Toys 'R' Us

sniperthx

Registered User
Thought others may be interested in this.

Recently Toys R Us enacted a no firearms policy in their stores.

I have been calling for a boycott for a while, and it seems to be reaching out a ways.

So I thought I would go ahead and tell you guys about it.

Here in Utah we do have the luxury of the no firearms sign not holding any legal weight, but according to their cookie cutter responses to e-mails, they did it for the supposed safety of their customers.

That means you, as a responsible gun carrier and concealed carry permit holder, are a danger to their customers.

Personally, I find such a claim extremely insulting.
 
They certainly have the right, but all they can do is ask you to leave. My employer does not allow guns on the premises. If anyone who cared knew that I was carrying a gun, they could ask me to leave.

While I agree with your stand, my opinion is nobody should know if you are packing.
 

sniperthx

Registered User
It doesn't matter how I carry. That is not a point of discussion in this thread. Aside from which, I never said I open carried. Re read the OP.

They believe, that you, as a person who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and the subject of possibly DAILY background checks, are a dangerous person.

If that doesn't insult you, you're lost.

TRNDRVR, they have every right to ban firearms from their property, however there is no law that provides a penalty for carrying in a posted location such as TRU. The most they can do is ask you to leave, and if you don't, they can call the police and have you removed and cited for trespassing.

However, Utah's trespassing law requires the accuser to prove that you were substantially affecting business. That's a pretty hard to prove thing.

My stance has absolutely NOTHING to do with our right to bear arms, as TRU has their property rights.

This is about an insult to gun carriers.
 
Last edited:

1995zj

I'm addicted
Location
Herriman, UT
I guess I just don't let that bother me too much. Mainly because I don't shop at Toys 'R' Us in the first place....

There are many other things that I am concerned with. Whether or not I'm allowed to carry my firearm into a toy store isn't high on my list.
 

Tacoma

Et incurventur ante non
Location
far enough away
So what's your beef? Does it bug you that any other companies insult gun owners? So what.

I can't even think of the last time I went into a Toys R Us. *shrug
 

sniperthx

Registered User
Example:

Tacoma, you are too stupid to safely handle a firearm. For everyone else' safety, you can't have one here.

The above is what TRU's policy says to me. Excepting your name of course.

Anyway, I just posted it here for anybody who is interested.

Edited to add: And that is merely an example. I do not actually feel that Tacoma is too stupid to safely handle a firearm.
 

Caleb

Well-Known Member
Location
Riverton
You need to get thicker skin. If you're insulted by a policy at a toy store that shouldn't even apply to a concealed carry permit holder ;) then I how do I know that you aren't a threat to customers??? :confused:
 

Herzog

somewhat damaged
Admin
Location
Wydaho
It's a stupid policy to begin with written by short-sighted morons.
Like a sign is going to stop some asshole from walking in a shooting the place up. The fact that they can't see beyond that is pretty amazing.

That's my take. :p

edit - If they took the time that it took to come up with this brilliant policy to clean up their stores a little bit instead, I wouldn't be so disgusted when I walked in. Every Toy's R us I've been to has been filthy. :rofl:
 

Tacoma

Et incurventur ante non
Location
far enough away
Well, to me it's a company exercising their right to refuse service. I'm fine with that. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Do I think it's retarded? Sure do, but they have that right.

I don't get taking it that personally, I just don't see it as an insult.


... and I didn't take your post personally, either. :D


Example:

Tacoma, you are too stupid to safely handle a firearm. For everyone else' safety, you can't have one here.

The above is what TRU's policy says to me. Excepting your name of course.

Anyway, I just posted it here for anybody who is interested.

Edited to add: And that is merely an example. I do not actually feel that Tacoma is too stupid to safely handle a firearm.
 

sniperthx

Registered User
It's rather simple Caleb, they say they think I'm dangerous, I respect their wishes and take my money elsewhere.

Why exactly is this an issue? What is so thin skinned about my decision?

Tacoma, you are absolutely correct in that they have every right to refuse service to carriers of firearms.

And those carriers have every right to take their business elsewhere.

