Removing those gun-free signs with bigger corps...W.W. Grainger

[Beezil]

Well, I had an occasion to visit my local Grainger before the holiday.

 

I/We usually place on-line orders.

 

I was completely shocked and put off my one of those nasty gun-free signs.

 

I mean, I see them in lots of places in Chicago, but Grainger??? "for the ones who get it done".....?

 

So, I go back to the truck to prepare for my lawful re-entry into a posted establishment so I could talk to the manager there, who I've done as much as five figures worth of business each year for at least 20 years. I was invited back to his office for a sit-down discussion.

 

The manager listened to my concerns and shared with me that I was definitely not the first to convey them.

 

He promised to contact corporate for a better explanation, to see if there was a misunderstanding of the FCCA, or there was a policy being enacted.

 

He received an answer today, which was disappointing, but I would like to share my response which will more than likely be forwarded to corporate. I do not have permission to re-print their names or graingers correspondence to me, so out of respect for that and the fact that I am trying to appeal to their logical senses in good faith i will just post my response:

 

 

 

Hello xxx,

 

Thanks for looking in to this, I really appreciate the time you gave me to discuss this matter.

 

Mr. xxx is correct that the law does allow private businesses to essentially create a “gun free zone” that carries the full force-of-law, provided proper signage is displayed, as is the case at the xxxxx store.

 

It appears that W.W.Grainger has elected to voluntarily make use of this provision and enact it under the Illinois FCCA (Firearms Concealed Carry Act).

 

I was hoping that W.W.Grainger had posted the signage based on a false understanding that they are REQUIRED to under the Act, which they are under no legal obligation to do so.

 

I am disappointed to discover that W.W.Grainger has taken this position electively.

 

As a business owner, I know I can take a similar position as W.W.Grainger has done, and declare my own business a “gun-free zone” under Illinois law, but have chosen not to. I am also an Illinois Certified Instructor and Second Amendment advocate who knows that a “gun-free zone” is a fantasy and is completely ineffective as a crime deterrent. Objective analysis of FBI and law enforcement crime data ascertains this as fact indisputably.

 

Bear in mind, that a conceal carry permit holder in Illinois has been fingerprinted, passed an FBI background check, and has 16 hours of firearms training including demonstrating marksmanship ability. The additional scrutiny makes an FCCA permit holder many more times LESS likely to commit a crime the average law-abiding citizen. This is why I have to decided NOT to post my own business. I will not prevent my own employees NOR MY CUSTOMERS from exercising their right to lawful self-defense.

 

If it remains W.W.Grainger’s corporate policy not to allow its customers to exercise the rights allowed under the Firearms Concealed Carry Act, then I must respond by stating that it is my corporate policy not to do business with companies who would deny my right to self-preservation.

 

Please feel free to share our correspondence as you see fit.

 

Regrettably,

 

Bj

M------- ----- --------

 

[wtr100]

Good on you B

[Bud]

+1

 

It's the only way to get their attention

[C0untZer0]

I was at their HQ in Lake Forest and I didn't see the signs.

[Whitedog]

If your looking for an alternative place (depending on what your buying) Mcmaster Carr carries almost as much stuff as Grainger. Most orders that I place by 5pm, get shipped out the same day and I usually receive then the next day.

[armadroid]

hit them where it hurts

[ChicagoRonin70]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w35S0bMwx0E/U-BB6fJDhbI/AAAAAAAAETg/v4UqXyOMTgY/s1600/cTeeqwI.png

[KZ1000]

I imagine that will leave a bad taste in there mouth considering all the business you have done with them in the past. Thanks for fighting it as much as you could.

[firepiper]

And send both the local location and the corporate contact a copy of each and every invoice for purchases made elsewhere......

 

Or maybe a quarterly summary.....

[borgranta]

You should also point out to them that the official sign has absolutely no force of law against criminals illegally carrying. You could also point out that they could be sued for inadequate security if an FCCL license is robbed of thousands of dollars worth of merchandise and/or harmed while still on their property such as while going to their car and by banning carry through a deliberate act of posting rather than the passive act of not posting one way or the other they make it harder to mount a defense in the court room.

