Glad someone pulled the trigger on that one. The hollow point is taken.

As a strict Constitutionalist.

All should follow what the members wrote in the US Constitution.

Dated: September 17, 1787

Any firearms should be ball and powder. Whether hand arm or long arm.

Stick to the US Constitution.

Heres my problem with most of the posts on this thread, that are backed up by ZERO data.

So far all we have learned is that open carry at market basket or anywhere else has resulted in near zero problems.

We have ~350 million people in America, how many have been injured as a direct result of open carry???

I see no answers.

More people are suffering the drama of this thread than have likely ever suffered from open carry.

So we are back to peoples preferences. Some people dont like eating in restaurants where families eat and have crying babies. Should we ban then because, infants have week immune systems and their crying is likely spreading germs into the air as their body has little ability to kill the germs off,,,

Everyone has something they dont like.

But with regard to implementing bans, hopefully we dot exercise that option too often and mostly where they is an actual problem. And with open carry, clearly we have not been able to identify any problem except a few people feeling uncomfortable. Is that really sufficient reason to demand action. Really,,,

Here’s an article that looks at the issue, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6203141/.

Where I live and vacation I see no need to carry a gun. There are many who will never agree with me on the issue and I’m comfortable with that.

packing heat
 

I know a number of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans. One thing they have in common is they carry all day work or play. They are all out here working and contributing after having done their part overseas.

Does anyone want to tell them they can't carry a firearm while having possession of a firearm is perfectly legal?

I didn't get it at first, but some of their points were thought provoking, enough to convince me to keep a firearm at home. I rarely take it out of the house but do on occasion, especially if I don't know what I am getting myself into.

There are so any people carrying weapons in public it is commonplace. Unless someone talks to John Wayne in the cowboy hat or the new young Rambo we will never know their reasons for carrying. Maybe someone could ask them a few questions if so interested next time......what are they gonna do....shoot you while you wait for sliced bologna? If they wanted to shoot you they would just shoot you for no reason. They might be two of the most helpful friendly neighbors you could have, cowboy hat or not, and they might even help you out when that random home invasion character finds your front door open.

So much judgement and speculation with so little information.

It really doesn't matter if they agree with you.
Property owners will react based on their own interests.

No idea who these people are or what their goal is in creating this report but this is one of the worst reports I have read in a while.

The bouncing between reasonably current (2012) data (1967) and ancient information and firearms related hospitalizations and NF hospitalizations and the then flipping between state and federal data is a disaster.

There are also challenges about IDing LE shootings vs other. And no accounting for legally owned vs illegally owned guns.

In the end a ban that impacts 40 Million people that allegedly saved 337 lives in 2012 seems like a very poor trade off and there may be better ways to reduce any death rate. But then the report did little to convince me that the prohibition actually resulted in reducing any deaths as it failed to ID that the act of carrying actually resulted in the deaths. Likely any reduction was caused by totally removing firearms from these peoples hands, no the open carry itself. It also does little to convince me that many of those were not deaths due to someone committing a crime. I.E. I have little sympathy for criminals killed while committing a crime.

Ultimately any alleged reduction that equals a number of .0000 anything is not of too much interest when it comes at the cost of restricting countless millions of peoples rights.

Of in other words, this was not very helpful,,,

So well said!

Might I also add; so much fear and drama over something that has yet to result in any problem.

So far as we have been able to determine, no one in Market Basket has suffered any harm from open carry. Given all the customers that go through their doors, it seems to be even safer than walking, as occasion someone walking will slip and fall and suffer and actual injury.

So again there we have it, walking is more risky to your actual health than open carry.

Are we done yet?

Probably not much chance,,,

This is actually true and I agree with you. Most knuckleheads out there really don’t know how to shoot and /or invest in the time to do so. Under pressure lots of different things enter the equation.

I’m sure I’ll take heat for it but anyone carrying should pass a back ground test and everyone should qualify on a range to EDC.

Business doesn't really focus on someone being shot.
They focus on the psychological effect that it may have on customers (revenue) of employees (expenses).

Every policy, or lack there of, changes those parameters in some way.

For private landowners, not involved in commerce, the parameters are different.

