A letter to my local Dahl's Foods

[Bratastic007]

On January 1st and with major help from the NRA, Iowa enacted a much-needed revision of it's Permit to Carry Weapons laws. As expected, the new legislation caused a pretty big stir in Iowa, with Des Moines' liberal-leaning newspaper (The Register) predicting mayhem and blood in the streets. This, of course, did not happen.

Disappointingly, some local stores also decided to enact policies banning firearms from their premises in response to the new law. Kind of silly in my opinion, since they had not banned concealed carry under the former law.

One of these stores is Dahl's Foods, Iowa's 2nd largest locally-owned grocery store chain. Their biggest competitor, Hy-Vee, has been steadily gaining market share on Dahl's for years.

I had been a loyal Dahl's customer until this new policy was enacted. In response to the news piece about Dahl's anti-PCW policy, I wrote the letter below to the manager of my local Dahl's. I thought some of you may find it interesting as well:

January 20, 2011

Ms. Hillary Kane
Manager
Dahl's Foods
3425 Ingersoll Ave.
Des Moines, IA 50312


Dear Ms. Kane:

It is with great concern that I learned yesterday that Dahl's has enacted a corporate policy against the lawful concealed carry of firearms by its customers. My family and I have shopped at the Ingersoll Ave. Dahl's for as long as we've lived in Des Moines, despite relocating homes in the area more than once. We have always come back to the Ingersoll Dahl's for food, flowers, day-to-day necessities, and to enjoy breakfast in your café on many weekend mornings. Your employees have consistently been friendly and helpful, and we look forward to exchanging a wave and a smile with the "regulars" at the photo counter and check-out lanes during our frequent grocery shopping trips.

For this reason, I am disappointed that Dahl's corporate has decided to make what appears to be a political statement against the recently enacted concealed carry legislation, by banning lawful permit holders from carrying weapons within Dahl's stores. It is my opinion that placing a sign on the front door of your store informing potential wrong-doers that all patrons within are unarmed and defenseless does not increase my family's safety. Quite the opposite in fact—those with criminal intent will certainly ignore your sign. Only law abiding customers will obey your sign, and voluntarily disarm themselves.

Statistical and anecdotal evidence have both shown that the presence of armed concealed carry permit holders has the effect of decreasing crime in the community. Lawful permit holders must attend classes and pass a criminal history background check. Although I myself rarely carry a weapon, I view doing so to be not only an action in defense of potential harm to myself and my family, but also an expression of my 2nd Amendment Rights under the Constitution of the United States. Any retail establishment that enacts policies to make my family less safe, and which seeks to prohibit my free exercise under the Bill of Rights, is one that I will not support.

For the above reasons and more, it is with regret that I will be taking my business to your competition when at all practical in the future. To my knowledge, Hy-Vee has yet to enact such a policy. The extra few minutes it will take me to drive to the University Ave. Hy-Vee is worth it to me, to keep my family safe and to spend my money in support of a business that recognizes my rights as a law-abiding citizen.

Very sincerely,


-[My Name]

 

[Lost Lake]

Very well written letter. Kudos to you!

I don't understand what these people are thinking...... You should have asked if their new policy means that law enforcement officers entering the store must leave their weapons in their squad car. If not, why not? If they are fine with an officer carrying a weapon (which I am sure they will embrace) why not allow a trained, competent and background checked citizen to carry an unseen weapon?

 

[Bratastic007]

As a matter of fact, Dahl's hires an off-duty uniformed police officer to sit in each of its stores every day. Clearly they think his firearm is doing some good.

 

[cshoff]

Yes, very well written.

A few things I'll mention as your "neighbor" just to the south. We had a rash of businesses post "no guns" signs immediately after our CCW legislation was passed. Over the past 7 years, the vast majority of those signs have slowly and surely been removed. In fact, even the major grocery store chain, Schnucks, removed their signs and changed their policy last year. We had similar results with Arby's restaurants state-wide.

Missouri gun owners have learned to speak with their wallets, as you are doing in your letter. If Iowa gun owners do the same, you will find that, over time, many businesses will realize that the "blood in the streets" talk is nothing but fear-mongering nonsense, and they will take those signs down. Letters like yours will help them to do it faster.

In Missouri, we set up a "boycott list" database on the MissouriCarry.com website (MissouriCarry.com Concealed Carry News and Events) where we compiled a VERY comprehensive list of businesses that posted "no guns" signs. If you thumb through the list, you might think that it contains a lot of businesses, but as it relates to the entire state, it is not very big, and it has become smaller and smaller each year. As the signs come down, those businesses are removed from the list.

Another "tool" we've used here in Missouri are the "No Guns = No Money" cards. We simply drop a card off with a non-friendly business as a way to let them know that they are losing income. Here is a sample of the cards we use:

Front:

Back:

I generally provide about a half-dozen copies of the card to each of my CCW students, though anymore, the occasions to use them are farther and fewer between.

The card design is NOT copyrighted, so you are free to take the design, modify it for your needs, and start handing them out. The templates for the cards can be found here: Free "No Guns, No Money" Cards

 

[blujax01]

I was so glad to see Starbucks refuse to knuckle under to the knuckleheads and ban concealed carry. I would have hated to have to find a different place to feed my daily addiction.

