Jared's Jewelry Store

stargazer65 · January 16, 2012, 05:24 PM

I was going to patronize this store because it is close to home, and they carry Pandora Jewelry. I have changed my mind after I saw this:

This is not a local store issue, all the stores have this posted, it is a nationwide policy. It's their right under law to do this, as far as I know, but I recommend that you don't patronize them, I will be sending them a letter.

This picture is not mine, but the sign on our store is the same.

orangello · January 16, 2012, 05:42 PM

Maybe you should send them a copy of your receipt when you purchase elsewhere; lost sales convey a message well for most retailers.

musher · January 16, 2012, 05:43 PM

sheesh. That reads like a third grader's attempt to sound like a lawyer.

I agree shop elsewhere.

BarryLee · January 16, 2012, 05:59 PM

Saw these and thought they would be good to send the store.

http://paopencarry.org/no-guns-no-money-cards

Sefner · January 16, 2012, 07:16 PM

This started after a string of robberies at these stores. One near me was hit twice in as many weeks.

armoredman · January 16, 2012, 07:35 PM

And I am sure robberies decreased once the robbers realized they were going into a "gun free zone"...

Sefner · January 16, 2012, 07:46 PM

Quote:

And I am sure robberies decreased once the robbers realized they were going into a "gun free zone"...

Maybe, it's too rare an event to tell. Also there are other confounding factors. For instance, the store I mentioned now has an armed guard there all the time.

I forgot to mention these robberies were during business hours. Was a smash and grab.

Patriot86 · January 16, 2012, 08:26 PM

Funny thing is they have that sign even here in Illinois where they don't have CC. I got my wife her wedding right there and was taken a back at it, i've never seen a "no gun" sign here in Illinois before.

I can see why the owner of a jewelry store would not want people with firearms under any circumstances coming in their business. Same thing as a bank. The flip side of that is most people who lawfully carry a firearm will never commit a serious crime of any kind, they are even less likely to commit a felony than a non gun owner. It is a flawed logic.

PS Side note to our Indiana readers: Do they still have no gun signs at all of the I80/Indiana Toll Road rest stops?

Standing Wolf · January 16, 2012, 08:50 PM

I don't ever do business with anti-Second Amendment bigots.

nate45 · January 16, 2012, 09:01 PM

Yeah, there is no way armed robbers would try anything after they read that.

Imagine if you were a hardcore armed robber and you saw that sign?

bqglock · January 16, 2012, 09:15 PM

If the law that says "don't steal" does not stop them, then why would this sign?

Glenn E. Meyer · January 16, 2012, 09:24 PM

They have read or been told by some liability type that allowing concealed carry is a risk for them. Quite common in the business lit. There are some counter articles around.

Hard to convince them on a national level to ditch this. If you discuss the 2nd Amend and rant - you get nowhere. Probably the same for boycotts that are clearly unorganized.

Bummer.

TXAZ · January 16, 2012, 09:30 PM

If you want to see real robbery, compare what Jared's sells a high quality 1 Carat VVS1, versus the Rapaport monthly price list....

**44 AMP** · January 16, 2012, 10:47 PM

The real point to these signs is not to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, its to protect their business. They are not so stupid as to actually believe that a criminal is deterred by the sign, nor are they worried about those people who lawfully carry becoming robbers.

What they worry about is the other people, their customers, who a) feel safe and protected by the sign, and b) (and most importantly) are freaked out by seeing firearms in any setting outside of a range, police officer or hunter in the field (and many are freaked out by hunters).

They are afraid that if these people see someone with a gun in the store, they will stop shopping there. And that is a larger chunk of their business base than CCW holders.

It boils down to simple economics. OR, at least, that's how they justify it. I'm sure their insurance also plays a part in it. If someone had an accidental discharge/negligent discharge, or even a deliberate shooting, if they "allowed" that person on their premises, then they would be held liable.

This is something I have never quite been able to understand about our laws. IF a third party breaks the law about shooting someone, how can the property owner be held responsible if there was no rule about them being armed on the property? But if there is a rule that says "no guns" then the property owner is blameless? Oh, I know the argument, that if they allow arms on their property they are responsible because third party misuse is a "forseeable circumstance"?

Seems to me that if I "allow" rain to fall on my place, then someone drowning would be a "forseeable circumstance" as well, wouldn't it? Or that arson was a forseeable circumstance because something in my place will burn?