A landowner down the trail from allows all non-motorized access and snowmobiles, but no hunting or target shooting. Signs are posted to specifically restrict wheeled-OHRV *though by law they are not required* and any unauthorized firearms. Since they will not authorize a firearm for hunting or shooting, only law enforcement... the only other time that may have a firearm interacting with those signs would be a trail user carrying - which might happen should someone on foot or horseback/etc be concerned with being confronted with loose dogs from the neighborhood.

Of course, them discovering that trail users are carrying could lead to them closing the trail and access. No one really knows, since no incident has occurred.

One thing people don’t realize is that most of us that carry (open or concealed) are not trying to be hero’s. I carry for my families safety, I’m not going to try and be a hero and save the day but know I will do what it take to protect myself and my family. Most likely will be to get out of harms way or hunker down out of site.

As for stores with signs, that is their right to not allow guns in their stores. If concealed correctly you would never be the wiser that one was there.

Training is a must and like others have said not just at the range where most don’t let you draw from a holster. There are many places that have training and would recommend you take at least one course.

It is my right to carry here in NH and will continue to do so. Call it what you will but if something did go wrong……….🤷🏻*♂️

The thread was started not to condemn carrying so much as open carrying. I've not heard much said—other than personal preference—about concealed carry (probably because of your and other's point that most would never notice).

As I've been reading this thread these last days, I've thought a lot about the number of circumstances in my and my extended family's and friends' lives that would have benefitted from having a weapon, and with all those millions/billions/trillions of moments, there are zero. We live, of course, in among the safest of areas in the world, however, so perhaps I might think differently were I to live elsewhere, but I just don't see the need to carry and definitely don't see the need to be showy about carrying.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Actually the OP has advocated several time for prohibition on weapons several times and based on how that advocacy occurred it appeared to be for such restrictions to be in place virtually anywhere he shops. I did not see any support for concealed carry by the OP in the sighs he proposed, if anything the term weapons could be inferred to mean knives, pepper spray, potentially anything that could conceived as a weapon.

I specifically proposed an option to open carry (asking customers to conceal their firearms) which should be reasonable to all, but no one seems interested in that either.

It appears to be a no solution or compromise discussion.

I hear ya about the zero times in your life you would have benefited from having a firearm, same with me. However look at it this way, the one time you or someone else MIGHT need it you might be glad you had it. Two sides to every story. I carry, not always and hope I never need it.
Glad to read in another thread you are introducing your Son to firearms and I am sure you will get him and yourself all the appropriate training.

For who?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From the OP:

"Like, there is a big difference between concealed carry, and open carry in a NH Market Basket with numerous customers throughout the store."

There's definitely been a discussion of "why is a gun needed in the first place," but I've seen the thread as more of an OC vs. CC discussion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Under that same rationale, though, people can justify carrying ladders. I mean, what if an earthquake hit and we had to climb out of Market Basket? That's happened exactly the same number of times everyone in my whole entire family ever needed a weapon...

Like you added, however, I do think it's important to be knowledgeable about weapons and, honestly, who knows what the future entails. I will admit that I feel a tad bit better about having weapons back in the house (I'd sold all my old ones when the kids came along) as there were some crazy things happening during the Great Recession and afterward. But then I remember that by ammo is stored separately from my guns for the kids' safety...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

open carry - Market Basket, Plymouth NH
 

That’s not accurate.

There are a number of reasonable people who are completely comfortable with guns in reasonable moderation but some of the arbitrary lines drawn by the organizations, institutions and powers that be might need some readjusting based on logic rather than precedent.

Many of us have guns and do carry without our entire existence, identity, and brain to be consumed by the second amendment.
Granted many gun owners do tend to be “1 issue voters” but not all of us.

Because no one would ever think that way - seriously or in jest.

[emoji52]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The ladder statement is simply silly, you are better than this. Glad you are introducing FIREARMS back into your household.

It's not, really, if you're open to what the premise is. In my whole lifetime, in all of my family members' and friends' lifetimes, a carried ladder would have been as beneficial as a gun. I'll go one step further and point out that a huge portion of firearm deaths are accidental.

So, in point of fact, the ladder would be as useful AND safer.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You win, congratulations I should have known better.:rolleye2:

Kisses.
I get your point, I do, but at some level statistics matter more than emotion, and that's the world I exist in.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

No emotion here, I pray you are never in a situation where you need it and not have it. Out.

