Warning: I am gonna piss off people and really do not care.

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Walgreens has changed its policy to prohibit the open carrying of firearms.

Walgreens announced a statement Thursday on its website, saying:

“We are joining other retailers in asking our customers to no longer openly carry firearms into our stores other than authorized law enforcement officials.”

Walgreens Asking Customers Not To Openly Carry Guns

I was giving a bit of a thought why are these retailers coming down on Open Carriers.  Just because a crazy asshole shot up a bunch of people in Walmart in Texas, does not mean average Joe goes walking around OC-ing a rifle behaving like dicks , right?

Tell me again how your version of “normalizing” is working out?

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

7 thoughts on “And now Walgreens joins the Anti Open Carry movement.”
  1. I wonder if they figure it’s simply a cheap way to “do something” without actually doing much of anything real. It’s not like more than 2 or 3 people per year will be affected by this policy.

  2. No one but the assholes in Texas approve of that kind of OC. Tired of the false equivalence in the gun community, but yeah, the OTC morons hurt open carry bad with that shit. Today’s it’s OC that people dismiss. Tomorrow it’s concealed carry backed by force of law.

    2
    1
    1. I approve of it the same way I approve of not having helmet laws for motorcyclists. It’s a personal choice.

      I, personally, always wear a helmet, except one time when a friend really needed a ride home and I only had one helmet. (*) However, I respect your right not to.

      * My personal rule is that any pillion passenger I have is at least as well protected as I am. And I recognize that emergencies and exceptions can and do arise. Soz she wore my helmet and I rode extra careful.

  3. These are the pricks that ruin it for the rest of us. When you are carrying, you are a representative of the entire gun community, like it or not. You have to be better. These idiots and their stunts give the antis ammo to use against us.

    These doofuses need to be taken behind the woodshed and taught some manners.

  4. The pics above merit Double Facepalm…

    From a certain perspective there is a world of difference between a sidearm and a long gun. A sidearm is for personal defense. In theatre of military operations noncombatants are generally allowed sidearms. At least I think that is a Geneva Convention standard. Long arms are ‘battle rifles’, for offensive operations or defending from an assault. From that perspective, I can see why the dolts pic’d above cause alarm.

    In the town and country a long gun might be appropriate to carry during hunting season or minding one’s own business on the back forty, or the range, or certain businesses where guns are their business. Strapping on a battle rifle to go down to Starbucks or Panera Bread is just obtuse.

    The sidearm I do not see as a problem, open carry or concealed, anywhere. I would prefer concealed carry as the social norm (nefarious intent presumed by concealed carry is long outdated). Concealed carry (whether permit required or not) should also cover open carry should a sidearm accidentally be exposed.

    If individuals open carry sidearms, meh.
    As long as they are not buffoonish.

  5. A couple points:

    1. Open carrying a rifle is their right. That in no way means it’s always a good or productive idea.

    2. As Burnt Toast said, there’s a world of difference in perception in open carrying a holstered handgun, and carrying an AR or AK pattern rifle. To us who know guns, there’s not much difference, but if “open carry as a political statement” is a thing, perceptions are crucially important.

    3. Taking that statement further, there’s another world of difference between carrying a rifle slung behind your shoulder or across your back, and carrying it in a one-point “tactical” sling across your chest at “low-ready” (i.e. both hands on the rifle, muzzle pointed down). My opinion is, ill-advised as it might be, if it’s slung, that’s “carrying”; but if both your hands are on it, a half-competent DA could make an open-and-shut case for “brandishing”. It’s analogous to carrying a pistol in a holster versus carrying it in your hand (or constantly gripping it in its holster), and it’s a really counterproductive and dumb way to try and dispel the “gun owners are paranoid lunatics” perception.

    In customer service circles, it’s understood that nobody remembers what you said, they remember how you made them feel. If we lose open carry because of these idiots, it won’t be because their actions were unlawful. It will be because they scared people with their lawful but ill-advised behavior, and it will not matter one bit that the people had nothing substantial to fear.

    Because that’s how perception works. Reality is objective, but perception is extremely subjective, and unfortunately it’s perception that matters.

Login or register to comment.