Sad, but that seems to be the insurance companies and courts think these days.

nate45 · January 17, 2012, 04:17 AM

I came back to this thread, because I thought of the deliberate shooting reason.

If a robbery did take place and a CCW tried to intervene and other customers were injured, it could turn into a huge liability.

I know we all want to place the onus on the robber, but given the various state laws and our litigious society, thats not always the case.

Sparks1957 · January 17, 2012, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Yeah, there is no way armed robbers would try anything after they read that.

Seeing signs like this makes me shake my head and walk away...

MLeake · January 17, 2012, 09:11 AM

On one hand, I generally take my business to places that are smarter in their signage. There are some that post signs that leave loopholes for permit holders, if one reads them. For example, signs that don't comply with state requirements, or signs that ban unlawful carry. I normally avoid doing business with stores that have outright bans.

OTOH, I understand their anxiety, and feel that the long term fix will have to be tort reform. Indemnify businesses against liability in such scenarios, and they will lose most of the incentive (most, since some are actual anti's, liability issues notwithstanding) to post such bans.

Meanwhile, it is nice to live in a state where it is up to me whether to comply. In Missouri, if one does carry, there is no criminal or civil liability in a posted business unless one a) is caught and b) then refuses to leave.

I generally believe in respecting the business owners property rights, but boycotting, but it's nice to have the choice.

Brian Pfleuger · January 17, 2012, 09:43 AM

Does anyone know of an instance wherein a business that did not have a policy regarding CC was actually held liable for an injury which occurred during a defensive situation?

Seems to be the legal theory but I've never seen reference to it actually happening.

I'm curious how it would differ if you owned a parking lot and a licensed driver ran someone over? I'm not trying to go down the "ban cars cause they're dangerous" path... I'm saying that it really seems like the same legal situation. You own the property, you allow cars, someone does something bad with a car, you're responsible?

I know the "people don't see cars as dangerous..." argument but from a technical legal standpoint, how would it be different?

Glenn E. Meyer · January 17, 2012, 10:26 AM

We discussed that a bit ago and our legal eagles consensus was that it would be very difficult to sue on the grounds that you couldn't carry.

It would also be very difficult to get a lawyer to take the case on contingency as the rewards seem small.

IIRC, the idea is that the evil actor is responsible - not the store for his or her actions.

CowTowner · January 17, 2012, 12:36 PM

Sounds like a lawsuit looking for lawyer and a test case to me. But, I ain't no lawyer.

BarryLee · January 17, 2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Sounds like a lawsuit looking for lawyer and a test case to me. But, I ain't no lawyer.

While I assume you could try and make this a “test case” I respectfully ask why you would want to. At the end of the day doesn’t this come down to private property rights which to me are just as important as firearm rights. If I own a business it should be my decision on whether firearms are allowed and the Government should not be involved in that decision. A lot of what we discuss on this forum is associated with personal freedom and attempting to force a private property owner to change their policy seems to go against that.

MLeake · January 17, 2012, 01:42 PM

BarryLee, the point is not to force a store owner to allow firearms, but to force the creators of "gun free zones" to have full accountability for all the people who obey their rules.

If you want me to change my routine on your property, great, but actions and choices have consequences. If you wish to take away my ability to defend myself, you should assume responsibility for my defense.

oneounceload · January 17, 2012, 01:48 PM

Quote:

If you want me to change my routine on your property, great, but actions and choices have consequences. If you wish to take away my ability to defend myself, you should assume responsibility for my defense

Wrong.

First the odds of anything happening are less than you getting hit by lightning.

Secondly, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, NO ONE is forcing you go do business with them - either in their store or any where else.

You are FREE to go someplace else, and according to their customer studies, as mentioned above, would rather see you do exactly that

BarryLee · January 17, 2012, 02:13 PM

Again, as already mentioned you do not have to go into that business and are free to buy similar products from other establishment. Look I am not defending these policies, but it is their decision and I will take my business elsewhere. At the end of the day we may have a difference of opinion on what constitutes personal freedom and I respect your right to disagree with me.

Glenn E. Meyer · January 17, 2012, 03:28 PM

We have done this before - many times.

Let me summarize:

1. We have the battle of two rights.

2. The right to protect yourself

3. The rights of a property owner.

4. The latter are not inviolate. Health rules and civil rights protection show that in our society, what is seen as the great good overtakes the property owner of a business open to the public to be king or queen of the castle.