And I pray you are never in a situation where you need a ladder and do not.

Ok, ok—I'll accept the blame for being snarky this time, but, ultimately, it's absolutely part of my thought process (the statistics thing, not the needing-a-ladder one).

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Actually, not too badly and mostly pretty well. If we end it soon.

Some people may find concern in the company of a stranger with open carry in a store and some people may find concern that the black man in front of them in line is about to hold up the store. What do they have in common?

Best comment so far.

Except skin color is a protected class.
If I lose customers or employees because someone with a skin color they don't like is shopping in my store... not really much I can do about that.

But for a non-restricted class... that becomes a different story.
We currently can't afford to lose any employees, and can lose a certain percentage of customers and still have too many.

You seem to equate going into a store while Black with going into a store while carrying a gun openly. Even if we overlook the racial overtones, one of these people is making a choice/statement, the other is just going to the store

No racial overtones involved. My statement/question brings to light the perceived unjust fears in both scenarios. And perhaps it sheads light on hypocrisy.

The unjust fears are only a matter of the revenue equation to the person(s) that make the policy decisions.

I can not restrict someone for their skin tone regardless of any negative effect it may have on my customer base... it is a protected class.

While you may not be happy with the unjust fear of the customers, someone carrying a firearm is not a protected class. It is a choice that they are making.
So the policy is enacted by the business owner to protect their revenue, as any lost customer base due to the act is harm to the business owner.
It doesn't matter what the ''emotional'' equation is.

If customer avoided a business because too many Mercedes were parked out front, and the owner felt that was a detriment to their revenue equation, they could enact policy that no Mercedes were to be on their property.

The Mercedes owner may not like it, but they could either choose not to bring the Mercedes, or to shop another business. Mercedes owners are not a protected class.

So in the end your only goal is to maximize profit? With the singular exception of wishing not to violate the letter of law, you have no other considerations for the operation of your business or how you treat the world?

Its a classic perspective, and I give you credit for being honest. Too often people say one thing and do another. I think its always better to know who you are dealing with. So I do appreciate your truth to your perspective and owning it.

That said, clearly you have not read or didnt buy into Lutz Laws of Business. Might be worth a look, the one about "the Primary Purpose of Business Is Not to Make Money" is of particular interest and especially when considered in todays time period and with an eye for bigger picture.

I suppose this is just another example of the rift that divides America.

It interesting to also note that some people have no concern that the law protects people of color (and other groups), they simply treat these people like anyone else regardless of the impact to the business, as they believe its just the right thing to do, not because the law requires it. The same holds true of open carry, or allowing children in your place of business, or people with outlandish clothing. Treat everyone the same because its just the right thing to do, not because you might violate a law by treating them differently.

Positive change takes time, and so it will be with acceptance that citizens are again embracing the notion of protecting themselves, so it will take time to become normalized.

Hopefully we will be able to have non-violent engagements and discussion about this, unlike so many other matters that become so hostile and personal and unproductive.

In the end the notion of imposing personal preference with restrictions is a longstanding method of controlling people, so it makes sense thats the first thing people propose. Looking back to all the things we have exiled, beaten, stoned and killed each other over (such as; how you dress, what you believe, how you talk ETC Etc etc) we should not be surprised at the response to open carry, its just disappointing that in 2021 we cant do better to accept something that in and of itself caused no harm or risk to anyone (open carry in Market Basket).

We must remember that as a country we are the still children of pilgrims and puritans who dictated almost every facet of life, so like all progress in the past, this too will take time to evolve.

Since no two people are alike... treating everyone the same makes no sense.

I have customers that set an appointment, I have customers that simply walk in and demand service.

I have customers concerned with the quality and options of a product, and customers just looking for the thing that can be attained the faster or the cheapest.

I have customers that just left a Big Box with off the shelve pricing, looking for a special order quote to match that product, and want is at a discount. When I tell them that it can not be matched... they will not take my word for it and demand a computerized quote - that takes time for a sale that will never happen. Time that cannot be allocated to another customer waiting for something that they will purchase.

I have customers that demand to know what their contractor paid for product, because they do not trust the contractor they hired.

Believe me, if people spent just a few more minutes thinking about those other customers... then it would be easier to treat everyone the same.

