easy target for a wrongful death, willful negligence, or other type of lawsuit if someone is shot in one of their facilities.
We all know that legally these locations can't prohibit firearms, but can ask us to leave and we can be charged with tresspassing if we refuse. That little loophole gives them plausible deniablility if they were to be named in a civil suit. They can claim that the person with the firearm willfully violated policy and that the indivudal is culpable, not the owner of the property.
I'm sure Kirk or some of the other resident legal experts can chime in and comment just to the level that a "No firearms" sign or policy protects a company from civil suit.
If we flip it around another way, lets assume Wal-Mart places a big sign out front saying "gun owners welcome" and some idiot coon-fingers his gun and shoots someone. The victim (I use the term loosely) could claim that Wal-Mart's policy put them in danger and that they were therefore liable for damages. No different from a person spilling hot coffee on their lap, etc. Maybe the judge will throw it out as frivolous, and maybe not.
I just wish one of these corporate entities would tell the 'Moms' to @#$% off. They'd earn way more respect than this cowering they all seem to do now.
Meijer is just as bad, but I think I will start shopping there. How long until you MDA try to go after Wal-Mart and Meijer.
Guess meijer is my new place to go as well.
I used to work there. I was treated better when I worked at Wal-Mart then I did at Meijer. Also their prices are a little higher then Target.How is Meijer "just as bad?"
I just spoke to target manager on the phone. He said I am free to legally carrying in stores and they will not escort me out. It's no different than Them asking customers to wear red. Go to target, open Cary, and let's win this thing.
You do realize that there is no "win" in this. Only lose, lose worse and yet even worse lose looking badly??
I just wish one of these corporate entities would tell the 'Moms' to @#$% off. They'd earn way more respect than this cowering they all seem to do now.
"starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law."Target Addresses Firearms in Stores | A Bullseye View
Meijer is just as bad, but I think I will start shopping there. How long until you MDA try to go after Wal-Mart and Meijer.
Problem is...my local target (Kokomo) is located inside the mall. Granted it has it's own outside entrance, but I am still unsure if you can actually carry in there since the mall itself is a GFZ.
All these "requests" are simply a placation measure. There is no force of law or even policy in them. It is simply a request. People are free to ignore it and go on about their business. I don't now why I'm still amazed at the foolishness of "I don't see it, it doesn't exist."