5. You may disagree with that.

6. Some folks argue that civil rights protection is based on a protected class. Some argue that carrying a gun for self-protection should have the same status for class protection as race, religion, gender, etc. You may disagree.

7. The argument that you can go elsewhere is not always practical, depending on locale.

8. The use of store bans is promoted by the Brady folks as a method to make carry impractical and discourage it.

That's it folks. I'm on the side of gun rights trumping property rights if you open for business to the general public. My call on the battle of rights. Life trumps your property. You don't have to have a business open to the public, just as folks say you don't have to go there.

January 16, 2012, 05:59 PM	#4
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	Saw these and thought they would be good to send the store. http://paopencarry.org/no-guns-no-money-cards __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

January 16, 2012, 07:16 PM	#5
Sefner Senior Member Join Date: June 24, 2009 Location: Michigan Posts: 769	This started after a string of robberies at these stores. One near me was hit twice in as many weeks. __________________ gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner

January 16, 2012, 08:50 PM	#9
Standing Wolf Member in memoriam Join Date: April 26, 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,649	I don't ever do business with anti-Second Amendment bigots. __________________ No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

January 16, 2012, 09:01 PM	#10
nate45 Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2007 Location: Illinois Posts: 3,746	Yeah, there is no way armed robbers would try anything after they read that. Imagine if you were a hardcore armed robber and you saw that sign? __________________ "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<)

January 16, 2012, 09:24 PM	#12
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	They have read or been told by some liability type that allowing concealed carry is a risk for them. Quite common in the business lit. There are some counter articles around. Hard to convince them on a national level to ditch this. If you discuss the 2nd Amend and rant - you get nowhere. Probably the same for boycotts that are clearly unorganized. Bummer. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 16, 2012, 05:42 PM	#2
orangello Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 566	Maybe you should send them a copy of your receipt when you purchase elsewhere; lost sales convey a message well for most retailers.

January 16, 2012, 05:43 PM	#3
musher Senior Member Join Date: April 23, 2005 Posts: 462	sheesh. That reads like a third grader's attempt to sound like a lawyer. I agree shop elsewhere.

January 16, 2012, 07:35 PM	#6
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	And I am sure robberies decreased once the robbers realized they were going into a "gun free zone"...

January 16, 2012, 08:26 PM	#8
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	Funny thing is they have that sign even here in Illinois where they don't have CC. I got my wife her wedding right there and was taken a back at it, i've never seen a "no gun" sign here in Illinois before. I can see why the owner of a jewelry store would not want people with firearms under any circumstances coming in their business. Same thing as a bank. The flip side of that is most people who lawfully carry a firearm will never commit a serious crime of any kind, they are even less likely to commit a felony than a non gun owner. It is a flawed logic. PS Side note to our Indiana readers: Do they still have no gun signs at all of the I80/Indiana Toll Road rest stops?

January 16, 2012, 09:15 PM	#11
bqglock Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Location: Apache junction, AZ Posts: 50	If the law that says "don't steal" does not stop them, then why would this sign?

January 16, 2012, 09:30 PM	#13
TXAZ Senior Member Join Date: September 5, 2010 Location: McMurdo Sound Texas Posts: 4,322	If you want to see real robbery, compare what Jared's sells a high quality 1 Carat VVS1, versus the Rapaport monthly price list.... __________________ Cave illos in guns et backhoes

January 16, 2012, 10:47 PM	#14
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,832	The real point to these signs is not to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, its to protect their business. They are not so stupid as to actually believe that a criminal is deterred by the sign, nor are they worried about those people who lawfully carry becoming robbers. What they worry about is the other people, their customers, who a) feel safe and protected by the sign, and b) (and most importantly) are freaked out by seeing firearms in any setting outside of a range, police officer or hunter in the field (and many are freaked out by hunters). They are afraid that if these people see someone with a gun in the store, they will stop shopping there. And that is a larger chunk of their business base than CCW holders. It boils down to simple economics. OR, at least, that's how they justify it. I'm sure their insurance also plays a part in it. If someone had an accidental discharge/negligent discharge, or even a deliberate shooting, if they "allowed" that person on their premises, then they would be held liable. This is something I have never quite been able to understand about our laws. IF a third party breaks the law about shooting someone, how can the property owner be held responsible if there was no rule about them being armed on the property? But if there is a rule that says "no guns" then the property owner is blameless? Oh, I know the argument, that if they allow arms on their property they are responsible because third party misuse is a "forseeable circumstance"? Seems to me that if I "allow" rain to fall on my place, then someone drowning would be a "forseeable circumstance" as well, wouldn't it? Or that arson was a forseeable circumstance because something in my place will burn? Sad, but that seems to be the insurance companies and courts think these days. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

