Target Corp is no longer listening

[bstrawse]

Boycott Target

Hmm Target is the offspring of some other store... what was that again? Boy, I think it was Dayton's, the upscale clothing store. Dayton... Why does that name sound familiar? Hmmm...... Mark Dayton, governor of Minnesota comes to mind... Dayton is a really popular name in MN though, he couldn't be related could he? Well Mark Dayton is a multi-multi-multi-millionaire trust fund baby... About 5 seconds of Google-fu turns up:

Gov. Mark Dayton made $671,724 last year...The department store heir's largest source of revenue came from the sale of 8,431 shares of Target Corp. stock, worth $407,665.

Well according to this strib article from 4 years ago:

Dayton: "...I am very proud of what my father and his brothers, who are my uncles, and thousands of Minnesotans built as the Dayton-Hudson Corporation and Target is one of those subsidiaries. You know, my family's been out of the operating side of the business for about the last, almost the last 30 years. I don't hold any stock directly in Target in my own holdings. I don't know the percent of my family's holding in Target but I would estimate it is less than one percent of the actively traded shares in the company and certainly my family has no voice in the actions of Target corporation."

Well Dayton is a common name and Governor Dayton claimed to own zero stock in Target corporation in 2010... but he made over $400,000 in 2010 from selling Target Corporation stock. Well this is just confusing. I'm guessing there's no connection between the commie Lear-Jet liberal governor and the department store banning guns.

The Dayton family has not held any significant stock in Target Corporation for many many years. They are not even in the Top 50 individual shareholders - let alone the top 400-500 shareholders overall when institutions are factored in. They have absolutely ZERO influence on management beyond the heritage of the founders & the family that has been involved in years now long past.

Mark Dayton was never involved in Target's management or board.
B

[yonse]

My letter to Target:



Dear Target

Lately gun rights and gun control activists have put your company in the difficult spot of taking a position in whether you should or should not allow guns in your stores. I realize that coming to a decision was not easy for your company but I believe that the statement you released was a little too broad. I am from Minnesota, born and raised. I like shopping at Target because it is a local company and it helps the local economy a little more than when I shop elsewhere. I have also had a permit to carry for many years as well and almost always have a gun on me. Even though the laws in Minnesota do not require it to be concealed I keep mine concealed because I do not wish to draw any attention to myself while I am shopping. I will not give my business to any company that bans guns in their premises and I have walked away from stores, restaurants, and barbers after seeing signs that ban guns. I believe that the statement you released, which asks customers not to take guns into your stores, was too broad. While I am not an opponent to open carry, I do understand that you may have customers who may be frightened by that, and I would understand it if you asked your customers not to open carry in your stores. Asking them not to carry at all is another thing altogether. As long as people are obeying all of the local laws and they keep their guns concealed I fail to see how that would be offensive to other customers. As a result of your request I will no longer be shopping at Target anymore. I have many friends and family who also have permits to carry and we are not bad people. These people include little old ladies and an ordained minister who has done missionary work in Africa. I will be urging all of them to give their business to a company that does not ask them to disarm before entering. I regret to inform you that you will lose business as a result of the poorly crafted response that you released. I do hope that you either retract it or modify it so that it only applies to people who open carry.

[Thunder71]

Kind of tired of people being against open carry in general to be honest... it's not people open carrying handguns that caused this, it's a FEW people who open carried long guns.

I don't open carry my handgun often, but I appreciate the ability to responsibly (and legally) do so.



Let's stop dragging 'open carry' through the damn dirt people! Minnesota has a CARRY permit, not a CONCEAL AND CARRY permit and I LIKE THAT, don't screw it up by making open carry a bad thing.

[Rip Van Winkle]

And by condemning them you are only perpetuating the perception that OC is weird or wrong or shouldn't be allowed. Join or die, as they say.

1 - there is nothing wrong with OC, where legal
2 - OC should be legal everywhere
3 - there will always be those who are freaked out by the sight of a gun
4 - those folks are, especially in major metro areas, significantly more numerous than those of us who want to carry for self-defense - let alone those who want to open carry
5 - OC in those areas where doing so will never persuade a large enough percentage of the population to change their minds is, at the very least worthless, and at worst is incredibly damaging to the very cause they claim to support...

