Gun Owners Outraged That Levi’s CEO Wants Them to Leave Firearms at Home

So you're the one!

 

Eyeballs.

- - - Updated - - -

 

I was not aware of this fact. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this? Just thought I'd ask. Whats good for the goose is........

 

So just wear Wranglers.

 

They do, did you read the tweets:

@BreitbartNews hey @LEVIS I’m not bringing my wallet either. #BoycottLevis

Don't worry @LEVIS I won't bring my legal firearm into your store because I won't be coming into your store.

@LeviStraussCo if this is how you feel, 100M legal gun owners will keep our 💰💰out as well

@LEVIS A company that asks its law abiding citizens to disarm...doesn't get my support. If your CEO wants to get educated, hit me up.


All those tweeters are respecting Levi's private property rights.....they will not bring a gun onto their property. What is your complaint?

 

I have a right to smoke but you can tell me not to smoke in your home. Does that mean you don't respect my rights?

If I tell you that I am going to smoke in you home anyway, whose rights are being denied?

 

The home owner's rights. You have the right to smoke, you just don't have the right to do so in that home owner's home.

 

If it's hidden Levi stores won't know. The end result is the same.

 

Levi's can ban anything they want on their private property. In Texas, they can post the proper signs to keep people with an LTC from carrying guns on their premises. In fact, they do at their corporate data center in Westlake, TX. Their CEO did nothing but stir up a hornet's nest with his non-binding comments. He got himself on the record against legal gun possession and did nothing but make gun haters feel good.

He can do what he wants on his own property. I'll excercise my right to shop elsewhere.

 

Could be the holder is trespassing ab initio.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the ticket! And non-holders will choose to shop there. Win-win!

 

They will be shopping with the criminals in their target rich environment.(gun free zone)

 

Then you must agree that any business has the right to limit Constitutional rights in their own stores. Businesses, you must agree, can therefore abolish free speech, can allow cruel and unusual punishment, can violate the worker's or customer's rights without probable cause, and so on.

 

You forgot the most important one - they can sell wedding cakes to just straights, or whites, etc.

 

I grew up wearing Levis 501's,then they went across the pond so i quit wearing them. If this guy from Levis want to make all their stores gun free zones,then so be it. I don't agree with it, but it is his right to do this. I have the right to shop somewhere else.

 

Once again your hypocrisy is showing for the entire forum to see.

I demand accommodation of a public business.

Just as a company must serve LGBT's even if it violates the company owners personal beliefs, a company must serve all law abiding people who demand those employees and owners provide them service.

Long ago you denied the right of a business owner to decide who her clientele would be. Levi's must accommodate gun owners no matter what the Levi's owners and employees believe - if they refuse, then sue them, boycott them, harass them through social media.

Or are you ready to recognize property rights and religious freedom?

 

I believe that business owners have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. I mean why should they have to compromise their morals because they own a business? It is their right to choose not to allow guns, however, when someone comes in shooting their store up they will wish someone was carrying so they could stop it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Yes I'm sure every Levis store is going to be chocka with armed crooks.

 

Evidence pertaining to robberies being stopped by individuals who are legally carrying concealed firearms? Or evidence pertaining to the abysmal marksmanship skills of various police precincts as a whole, and individual officers, across the united states?

 

I don't have a CCW. I don't have a need in where I live and how I live.

Stop the insults about the bong hit stuff. It indicates that you don't have a good argument, just theory. My point stands. Untrained CCW permit holders are not a danger to the public in real life. There isn't a problem with them shooting innocent bystanders, hence there really is no reason to require extensive training of CCW permit holders. Yes, I do agree that theoretically, it would be best to have CCW permit holders be well trained, but realistically it is unnecessary. It's a solution to a non-problem.

 

Apple to orange. Apple to apple is asking a smoker to keep their cigs in the car.

 

Levi's has the right to determine if they allow guns in their stores. Gun rights advocates have the right to be irritated by it, and express that irritation in speech (including press) and boycotts. I believe Levi's is foolish for this, as the only guns that will take out of their stores will be those of law-abiding citizens, while the terrorists and criminals will continue to be armed.

 

It seems that they are more afraid of potential accidents by CCW than actual crimes committed by gun-armed criminals. I guess statistics isn't their strong suit.

 

It's amazing how many of those holstered and concealed firearms miraculously accidentally discharge.

 

First off a lot of us do. If you ban guns then many of us will stop buying from you. Secondly you won't know that we're carrying unless the situation calls for us to draw most of the time. A better question is why should Levi's except criminals to obey such a rule?

- - - Updated - - -

You managed to get a concealed permit in California?!?!?

 

I agree.