After Target published their non-committal “please no guns in our stores but we won’t stop you” I have found that the usual cries for boycotting Target have been rather few and far between. And before that, almost no counter movement against Moms Demand’ somewhat fierce campaign to push Target to issue the non-binding statement.
And as much as I understand the standard policy for our side not to give up the fight and punish with wallets any deviation of the norm, I think the muted reaction to the Target “controversy” might have something to do with not wanting to give Open Carry Texas any credibility & respectability for its stupid actions. If C.J. Grisham was gambling on automatic support from everybody just because he waved the Second Amendment flag, I am gonna have to say he lost that bet and badly.
Just my two cents on this issue. Your parsecs may vary.
Interesting take. I read the same press release you did, and I came away with the key line being, “…But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.”
Note that it doesn’t say anything about an exception for concealed carry or the request only applying to open carry. They are not legally banning me, nor am I boycotting them. I am merely respecting their plainly worded desires and their property rights enough to comply with their request.
And how many regular people are going to read that part instead of the 10 second news bullet of “Target Bans Guns In Stores due to Open Carry Fans”?
I first started following Grisham’s antics a few years ago. It seems that he is constantly at odds with someone for some reason. He is the biggest “drama queen” and whiner I’ve ever read about. Don’t give him any credibility. It is all about him.
I think comment is muted because most of us gunnies that pay attention, see that it’s toothless, probably deliberately.
My interpretation is that this has become the standard response to shut the MOMs up. When they started using these tactic, they would gleefully post photos of the signs banning lawful carry and enjoy their victory.
More recently though they got caught posting a photo of a sign banning carry and then the company came back and said they hadn’t agreed to that. I think it was a Staples store, though I might be wrong.
Since then, thanks in no small part to OCT, companies who were completely blowing off the MOMs are now telling both sides of this issue to knock it off. In fact I’ve read of two instances of the MOMs being asked to leave, once from the corporate headquarters of Staples, and once at a San Antonio Target where they were picketing.
And now the MOMs are having to relook at their definition of victory because it’s getting pretty obvious that this is the best they’re going to get. If they had the large support base that they claim, you would think that they would be taking Starbucks to task for asking people to not carry yet making no real change such as posting no carry according to local laws.
The only thing keeping them going at present is living off the largess of a certain former Mayor of NYC. Eventually he’ll notice that the MOMs aren’t giving him the return on his investment and the name will be removed from the Everytown letterhead and Mother Watts will be relegated to some staff role.