So, I post a thread notifying others of the policy, voice my stance, and people who agree will boycott, and those who don't agree with my stance, wont boycott.

Since you think the policy is retarded, perhaps you would boycott based on that, and not based on any insult? Either way, I'm boycotting them.

But then again, since you don't shop there anyway, your boycotting wouldn't change much. :)

Herzog, I agree with your post. Nuff said.

TRNDRVR, You're right, I don't know Tacoma at all. Should I be worried? :ugh: :)
 

SAMI

Formerly Beardy McGee
Location
SLC, UT
I'm going to bring this up to the top.... I must've missed this topic on RME, but have been following a similar thread on a local gun forum. Check this out:

fuzzy said:
I am new to this forum, but I wanted to relate an experience that I had two weeks ago (10/20/10) at the Toys-R-Us store in Orem, Utah that simply boggles my mind and necessitates sharing. I am a Utah LEO who was on duty and in full uniform when I visited the store, on break, to purchase a game for my son’s birthday. At the checkout counter the employee, later identified as Jen, informed me as I was paying that she could clearly see that I was a police officer, but that they don’t allow firearms in their store. After I picked my lower jaw up off the floor several seconds later I smiled and politely informed her that as a police officer my firearm goes with me wherever I go. She told me that they have a sign posted on their door and it applies to everyone. Of course, I elected not to make a scene and simply left. I figured I would call the manager later and the policy would be clarified to the employee. As I was leaving I searched for the sign out of curiosity and finally found it posted where you would only see it if you were looking for it.

The next day I called and spoke with a store manager, named Edika (spelling confirmed), regarding the incident. She had already been made aware of the incident the previous day by Jen and immediately informed me that the policy applies to everyone, including on-duty, uniformed police officers. She told me that they would certainly make an exception for a police officer called to their store for law enforcement reasons and said that they actually do contract with the city to have a law enforcement presence on Black Friday (I believe that was the event she mentioned).

I made it very clear to Edika that their sign does NOT provide a legal basis for any law enforcement action to be taken against anyone in legal possession of a firearm in their store; that all they could do was ask that person to leave the property. She said that she asked someone to leave their store the day prior (not firearm related) and that it was very uncomfortable. I told Edika that I thought it was crazy for a retail store like Toys-R-Us to prohibit an on-duty, uniformed police officer from bringing a firearm into their store as it serves as the largest crime and theft deterrent that I know of. She agreed with me somewhat, but said that it was a new company policy, enacted two months prior in August 2010. She then said that she could NOT speak with me further about it, but that she would be trying to get clarification herself on a possible exemption to the policy for on-duty, uniformed LEOs. I kindly asked if she would call me back when she had more information. She refused, stating that she could NOT speak with me further regarding the matter because they have to be careful what they say as the media might hear and report, creating negative publicity. I informed her that I was not affiliated with the media or cooperating with the media in attempting to get my question answered. She laughed and said that she knew that. Edika informed me that I would need to contact their (800) number to get an answer for myself.

To make a long story short, I received the run around from their guest relations personnel at the (800) number for almost two weeks wherein they refused to give me an answer (telling me that they didn’t know how to document my call) and told me that I would have to wait 3-5 business days for someone from corporate to call me back. They told me that I could call back and have my question expedited if I had not received an answer within five business days. Surprise! I did NOT receive a call within five business days, or even after one and one half weeks.

When I contacted guest relations again on 11/01/10, I was informed that they still could not give an answer to my question as to whether they consider an on-duty, uniformed LEO exempt from their new policy. I was told that I would now have to write a letter to their corporate office to find out. I told them that I refuse to keep playing their games and just wanted a simple yes/no answer to a very simple question. They refused to cooperate, with a manager named Lorraine stating that they don’t have the ability to make outbound calls and that they don’t have a contact number or a way to contact anyone at corporate. Nice one… I told Lorraine goodbye.