[borgranta]

List the responses you get when you get your final response absent the names of course.

[Mr. Fife]

No more Grainger for me.

[Tango7]

I know that a former director of safety and security was a former cop - I have to wonder if they continued the trend of hiring retired cops if the "CCW is only for po-po" attitude was offered if an opinion was asked?

 

I might be completely off base, but having seen enough old-school political hack cops express that attitude I have to wonder.

[Mr. Fife]

They are a nation wide company. If you are on other gun forums, spread the word. Someone please crosspost this in the Walmart thread for future merging.

[tkroenlein]

Beezil, did you get the impression that this was a corporate leaning, or just one store's policy?

[BillR]

I went thru a similar discussion at the Waukegan Grainger on Sunset... The manager (or person representing Grainger) was a a total lib. They have lost my business until the sign comes down.

[BobPistol]

I would have mentioned that you were a long term customer with five figures annual purchases. THAT is what will get their attention.

[atmosphere0284]

McMaster Carr

[Xwing]

All the Graingers I have seen are posted. They pretty much all posted a while ago. Someone at corporate is obviously a huge anti. But hopefully letters like the above (which was very well stated) will change their mind over time. Posting will disenfranchises a portion of their customer base (and results in lost sales), but has no corresponding benefit for the firm. If firms eventually realize it, hopefully the bottom line benefits will outweigh any personal anti-gun feelings among management.

[Beezil]

Beezil, did you get the impression that this was a corporate leaning, or just one store's policy?

 

most definitely corporate.

 

The store manager would have been convinced otherwise.

[Hipshot Percussion]

I would say, if you are an investor with shares in Grainger, contact Investor Relations and the Board and make your complaint. Whether you own 2 shares or 2000, when Investor Relations gets a complaint from someone who has money wrapped up in Graingers profitability, they take it seriously (or so I'm told). One article I read stated that the Author actually went online, bought a couple of shares, made his complaint and then sold the stock - just so he could talk with Investor Relations.

 

You can find the Investor Relations Contact list HERE

 

Price right now for WW is $250 a share. If you own it, I think they will understand your concerns... especially at that price.

 

Stay Safe and Carry Responsibly

 

Edited to add - I guess, if you wanted to, you could contact Investor Relations and ask about the policy with the understanding that were thinking of buying into the company but wondered about the effects of the Signage, or some such thing.

[Beezil]

I would have mentioned that you were a long term customer with five figures annual purchases. THAT is what will get their attention.

 

 

I signed my response with my company name. My correspondence was in fact delivered to corporate yesterday. I am sure the first thing they're going to do is review my account and see what kind of stake there is in responding to me.

[Xwing]

 

I would have mentioned that you were a long term customer with five figures annual purchases. THAT is what will get their attention.

 

I signed my response with my company name. My correspondence was in fact delivered to corporate yesterday. I am sure the first thing they're going to do is review my account and see what kind of stake there is in responding to me.

 

Awesome! Please let us know how this turns out. Losing a major customer has to at least make them think about it. Hopefully they will decide to eventually put their business & making money over any personal feelings.

[ChicagoRonin70]

This warms a corner deep down in my dark, little heart to read things like this, but it also makes me think. I actually worked for years in the "liberal media" as well as with academic, scientific, and many legal and corporate clients who also skewed towards liberal/progressive policies. I'd say that at least 90 percent of my former client base would be very likely to support the posting of gun-free zone signs.

 

The dilemma for me, were I still doing the kind of work that I had been, is that if I had to not do business with anyone who supports GFZs, it would effectively remove my ability to perform in my field in anything more than a minimal capacity.

 

Therein lies a rub that I am quite relieved that I don't have to make, being semi-retired from that due to medical reasons.

 

So, in theory, how would anyone suggest that someone in a field like mine, a progressive, media-based vocation, deal with being quite literally the odd man out where firearms are concerned. People gotta eat, and the choice between principles and making a living is a tough one.

[Beezil]

McMaster Carr

yep....

 

i do business with every MRO under the sun.

 

I just told my maintenance staff no more grainger.