My opinion - these OC "activists" are more concerned with carrying a firearm than they are with self-defense, and their flawed attempts at activism (which are not actual activism (i.e. an attempt to persuade), but rather are simply confrontational / bully tactics) are affecting my ability to lawfully carry the most effective tool available to me for the purpose of self-defense. It is in no way contradictory to believe points # 1 & 2 above, while still condeming Open Carry Texas (and any other individual or group more concerned with the gun itself than with its purpose) for their failed / incredibly stupid tactics and their affect on me.

You do see that, don't you?

Better said than I could.

[xd ED]

Kind of tired of people being against open carry in general to be honest... it's not people open carrying handguns that caused this, it's a FEW people who open carried long guns.

I don't open carry my handgun often, but I appreciate the ability to responsibly (and legally) do so.



Let's stop dragging 'open carry' through the damn dirt people! Minnesota has a CARRY permit, not a CONCEAL AND CARRY permit and I LIKE THAT, don't screw it up by making open carry a bad thing.

I am not one to often open carry, but agree the option should exist.

This (the bold text), is an important point for at least two reasons:

* If there is no distinction made, ultimately the ambiguous terminology will end up in policy (i.e: Target's recent announcement) or worse- statute.
* Reasonable people can accept the open carry of a holstered sidearm in almost any situation as a reasonable mode of self defense; not so with a rifle slung over a shoulder, or carried at the ready.

[Thunder71]

I agree, and my main concern is that those in office are going to see this as an opportunity to open the MCPPA to eliminate open carry 'because it scares people'. Remember, once it's open, it's open for change across the board.

Let's not fix something in MN that isn't broken, if we as legally carrying gun owners can't tolerate open carry and continue using it as a bad example, we're opening a can of worms that does NOT need opening, and we're the can opener!

We have a good carry law, not perfect - but I can certainly appreciate and live with it - let's not ruin it for ourselves.

[DoxaPar]

Thunder, you're right. I should have been more specific in my remarks. I don't have a problem with OC. I DO have a major problem with he strategies and tactics of the OCT folks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xd ED]

Amongst reasonable people I don't see any major distain for what you and I would likely agree as resposible open carry- a holstered side arm. It's an unintentional misuse of the term to describe the asshats that were 'shopping with rifles' in Texas.
Again, I'm not one to often open carry, but it needs to be in our law for a variety of reasons.
As I understand the intentions of those who crafted the law, the lack of distinction re: open vs concealed carry is quite deliberate to avoid accidental exposure, printing, etc to be a chargeable offense.

[Thunder71]

It's not you alone, I see similar comments all the time - especially now.

Open Carry Texas really wants the ability to open carry handguns, and some are using this tactic to make that point - which unfortunately hurts everyone.

[xd ED]

It's not you alone, I see similar comments all the time - especially now.

Open Carry Texas really wants the ability to open carry handguns, and some are using this tactic to make that point - which unfortunately hurts everyone.

I wonder if they've finally figured out their tactics are not working.

[Thunder71]

I'm reading it's not actually OCT, but fringe groups within it... That said, because they aren't doing anything illegal, OCT doesn't have a problem with it.

That's my understanding.

[s10trev]

So it's okay for Target to hire armed guards to escort their money in and out of their stores. But they don't respect my desire to protect my family. Figures. I really don't want to shop at Walmart though.

[bstrawse]

I agree, and my main concern is that those in office are going to see this as an opportunity to open the MCPPA to eliminate open carry 'because it scares people'. Remember, once it's open, it's open for change across the board.

Let's not fix something in MN that isn't broken, if we as legally carrying gun owners can't tolerate open carry and continue using it as a bad example, we're opening a can of worms that does NOT need opening, and we're the can opener!

We have a good carry law, not perfect - but I can certainly appreciate and live with it - let's not ruin it for ourselves.

No one is going to open up the MCPPA if we put a Pro-2A MN House & Governor in place in November.
b

[xd ED]

I'm reading it's not actually OCT, but fringe groups within it... That said, because they aren't doing anything illegal, OCT doesn't have a problem with it.

That's my understanding.

Even the NRA, which originally criticized shopping with rifles, backed away from their stance, making mention that the practice is legal.

[DoxaPar]

So it's okay for Target to hire armed guards to escort their money in and out of their stores. But they don't respect my desire to protect my family. Figures. I really don't want to shop at Walmart though.

Yes. It's their store, their employees (contractors, vendors, etc) and their property.

Target could have gone another way on this but didn't. As far as I'm concerned, they did us and themselves a solid here. No reason to stop shopping at Target. Just be respectful and leave your firearm in your car.