To sum up the open carry vs concealed carry: Ignorance is bliss. As for people with guns being around, criminals normally avoid anyplace where they know or believe people are armed. I'm quite willing to enjoy the protective zone.

As for "gun free" zones, I avoid them whenever possible. In my opinion, anyone or any entity that declares a "gun free" zone has the absolute responsibility to enforce it. Any failure of enforcement should leave them criminally and civilly liable without limit.

In June 2008 Justice Antonin Scalia made a majority decision OPINION in a gun control case involving Washington DC and a police officer trying to get a concealed acrry permit in the District........ Judge Scalia said "there are some buildings like public buildings and schools that are too sensitive for the second amendment and guns are banned from these buildings.

For a supermarket like Market Basket, it's up to the store owner if they think open carry is too sensitive for their store because it scares and intimidates some of the other shoppers which is probably WHY all these four different men I saw choose to wear a gun inside the store ..... to be INTIMIDATING or to be SHOWY. They all could have gone "concealed carry" but they want to be intimidating and showy to others so they go "open carry."

Open carry is intimidating to many and does not belong inside this Market Basket store is what Justice Antonin Scalia would say, if he were still alive and here on this forum!

www.shopmarketbasket.com/about-us/contact-us ........ If you think there's NO Place for open carry inside the Plymouth NH, Market Basket then go ahead and MAKE MY DAY ........ tell the Market Basket WHAT YOU THINK ......... and thank-YOU very much!

Again an interesting perspective.

I don't know what your business is, and I guess it really doesn't matter, but its clear you are passionate about making your business successful, and ultimately succeed or fail, you are the one who must live with the outcome of your decisions.

If you succeed and in any part because you banned Mercedes from parking at your business because some of your customers demanded it, and you can live with the compromise (and maybe even agree with it) all I can say is congratulations.

If you succeed in spite of your not bowing down to some customers unreasonable demands I applaud you.

Yours is but one business and one perspective and one example. Thankfully there are many others and many who would not ban Mercedes parking on their lot, or people of color (even before it was the law) or imposing other seeming irrational restrictions. But in truth yours is the more common practice, thats why positive change takes so long. Thankfully there are people with perspectives bigger than the bottom line profit of any given day and they make more balanced decisions. And thats where I will continue to take my business, and I will attempt to continue to avoid the elitist people and businesses among us who would impose arbitrary restrictions.

ATB

Clearly you know NOTHING about Justice Scalia or his work or perspectives, your statement is absolutely wrong.

He could already have said what you propose many times over and he carefully did not. So you should not attribute some totally different perspective to a dead man than he had the opportunity to do so himself and chose not to.

And with that statement this thread has now lost any credibility it may have had in creating a dialog about the sensibility of open carry vs concealed carry.

ATB

www.shopmarketbasket.com/about-us/contact-us ....... looks like you left out my last sentence .....hey there Buddy .....the one with the link to the store management where you can tell them that OPEN CARRY does not belong inside this sensitive supermarket building ....... Market Basket-Plymouth NH .... NO OPEN CARRY ALLOWED!

The point of those policies would be to make you go to another business. If you come to our business, and we get you as a customer, but lose other customers... no gain. If we lose employees... a definite loss.

So when I go to my dentist, I make an appointment... the door states to wear a mask, and sanitize my hands before a temp check. I do as directed.
When I go to the dealer for service on my vehicle, I make an appointment, the door ''heavily suggests'' that I wear a mask, so I put the mask on and after waiting patiently for the service desk manager to take my keys, I go outside and remove my mask. When the vehicle is ready, mask goes back on... I make the payment... and when I get back outside I take the mask off.

Business makes a request... regardless of my personal thoughts... I do as requested, or I find someplace else to shop.

If I have to pay a higher price or get a lesser degree of service, that would be the trade off for not being willing to do as the business requests.

Same mask experience this week. Needed new eyeglasses and went to Laconia Eye and the sign on door reads “masks are required”. Drove to another store and made my purchase. Personal chose


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Although I agree that most decisions are absolutely the right of individuals to make for themselves. And I am not criticizing the rights of people to make those decisions.

Yet, it seems a sad state of affairs when some decisions, such as those regarding personal medical care, seem to be increasingly driven by politics rather than competence.