[Beezil]

This warms a corner deep down in my dark, little heart to read things like this, but it also makes me think. I actually worked for years in the "liberal media" as well as with academic, scientific, and many legal and corporate clients who also skewed towards liberal/progressive policies. I'd say that at least 90 percent of my former client base would be very likely to support the posting of gun-free zone signs.

 

The dilemma for me, were I still doing the kind of work that I had been, is that if I had to not do business with anyone who supports GFZs, it would effectively remove my ability to perform in my field in anything more than a minimal capacity.

 

Therein lies a rub that I am quite relieved that I don't have to make, being semi-retired from that due to medical reasons.

 

So, in theory, how would anyone suggest that someone in a field like mine, a progressive, media-based vocation, deal with being quite literally the odd man out where firearms are concerned. People gotta eat, and the choice between principles and making a living is a tough one.

 

 

i know what you mean.....

 

 

one thing affecting the other...

 

 

in a somewhat similar scenario, I'm thinking about the next time i have to respond to a critical repair or maintenance, I will have one less resource. By taking this position I may be affecting my own ability to be profitable.

[captdan]

I think it's great that you have chosen to challenge them and wish you much success. We also have taken the same approach with vendors. I recently went to a local radio station to record an agreed to commercial. I was greeted with a no guns sign on the front door. I immediately asked for my sales person and after a short conversation informed them I would not advertise on a station that did not support my products nor the SA. I feel we could leverage a great deal of clout among those involved in the gun industry If we would all vet our vendors and not use those that post NO GUN signs. It would not be possible in some instances but when possible choose gun friendly vendors only. I must also add that this station did contact me short time later and I did meet with them to discuss our situation. While polite and somewhat supportive no change was forthcoming. I am still hopeful we may resolve this issue but in the mean time I am spending my advertising dollar with gun friendly vendors when possible.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

This warms a corner deep down in my dark, little heart to read things like this, but it also makes me think. I actually worked for years in the "liberal media" as well as with academic, scientific, and many legal and corporate clients who also skewed towards liberal/progressive policies. I'd say that at least 90 percent of my former client base would be very likely to support the posting of gun-free zone signs.

 

The dilemma for me, were I still doing the kind of work that I had been, is that if I had to not do business with anyone who supports GFZs, it would effectively remove my ability to perform in my field in anything more than a minimal capacity.

 

Therein lies a rub that I am quite relieved that I don't have to make, being semi-retired from that due to medical reasons.

 

So, in theory, how would anyone suggest that someone in a field like mine, a progressive, media-based vocation, deal with being quite literally the odd man out where firearms are concerned. People gotta eat, and the choice between principles and making a living is a tough one.

 

 

i know what you mean.....

 

 

one thing affecting the other...

 

 

in a somewhat similar scenario, I'm thinking about the next time i have to respond to a critical repair or maintenance, I will have one less resource. By taking this position I may be affecting my own ability to be profitable.

 

Indeed. A further irony here is that my other professional focus is tactical security training and non-firearms combat training/self-protection, which many of my clients knew about and thought was "cool"; not to mention that I know unequivocally that should the feces impact the revolving foils of a fluid atmospheric circulation device, every last one of them who did know about my military and self-protection background would be looking to me to get their @sses out of the fire.

 

It's going to be interesting when I go to teach one of my female-oriented self-protection classes that is conducted in a yoga and "empowerment" center . . . that I strongly suspect will be anti-carry posted. Anyone see the even more ironic conflict there?

[Hipshot Percussion]

I took my own advice and sent this to Investor Relations -

 

Investor Relations,

 

While doing research for investment possibilities I was disturbed to find W.W. Grainger has made the decision to post all of it's facilities with the Illinois State approved Gun Free Zone signage. Your company claims, under the heading Operating Responsibly that "...Grainger also worked proactively to provide a safe and fair workplace..." yet you post signs that keeps law abiding citizens out and your employees defenseless while criminals - who don't care about signage - may enter your facilities and commit mayhem with impunity. How is this "safe" "fair" or "Responsible"?

