|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MN: Cub Food Asks Customers not to Openly Carry Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Saying its top priority is the safety and well-being of customers, Cub Foods is asking shoppers not to carry firearms in its stores openly. The announcement was made Saturday on the retailer’s Twitter account:
“While Minnesota is an open-carry state that allows individuals with lawful permits to carry firearms, we also respect the concerns and feedback shared by many of our customers following the recent tragic events throughout our country. Therefore, we’re respectfully asking our customers, other than authorized law enforcement officials, to no longer openly carry firearms into or stores.”
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/15/2019)
|
| Carry anyway, and if challenged, tell the mgr. you will be shopping somewhere else, and telling all of your friends to do the same. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(10/16/2019)
|
| Spend your money elsewhere. No Guns/No Money. Simple as that... |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