 

[jfd]

very well written letter, hope it will give them pause for thought. also like the business card ideas. We have a gun store in the city I live in that posts a "no guns carried/worn" sign. They are a good size store. I refuse to buy anything from them. Too many other merchants who will allow carry and who want my business. I'm happy to give it to them.

 

[nebmike]

Good for you, B!

I have a close friend who happens to be a store director for a Hy-Vee in Iowa (but not in Des Moines), and he is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. I forwarded him a copy of your letter and am confident that he will relay your story to other Hy-Vee executives.

You may also consider speaking with, or writing to the director at your 'new' store to let them know why you chose them... I think you may find that you will grow to have just as valuable a relationship with them as you had at your 'old' store.

 

[P&R Fan]

Lets hope Hy-Vee never knuckles under to this, my family would starve!
The city I live in just enacted a "Prohibition of firearms and weapons in and on property owned, leased or otherwise occupied by the city". It says "The presence of firearms and weapons in or on City property constitutes a danger to the safety of City employees, peace officers, and the public".
I talked to a friend of mine who is on the city council and remarked it's going to be a bit difficult for the city to rent out venues where they hold gun shows. He paused and said "That's a really good point". The city, in their infinite wisdom passed the ban, but left it open to exclusions, so they can still make money on gun shows.
The question that is still unanswered however is what this encompasses. It is the general feeling that it is meant to be applied to city hall, the library and official buildings. But the way it is written, it appears to apply to anything owned by the city.That would mean every street and sidewalk that is not private property. Our new Mayor is a former police officer in this city, and it appears he doesn't like guns, and the new shall-issue law scares him. The kicker is, this county has always given permits out very willingly. More so than any other county in Iowa, and that's with Democrat Sheriffs for the last 22 years (And darn good ones, if you ask me). It looks like the anti-gunners are looking for ways to make things more difficult for us. We may have won some battles, but the war rages on.

 

[cshoff]

Lets hope Hy-Vee never knuckles under to this, my family would starve!
The city I live in just enacted a "Prohibition of firearms and weapons in and on property owned, leased or otherwise occupied by the city". It says "The presence of firearms and weapons in or on City property constitutes a danger to the safety of City employees, peace officers, and the public".
I talked to a friend of mine who is on the city council and remarked it's going to be a bit difficult for the city to rent out venues where they hold gun shows. He paused and said "That's a really good point". The city, in their infinite wisdom passed the ban, but left it open to exclusions, so they can still make money on gun shows.
The question that is still unanswered however is what this encompasses. It is the general feeling that it is meant to be applied to city hall, the library and official buildings. But the way it is written, it appears to apply to anything owned by the city.That would mean every street and sidewalk that is not private property. Our new Mayor is a former police officer in this city, and it appears he doesn't like guns, and the new shall-issue law scares him. The kicker is, this county has always given permits out very willingly. More so than any other county in Iowa, and that's with Democrat Sheriffs for the last 22 years (And darn good ones, if you ask me). It looks like the anti-gunners are looking for ways to make things more difficult for us. We may have won some battles, but the war rages on.

I would be lying if I said I was familiar with the new CCW laws you have in Iowa. Frankly, I just haven't taken the time to read through them yet. Here in Missouri, our preemption laws prevent cities, towns, municipalities, and other political subdivisions within our state from enacting rules/laws/ordinances that prohibit CCW permit holders from carrying in any public places other than in buildings owned by that unit of government. And public housing is specifically excluded from those buildings that a city may prohibit firearms in. That means places like parks, sidewalks, streets, common areas, wildlife management areas, etc. may NOT be posted as prohibited areas.

I thought I had heard from an acquaintance of mine who was very much involved with the new Iowa law that it would contain similar provisions under preemption.

 

[P&R Fan]

The problem is nobody knows what they're doing at this point. Different cities are passing different laws. The attorneys are going to have to get involved sooner or later.

 

[cshoff]

The problem is nobody knows what they're doing at this point. Different cities are passing different laws. The attorneys are going to have to get involved sooner or later.

Yeah, it kinda sounds like it. I guess a few "kinks" are to be expected. I know we had a few here we initially had to overcome.

 

[Ogandydancer]

I will go along with Lost LaKE; ANOTHER "Well Done" from me.

 

[Bratastic007]

Yeah, it kinda sounds like it. I guess a few "kinks" are to be expected. I know we had a few here we initially had to overcome.

It's another one of those bills that they passed before they worried too much about what it said. There are a few flaws to the new law, but we are better off with it than we were before it.

Interestingly, the new law allows for open carry or concealed carry of any deadly weapon, including shotguns and rifles.

I have yet to see anyone open carry a rifle here, and if they're carrying a shotgun concealed, they must have a VERY discrete holster!

One other aspect of the new law that I have mixed feelings about is that no range time or shooting qualification is required. I'm a strong believer in the RKBA as a Constitutional and human right, but I still wouldn't mind a reasonable shooting qualifier as a pre-requisite to getting a Permit to Carry. If you have to pass a driver's test to get your license, I don't think it's too much to ask that people prove safe firearm handling skills and the ability to hit a target at 20 feet.

