1) Since when have "trial attornies" defined reality?
Reality: If POLICE cannot protect the citizenry and in fact have no responsibility to do so, why would a Grocery Store have this responsibility?
2) Many businesses prefer not to have folks carrying openly. There is a difference in "your rights" and common sense. If you insist on carrying openly, go right ahead. If you own a business, you have the right to ask patrons to hide your AR-15 under your shirt.
1.) Research "premises liability" law, and "sovereign immunity." Private businesses are held civilly liable all the time for negligence in not providing a reasonably safe environment for their patrons. This is not my area of practice, but torts attorneys make their living from suing businesses for "slip & fall" injuries, products liability, "failure to warn," etc.
1.) (cont'd) The police don't have a duty to defend individuals absent a special undertaking to do so, such as with a protected witness. This is both for policy reasons, and primarily because of the common law concept of "sovereign immunity," that the king (or his agents) could not be held liable in the king's own court. Fortunately, this concept has been modified by law in some cases by things like the Federal Tort Claims Act.
2.) I never argued otherwise...
2.) Walmart can certainly establish whatever rules they want about open carry in their stores. I was pointing out that they're not accomplishing anything, and actually removing a deterrent which could expose them to greater civill liability (as well as shoppers choosing not to patronize, as is their right). Question is, are there more people like you who dislike open carry, or more people like me, who it doesn't bother?
@NRA clearly thinks it's the latter. Which is not surprising, considering they've sponsored and advocated for open carry in many state legislatures.
Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.