I checked their website on 11/02/10 and, lo and behold, there was a corporate phone number, where I easily contacted someone in their corporate guest relations department named Denise. Denise was very nice, but dumbfounded me further when she informed me that on-duty, uniformed LEOs are NOT exempt from their new policy. She told me that it applies to everyone. I kindly told her that I thought her company was absolutely crazy for not wanting on-duty, uniformed LEOs walking through their stores on a random basis, even if just for a couple of minutes. She told me that they would welcome a LEO if Toys-R-Us called an officer to the store for a law enforcement reason, but that police officers are not welcome as customers.

Well, that about sums up their approach towards public safety, doesn’t it? I clarified with Denise two more times just to be sure my ears weren’t deceiving me and she confirmed it repeatedly. I asked if Toys-R-Us has a written copy of that policy that she could send to me. She told me that they don’t have it written anywhere; that the policy is only written on the local store signs. Nice one…

I rest my case.

I know I will NOT be purchasing anything else from Toys-R-Us or Babies-R-Us unless their policy changes. I have also made it a priority to tell everyone I know about my experience and their policy, which potentially creates a VERY unsafe shopping experience. Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Simply unbelievable!

fuzzy said:
UtahJarhead said:
fuzzy said:
I am new to this forum, but I wanted to relate an experience that I had two weeks ago

<snip>

I know I will NOT be purchasing anything else from Toys-R-Us or Babies-R-Us unless their policy changes. I have also made it a priority to tell everyone I know about my experience and their policy, which potentially creates a VERY unsafe shopping experience. Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Simply unbelievable!
Holy. Crap. This is simply unbelievable! If you worded their statement verbatim, then I'm appalled!
She told me that they would welcome a LEO if Toys-R-Us called an officer to the store for a law enforcement reason, but that police officers are not welcome as customers.

I seriously hope this was a slight misquote for THEIR sake!

Edit: added underline to emphasis, bold in quote blocks doesn't stand out.

It was obvious in speaking to her that she was referring to on-duty, uniformed officers, but no, it is not a misquote. I couldn't believe it.

fuzzy said:
I'm sure, as we all probably are, that the incident which occurred two years ago at the California TRU is likely the reason behind their policy.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/shots-were-fire.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/29/national/main4637780.shtml?source=mostpop_story

I can certainly understand and appreciate TRU wanting to prevent this type of violence from occurring in their store in the future, however the policy just doesn't seem very well thought out. The top news story from 2008 indicated that the subjects were from rival groups, based on early reports. I'm not sure about you, but "rival groups" sounds an awful lot like gang members to me. If that was the case, I highly doubt the subjects had a CWP to be legally concealing their firearms, as it appears they were. And they most definitely were not on-duty, uniformed LEOs.

In following TRU's new policy, CWP holders and LEOs (who are both likely to follow the store's policy) won't be present next time either to help prevent innocent lives being lost or even defend themselves. Luckily, the only two people seriously injured in this case were the two possible gang members who instigated the violence, but what about next time? Chances are, we won't be so lucky again and other innocent people may become victims the next time this occurs. If TRU truly wants to keep all weapons out, they need to start with the criminals who assuredly WON'T follow their policy. The ONLY way to do that is to screen everyone entering the store. If they choose not to do that, it only seems prudent to allow CWP holders and LEOs in the store. Violence can occur anywhere, and it was proven two years ago that YOU may have need to defend yourself in TRU at some point. I don't even need to mention Trolley Square.

Who knows, maybe they believe that simply because they taped a sign up on their storefront they will be shielded from any possible liability should this occur in their store again. If TRU's priority is their liability over mine and my family's safety, then you can bet I won't be back AND I will let everyone that I care about know about their priority as well.
 
Last edited:

mesha

By endurance we conquer
Location
A.F.
They don't want uniformed police officers in the store? wow.

The only offense I take at this whole thing is I am offended at how dumb some people are. I do occasionally shop there, but I won't anymore. I am almost at 3 years of boycotting walmart.
 

ID Bronco

Registered User
Location
Idaho Falls, ID
Because of this we have not and will not visit their store here. I spent a decent amount there last year. Thanks to the original poster for the information. I think you are doing me a service.
 

jamesgeologist

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Location
Ogden, UT
Ooops I guess I have violated TRU's guest policy about a half dozen times this season. Won't happen again my good friends. Guess I'll have to find a new place for baby stuff and toys......
 
Top