 

[DAVEB47]

Lets hope Hy-Vee never knuckles under to this, my family would starve!
The city I live in just enacted a "Prohibition of firearms and weapons in and on property owned, leased or otherwise occupied by the city". It says "The presence of firearms and weapons in or on City property constitutes a danger to the safety of City employees, peace officers, and the public".
I talked to a friend of mine who is on the city council and remarked it's going to be a bit difficult for the city to rent out venues where they hold gun shows. He paused and said "That's a really good point". The city, in their infinite wisdom passed the ban, but left it open to exclusions, so they can still make money on gun shows.
The question that is still unanswered however is what this encompasses. It is the general feeling that it is meant to be applied to city hall, the library and official buildings. But the way it is written, it appears to apply to anything owned by the city.That would mean every street and sidewalk that is not private property. Our new Mayor is a former police officer in this city, and it appears he doesn't like guns, and the new shall-issue law scares him. The kicker is, this county has always given permits out very willingly. More so than any other county in Iowa, and that's with Democrat Sheriffs for the last 22 years (And darn good ones, if you ask me). It looks like the anti-gunners are looking for ways to make things more difficult for us. We may have won some battles, but the war rages on.

I'm feeling your pain on this one. I wasn't real happy that I never heard anything about it until it was passed. I like to walk my dog in a nearby park but will have to do it unarmed now. Thank goodness the bad guys obey laws concerning city property. lol

 

[Bratastic007]

I'm feeling your pain on this one. I wasn't real happy that I never heard anything about it until it was passed. I like to walk my dog in a nearby park but will have to do it unarmed now. Thank goodness the bad guys obey laws concerning city property. lol

Actually, you don't have to disarm. Iowa has a State Preemption law, which means that municipalities (counties, towns, etc.) cannot pass laws that are more restrictive than State Law. Of course, that will mean nothing to the local cop your try to explain yourself to. You or someone else will have to take it to court, but you'll win. If that makes you feel any better.

I would think that all the county and city attorneys out there would be advising their client trustees and city councils that all these laws are void.

Iowa Code Section 724.28:

A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership, possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms when the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state. An ordinance regulating firearms in violation of this section existing on or after April 5, 1990, is void.

 

[marmilia]

Actually, you don't have to disarm. Iowa has a State Preemption law, which means that municipalities (counties, towns, etc.) cannot pass laws that are more restrictive than State Law. Of course, that will mean nothing to the local cop your try to explain yourself to. You or someone else will have to take it to court, but you'll win. If that makes you feel any better.

I would think that all the county and city attorneys out there would be advising their client trustees and city councils that all these laws are void.

Iowa Code Section 724.28:

A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership, possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms when the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state. An ordinance regulating firearms in violation of this section existing on or after April 5, 1990, is void.

Unfortunately Iowa's Attorney General Tom Miller's reading comprehension skills are lacking and he has issued an "opinion" that cities, towns, counties, etc. can regulate firearms possession on their property. This guy needs to go!

 

[azasadny]

Well written letter! I do not do business with any company that posts a "no guns on premises" sign and I make it a point to let them know why...

 

[bitstream]

Can't believe I missed this when you posted it; I must have been away that day.

I used to work at the Dahl's Ingersol in the Deli before I left in 1990.

My family still lives back in Iowa, I've been following this whole thing pretty closely on the DMR's website. I've tossed in my comments repeatedly to point out the fail in the anti-gunner's ideas. It is amazing how adamant they can be. All they want to do is point out cases where somebody was shot with an evil gun. We point out that the shooter was NOT a permit carrying, law abiding citizen, and they refuse to understand. I keep challenging them to show statistics of permitted, lawful carriers commiting crimes, getting in wild shootouts, etc. That's when they start name calling usually.

Good luck with Dahl's! My mom still shops at the store in Beaverdale, it's only a mile or so from her house. I hope to be able to carry next time I visit back home; with the new law, my Georgia permit is now recogized back in Iowa. I can't stand having to disarm to walk in someplace, it's rediculous.

 

[Bratastic007]

For those of you who are interested, here is the response I received from Dahls:


Thank you for your message and for contacting Dahl's.

Recently, Iowa became the 39th state to become "shall issue" for gun permits, allowing law-abiding citizens to be issued a permit to carry weapons (after they take the training and pass the standard FBI background check).

In light of this, Dahl's Corporation made the decision to post signs in each of our stores indicating that firearms were not allowed inside. For the continued peace of mind for our customers and employees, we felt it was best to enforce a policy where guns were not allowed in our stores.

This does not reflect an opinion of Dahl's either for or against the bearing of arms.

While Dahl's Corporation absolutely supports each citizen's individual rights, we also felt that in maintaining our family-oriented and community-minded business approach, we should encourage a no-guns-on-premise policy.

Thanks again,
Dahl's Corporation

 

[mozoishere]

Excellent logic! So we never have to worry about an armed robbery at that location because they ban guns in the building.