 

I was also concerned and dismayed by Michael Goodings statement under the heading "Benefiting Everyone" which states the following -

"After the Supreme Court found the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional in the summer of 2013, Grainger quickly implemented systems and training to support employees who wanted to change their status from domestic partnership to married..." and

“Whether it is the equalization of benefits, training or the ability to be out in the workplace, Grainger encourages its employees to be themselves and support their LGBT friends and family.”

— Michael Gooding, President of the Equality Alliance Business Resource Group

 

Yet am I to understand that when the Illinois' Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to keep law abiding citizens from carrying for self defense that W.W. Grainger felt it was perfectly acceptable to discriminate and deny those lawful citizens their rights when at your facilities?

 

W.W. Graingers unfavorable and discriminatory treatment of lawful citizens has caused me to reconsider whether investing in your company is a viable choice.

 

In ending, let me say this, Illinois Citizens who have received their Concealed Carry License
• Have no felony convictions.
• Have never been convicted of domestic violence.
• Have no history of mental illness or drug addiction.
• Have passed several background checks including an FBI and local Police background check.

• Have their fingerprints on file with the Authorities.
• Have passed mandatory training in both the use of a firearm, marksmanship and the applicable law (16 hours in the State of Illinois, most of any State in the Union)

Can you say that about your other customers or employees?

 

Until such time as W.W. Grainger changes it's discriminatory practice of posting their facilities with Gun Free Zone signage, I have no choice but to look elsewhere for investment purposes.

 

Regards,

Name

Address

City & State

Phone Number

 

Feel free to use any or all of this if you are also sending something to them.

 

Stay Safe and Carry Responsibly

[ChicagoRonin70]

I took my own advice and sent this to Investor Relations -

 

Investor Relations,

 

While doing research for investment possibilities I was disturbed to find W.W. Grainger has made the decision to post all of it's facilities with the Illinois State approved Gun Free Zone signage. Your company claims, under the heading Operating Responsibly that "...Grainger also worked proactively to provide a safe and fair workplace..." yet you post signs that keeps law abiding citizens out and your employees defenseless while criminals - who don't care about signage - may enter your facilities and commit mayhem with impunity. How is this "safe" "fair" or "Responsible"?

 

I was also concerned and dismayed by Michael Goodings statement under the heading "Benefiting Everyone" which states the following -

"After the Supreme Court found the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional in the summer of 2013, Grainger quickly implemented systems and training to support employees who wanted to change their status from domestic partnership to married..." and

“Whether it is the equalization of benefits, training or the ability to be out in the workplace, Grainger encourages its employees to be themselves and support their LGBT friends and family.”

— Michael Gooding, President of the Equality Alliance Business Resource Group

 

Yet am I to understand that when the Illinois' Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to keep law abiding citizens from carrying for self defense that W.W. Grainger felt it was perfectly acceptable to discriminate and deny those lawful citizens their rights when at your facilities?

 

W.W. Graingers unfavorable and discriminatory treatment of lawful citizens has caused me to reconsider whether investing in your company is a viable choice.

 

In ending, let me say this, Illinois Citizens who have received their Concealed Carry License

• Have no felony convictions.

• Have never been convicted of domestic violence.

• Have no history of mental illness or drug addiction.

• Have passed several background checks including an FBI and local Police background check.

• Have their fingerprints on file with the Authorities.

• Have passed mandatory training in both the use of a firearm, marksmanship and the applicable law (16 hours in the State of Illinois, most of any State in the Union)

 

Can you say that about your other customers or employees?

 

Until such time as W.W. Grainger changes it's discriminatory practice of posting their facilities with Gun Free Zone signage, I have no choice but to look elsewhere for investment purposes.

 

Regards,

Name

Address

City & State

Phone Number

 

Feel free to use any or all of this if you are also sending something to them.

 

Stay Safe and Carry Responsibly

 

I'm going to have to appropriate this and have my investment adviser send this out to companies that I have holdings with.

 

To Hipshot Percussion, though, you might want to make sure to proofread things being sent to corporate offices more carefully:

 

Example: ". . . all of it's facilities . . ." should have the apostrophe removed, since it's can only mean "it is" and not the possessive. Yes, the opposite of most of the possessive convention in English, but it is what it is.