January 17, 2012, 04:17 AM	#15
nate45 Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2007 Location: Illinois Posts: 3,746	Good post 44 AMP I came back to this thread, because I thought of the deliberate shooting reason. If a robbery did take place and a CCW tried to intervene and other customers were injured, it could turn into a huge liability. I know we all want to place the onus on the robber, but given the various state laws and our litigious society, thats not always the case. __________________ "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<)

January 17, 2012, 09:11 AM	#17
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	On one hand, I generally take my business to places that are smarter in their signage. There are some that post signs that leave loopholes for permit holders, if one reads them. For example, signs that don't comply with state requirements, or signs that ban unlawful carry. I normally avoid doing business with stores that have outright bans. OTOH, I understand their anxiety, and feel that the long term fix will have to be tort reform. Indemnify businesses against liability in such scenarios, and they will lose most of the incentive (most, since some are actual anti's, liability issues notwithstanding) to post such bans. Meanwhile, it is nice to live in a state where it is up to me whether to comply. In Missouri, if one does carry, there is no criminal or civil liability in a posted business unless one a) is caught and b) then refuses to leave. I generally believe in respecting the business owners property rights, but boycotting, but it's nice to have the choice.

January 17, 2012, 09:43 AM	#18
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	Does anyone know of an instance wherein a business that did not have a policy regarding CC was actually held liable for an injury which occurred during a defensive situation? Seems to be the legal theory but I've never seen reference to it actually happening. I'm curious how it would differ if you owned a parking lot and a licensed driver ran someone over? I'm not trying to go down the "ban cars cause they're dangerous" path... I'm saying that it really seems like the same legal situation. You own the property, you allow cars, someone does something bad with a car, you're responsible? I know the "people don't see cars as dangerous..." argument but from a technical legal standpoint, how would it be different? __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

January 17, 2012, 10:26 AM	#19
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	We discussed that a bit ago and our legal eagles consensus was that it would be very difficult to sue on the grounds that you couldn't carry. It would also be very difficult to get a lawyer to take the case on contingency as the rewards seem small. IIRC, the idea is that the evil actor is responsible - not the store for his or her actions. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 17, 2012, 12:36 PM	#20
CowTowner Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Location: Cowtown of course! Posts: 1,747	Sounds like a lawsuit looking for lawyer and a test case to me. But, I ain't no lawyer. __________________ NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor *“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......”* President John F. Kennedy

January 17, 2012, 01:42 PM	#22
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	BarryLee, the point is not to force a store owner to allow firearms, but to force the creators of "gun free zones" to have full accountability for all the people who obey their rules. If you want me to change my routine on your property, great, but actions and choices have consequences. If you wish to take away my ability to defend myself, you should assume responsibility for my defense.

January 17, 2012, 02:13 PM	#24
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	Again, as already mentioned you do not have to go into that business and are free to buy similar products from other establishment. Look I am not defending these policies, but it is their decision and I will take my business elsewhere. At the end of the day we may have a difference of opinion on what constitutes personal freedom and I respect your right to disagree with me. __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

January 17, 2012, 03:28 PM	#25
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	We have done this before - many times. Let me summarize: 1. We have the battle of two rights. 2. The right to protect yourself 3. The rights of a property owner. 4. The latter are not inviolate. Health rules and civil rights protection show that in our society, what is seen as the great good overtakes the property owner of a business open to the public to be king or queen of the castle. 5. You may disagree with that. 6. Some folks argue that civil rights protection is based on a protected class. Some argue that carrying a gun for self-protection should have the same status for class protection as race, religion, gender, etc. You may disagree. 7. The argument that you can go elsewhere is not always practical, depending on locale. 8. The use of store bans is promoted by the Brady folks as a method to make carry impractical and discourage it. That's it folks. I'm on the side of gun rights trumping property rights if you open for business to the general public. My call on the battle of rights. Life trumps your property. You don't have to have a business open to the public, just as folks say you don't have to go there. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens