PDA

View Full Version : Stand up for your 2A rights - BOYCOTT T.G.I. Fridays!!


palmnos
April 29, 2009, 11:46 AM
I went to a Friday's at Rittenhouse Dr in Midlothain, VA (Outside Richmond) for dinner, as I've done on many occasions. Shortly after being seated I was asked to leave as I was carry an UNconcleaed weapon (VA low prohibits concealed weapons in an establishment that serves alcohol). The manager pointed to the door, which clearly stated "concealed weapons are prohibited".

At this point I asked him for his regional managers’ information. Well, since it was late I waited till today to start shaking things up. I received a call back from an executive at UNITED RESTAURANTS GROUP; his # was 804-747-7102. (His name was possibly William Vaughn (Don't quote me on that)

To some up what he stated (which was very ignorant at best...) is that if people carried guns in to the premesis that there will be a problem eventually if everyone carried. (Evidently we don't have self control or the intellect to know that the use of our handguns is merely a last resort in protecting ourselves).

He was ANTI gun all the way, and very ignorant about them at best. He was very uneducated, and obviously thinks that people who carry guns are quicker to answer problems with their guns than anything else.


I've put a call in to the company which owns the Friday's name, and still haven't received a call, but will keep ya'll posted.

I'M REQUESTING THAT WE PETITION ALL T.G.I. FRIDAYS TILL WE RECEIVE BOTH AN APOLOGY ON THE MATTER FROM MR WILLIAM VAUGHN, AS WELL AS A COMMITMENT BY THEM TO NOT INFRINGE ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

Housezealot
April 29, 2009, 11:50 AM
that makes me wonder about michigan law, are any of the places that are prohibited to CCW carriers also prohibited to open carry? something to look into I guess.

palmnos
April 29, 2009, 12:25 PM
I'm already boycotting it myself, I'm just spreading the word. We all have the capacity to choose what we wish to do. If one establishment after another tramples on our rights, where will we eventualy be able to carry? In the streets?

I'm also in the process as I said with contacting corporate to get this rectified, going above the heads of the franchise. Of course, if the franchise doesn't want to allow guns, I'm sure that's their right. Just should change their signage so I don't waste my time waiting for a table, or even driving over there.

jondar
April 29, 2009, 12:32 PM
It'll be easy for me to boycott them as I don't patronize them now, but I'll spread the word.

azredhawk44
April 29, 2009, 12:33 PM
TGIF sells alcohol on site for consumption.

Can't carry there anyways, at least in AZ. Not sure about most other states with restaurant/bar carry.

palmnos
April 29, 2009, 12:43 PM
VA allows carry, just not concealed in places which serve alcohol. Currently there is some political batteling going on that hopes to bring back allowing concealed to places which serve alcohol.

Housezealot
April 29, 2009, 12:48 PM
This is the best you can do for a first post? Requesting that WE do something?
I meant something for ME to look into but I really appreciate the support:p

palmnos
April 29, 2009, 12:54 PM
This is what I found for Michigan.

It is unlawful to possess a firearm in a financial institution, church, court, school, hospital, theater, sports arena, restaurant with a liquor or alcohol license or day care center.

Since it states possess, I'd take that as both concealed and unconcealed.

Keltyke
April 29, 2009, 01:19 PM
If one establishment after another tramples on our rights,

Does he trample on our rights or do we trample on his?

The Constitution is based on personal freedoms - EVERYONE'S, including the store owner who doesn't want guns in his establishment. Our rights stop where his begin.

Now, before anyone takes me wrong - I firmly believe in my right to carry a handgun. However, I also believe in a person having the right to deny me when I'm on their property. It's my say-so what happens on my property, TGIF has the same right.

Boycotting MIGHT have an effect - IF there are enough gun-toters to affect TGIF's profits. I kinda doubt there are.

What WILL have an effect is to lobby your state legislators to change the law.

I do feel for you and understand you not wanting to patronize TGIF. That is your right. Me? I weigh how much I like/need the goods/services a business offers and make my decision based on that. Some places I won't enter. With some businesses I simply take my gun off and leave it in the car - respecting their rights.

BTW - Do you intend to never go to a physician, hospital or other medical agency if you are sick or injured? Can't carry your gun in those places, either.

Housezealot
April 29, 2009, 01:26 PM
+1 to keltyke
they have every right to tell us no, just as we have every right to go to a benigans, or ruby tuesdays or what ever else instead. they all seem the same to me, kind of like a lcp and a p3at (oh I think I just made some enemies:p)

grymster2007
April 29, 2009, 02:42 PM
I've always boycotted them.... me likes good food. Besides, this is sunny California... no need for a weapon here... what with all the law-abiding, friendly and peace-lovin' folks.

Don H
April 29, 2009, 03:20 PM
BTW - Do you intend to never go to a physician, hospital or other medical agency if you are sick or injured? Can't carry your gun in those places, either.

Perhaps where you live but certainly not where I live. Not all states have the same carry restrictions.

luvsasmith
April 29, 2009, 03:51 PM
Keltyke is right. Any owner of private property is allowed to say this is what I'll accept on my property and this is what I won't. That owner can use verbal communication or written, whichever they choose. The day that we are no longer allowed to say "Not in my house" to the government, general public or anyone else (besides someone else that can lay equal or greater claim to the property in question) we are all screwed.

Does that mean you should eat there? That is up to you and everyone else to decide.

As for me, I rarely eat out, CCW's don't allow you to carry in an alcohol serving establishment, nor can you OC in an establishment that serves alcohol in this state. So it really doesn't apply to me. I don't like the idea though, FWIW.

grymster2007
April 29, 2009, 03:57 PM
Keltyke is right. Yup.... but his position wouldn't be the most popular one on this here freedom loving board. We've had some pretty spirited debate on the subject, including various polls and seems the majority here feel their right to carry trumps the property rights of business owners.

I'm still bruised and battered from some of those discussions. :)

luvsasmith
April 29, 2009, 04:12 PM
Yup.... but his position wouldn't be the most popular one on this here freedom loving board.

Some of those "freedom" lovers need to understand one thing: As provided by the same Constitution that they seem to love to throw in anyone's face who disagrees with their choices, your rights cease where another's begin.

rantingredneck
April 29, 2009, 04:13 PM
In NC I can't carry there anyway as they serve alcohol, though there's a bill pending to change that law.

That being said, I choose to boycott TGI Fridays based on their crappy food and horrible service (at least at the one I ate at here several years ago.......haven't been back).

Keltyke
April 29, 2009, 04:17 PM
I choose to boycott TGI Fridays based on their crappy food and horrible service

Now THAT'S a legitimate boycott! :barf:

Creature
April 29, 2009, 04:21 PM
Some of those "freedom" lovers need to understand one thing: As provided by the same Constitution that they seem to love to throw in anyone's face who disagrees with their choices, your rights cease where another's begin.

The problem is that TGIF is not willing to guarantee my safety while I am unarmed on their premises. I would gladly disarm at their request if they could guarantee my safety. Until they can do that, I will not disarm. Instead, I will just not patronize their business.

So, who's rights begin where again?

GHF
April 29, 2009, 04:22 PM
In Florida, it is legal to carry any place that is not a straight bar (i.e. no food sold). If booze is sold in a place, you can imbibe at your dinner table, but can not carry in the part of the place that is set up as a bar.

Saying that, you would be surprised the restrurants in other states (TGI Fridays being one of them) that I eat in down here that give people grief in other states. Maybe it is because we want to lighten the wallets, purses and credit cards of the touristias, or maybe it is because we have had concealed carry here for 20 years, and it is part of the social fabric.

VA9mm
April 29, 2009, 04:33 PM
You didn't point out that you weren't carrying concealed, but in the open? If it was concealed he would have never seen it.

A while back in N.VA several patrons were in Champs eating firearms exposed and someone called the police saying they have "Guns". Police came and nothing happened as this is perfectly legal.

Wildalaska
April 29, 2009, 04:43 PM
Sometimes I cant decide what makes me feel unsafer...the unlikelihood of some loony tunes bursting into TGIF and playing spray and pray on the patrons because his mommy didnt toilet train him with love, or the unlikelihood of some open carrying Rambo doing tactical rolls across my table as he draws down on some gangsta simply because he saw him reaching in to his waistband.

I think I will stay home

WildlessfatandsodiumthatwayAlaska ™

Creature
April 29, 2009, 04:51 PM
I will take my chances with the Tactical Ted squashing my dinner rolls...because it more likely that he is at least attempting to aim his shots.

Keltyke
April 29, 2009, 04:52 PM
Good thread, people. This is a very sensitive, passionate, and heartily-argued topic. So far, everyone's being civil. +1 to all of ya!

I believe...that, unless I am violating the law of the land, or a LEO has probable cause and/or a warrant - what I do, or the laws, rights, and privileges I enact and enable within the boundaries of my own property are my right and inviolable. Else where is the advantage of owing property? That's why it's called the "Castle Doctrine". It's my "castle" and I am the king.

All that, and what I've said previously, being argued, I'm in agreement with the OP - If TGIF doesn't want my gun - they don't want my business.

As a side argument - does anyone think all handgun laws should be Federal and the same for all states - no individuality? How I dare suggest taking away some state's rights! :eek:

Algator
April 29, 2009, 04:54 PM
Were do you think you live in the wild west? If it's concealed why did they ask you to leave Fridays. They shouldn't have seen it. If you hid it it won't bother anyone. Buy a concealable gun and you won't have any problems. I don't use my 357 mag 9inch barrell for that reason.
Just my opinion Thanks :rolleyes:

Keltyke
April 29, 2009, 04:57 PM
If it's concealed why did they ask you to leave Fridays.

OP: I was carry an UNconcleaed weapon

"Bold text" mine.

Creature
April 29, 2009, 04:58 PM
Good thread, people. This is a very sensitive, passionate, and heartily-argued topic. So far, everyone's being civil. +1 to all of ya!

So very glad that you approve.

Keltyke
April 29, 2009, 05:28 PM
So very glad that you approve.

Here we go. There's always one. I try to pay everyone a genuine compliment...

JuanCarlos
April 29, 2009, 05:28 PM
Some of those "freedom" lovers need to understand one thing: As provided by the same Constitution that they seem to love to throw in anyone's face who disagrees with their choices, your rights cease where another's begin.

The problem is that TGIF is not willing to guarantee my safety while I am unarmed on their premises. I would gladly disarm at their request if they could guarantee my safety. Until they can do that, I will not disarm. Instead, I will just not patronize their business.

So, who's rights begin where again?

Sounds like everybody is well within their rights to me. ;)

Housezealot
April 29, 2009, 06:03 PM
I will take my chances with the Tactical Ted squashing my dinner rolls...because it more likely that he is at least attempting to aim his shots.
]

I love that, I might have to steal "tactical ted"

stilettosixshooter
April 29, 2009, 06:30 PM
In Texas, licensed civilians can carry in any place that does under 51% of their business from alcohol (i.e. restaurant serving alcohol, but not in a bar). Just depends on state law. Random unrelated comment :o

I'm guessing TGIF has a pack of lawyers proofing their notices, but it's worth checking the state notice requirements for property owners wishing to prohibit CCWs on their property. In Texas, there is specific language and specific sign requirements so that people see them. If it doesn't meet those requirements, they can't keep you from carrying.

Of course, I wouldn't argue with them, I'd just peace out. I think that's ridiculous, but it is their right.

luvsasmith
April 29, 2009, 09:51 PM
So, who's rights begin where again?

Your rights end where theirs begin in this case. It is your right to carry a firearm. It is their right, as the property owner, to say "No Firearms Allowed", just as it is yours to say "No XYZ" in your house or on your property. (It is obviously your right to not hand them your money in protest of them exercising their right to a "weapon free zone".)

bluegraytx
April 29, 2009, 11:12 PM
One thing to add to the Texas thread is that there is zero tolerance if your blood alcohol test comes up with anything but zero. The rule of thumb here is "one beer; one hour". That is, if you have one bottle of beer, don't leave the restaurant until one hour after your last glug.

Wildalaska
April 30, 2009, 12:26 AM
I will take my chances with the Tactical Ted squashing my dinner rolls...because it more likely that he is at least attempting to aim his shots.

yeah well where does that leave my chicken wings when some ninja has smeared his 511s all over them:rolleyes:

May I just note that if you choose to leave your gun in the car, the odds of you being safe increase if you eat fast:rolleyes:

WildheyhowaboutarmedguardsectionsinpizzahutAlaska TM

USASA
April 30, 2009, 01:48 AM
Carry concealed and there usually is no issue. Want to make a "statement" by carrying open....this is what you get. :o

cubsin2079
April 30, 2009, 03:30 AM
On the Texas tangent- On page 70 of the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws booklet in the Q and A section it clearly says--
Q: Can I carry my handgun if I am drinking alcohol?
A: "Carrying" while drinking is NOT prohibited, but it is a criminal offense to carry while intoxicated.
Best bet just dont drink because if you have one drink and get into a SD situation, eg. shooting, and any alcohol is in your system you are cooked!! Now where it gets really sticky is the definition of intoxicated. That is a longer post and its late.

rantingredneck
April 30, 2009, 08:48 AM
Carry concealed and there usually is no issue. Want to make a "statement" by carrying open....this is what you get

In Virginia he would be breaking the law, He is complying with the law by unconcealing his firearm.

That being said, still the restaurant's right to ask you to leave if you're armed.

pendennis
April 30, 2009, 09:14 AM
rantingredneck wrote: ... I choose to boycott TGI Fridays based on their crappy food and horrible service (at least at the one I ate at here several years ago.......haven't been back).

Plus 1. We stopped going to TGI Fridays a couple of years ago. Poor service, so-so food.

No company can guarantee one's safety. It's part of the risk of living in an open society. You just have to weigh the risks and rewards.

#18indycolts
April 30, 2009, 09:46 AM
The Constitution is based on personal freedoms - EVERYONE'S, including the store owner who doesn't want guns in his establishment. Our rights stop where his begin

+1 to that! Too many people think that ALL property is open to their definition of personal freedom.

Al Norris
April 30, 2009, 10:14 AM
We have hashed this "Private Property" debate sooo many times, I wrote this short response in the case it ever came up again.

You get to say what goes on, with your property, up until the time you open it up to business with the general public.

At that moment, you lose much of what you thought you had a right to.

Just about every aspect of your business has been or can be regulated by the government. Local, County, State or Fed. You become an unpaid agent for the various taxing authorities. You are bound by numerous health and safety codes. You can't discriminate against portions of the public. And on and on and on.

You can put up "No Guns" signs and enforce your will... Up until the time a law is passed that says otherwise. Conversely, you can put up "Guns Welcome" signs, up until the time your government says guns aren't permitted in your establishment.

Such regulation (for or against) are always attached to the Health and Safety of the general public. That same public you are in business with.

Private control of private property is one thing, but once you open your property to the general public, you lose much, if not most, of your control.

That being said, in areas that are not (currently) regulated, the property owner, or his agent, has the right to set the conditions of gun carry within the boundaries of the business property.

Don't like it? Let the specific company know why you are taking your business elsewhere. No reason to get into a tizzy about this. If enough people complain about the policy and it appears it may affect their profit margins, they will rethink their policies. If not, no big loss.

There are simply too many other businesses that don't care, one way or another, and will welcome you and your guns... And your money.

USASA
April 30, 2009, 12:27 PM
In Virginia he would be breaking the law, He is complying with the law by unconcealing his firearm.

Virgina is a Shall Issue state for a Concealed Handgun Permit. Get it- Learn it- Use it.

rantingredneck
April 30, 2009, 12:37 PM
Virgina is a Shall Issue state for a Concealed Handgun Permit. Get it- Learn it- Use it.

Virginia forbids concealed carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, but allows open carry in said restaurant.

Understand the question at hand........;)

Creature
April 30, 2009, 12:51 PM
Your rights end where theirs begin in this case. It is your right to carry a firearm. It is their right, as the property owner, to say "No Firearms Allowed", just as it is yours to say "No XYZ" in your house or on your property. (It is obviously your right to not hand them your money in protest of them exercising their right to a "weapon free zone".)

But that's the rub...dont their rights end at your nose? Just because you are on their property doesn't mean they have the right to violate your rights or compromise your safety, does it?

For example, if you are on my property, am I within my rights to forbid you from speaking? How about your right to LEAVE my property...if I forbid you to leave, does it mean you must comply with my request? A little extreme, but you get the point. You have a certain rights that may not be infringed. If you wont allow me to carry a gun which I use for personal protection on your private property, then is it not reasonable for me to expect you to safeguard my well being and provide for my safety?

Kyo
April 30, 2009, 01:01 PM
i wrote them. I included the link to this thread. Hope they figure it out soon. In GA everyone carries, and people who carry want to have a good time in restaurants. I just won't eat at a place that says no firearms. Besides, here we can conceal them so its not as big of a deal. It seems like that guy was just trying to put his opinion on you, when clearly the policy said no concealed. If it was out in the open, that is them being retarded.

They can ask you to leave for whatever they feel like. it is private property. The problem the OP has I think is the fact that the sign said concealed, and he was open carrying. So yea, they have the right to say to leave anytime they want. You are on their property and if you don't leave it is criminal trespassing.

USASA
April 30, 2009, 01:23 PM
Virginia forbids concealed carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, but allows open carry in said restaurant.


You are correct. Makes a lot of sense...no concealed allowed, but open carry is okay. Who writes these laws anyway.

rantingredneck
April 30, 2009, 01:51 PM
People that we elect...............scary isn't it? :eek:

johnwilliamson062
April 30, 2009, 02:08 PM
I choose to boycott TGI Fridays based on their crappy food and horrible service
+1 I used to like th places food although the service has always been lousy. About 8 years ago they made a menu change they have never come back from.
If you ever find yourself in Taipei, Taiwan, it is about the only place that has legitimate AMERICAN food.

Creature
April 30, 2009, 02:26 PM
Since when was this thread a commentary on TGIFriday's food quality? I thought it was about the right to carry vs the right for property owners to restrict guns. I guess I was wrong.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 30, 2009, 04:53 PM
I support the right of property owners to restrict firearms from their business and I support the right of firearms owners to take their business to someplace that wants their money.

As for TGI Fridays, there are already a half dozen reasons I'd rather eat at Taco Bueno or Long John Silvers first; but I'll add this one to the list.

MedicineBow
April 30, 2009, 05:09 PM
Just because you are on their property doesn't mean they have the right to violate your rights or compromise your safety, does it?

For example, if you are on my property, am I within my rights to forbid you from speaking?

Yes.

And yes.

SigSauerIsBetter
April 30, 2009, 05:44 PM
I can't believe people still eat at TGIF. I started the boycott when we got ourselves a Bob Evans.

I am all about posted signs, if they say no guns (concealed or not), I usually just leave it in my vehicle. No need to get into a situation where some drunk guy thinks it would be funny to try and take your firearm from you...

cjw3cma
April 30, 2009, 05:49 PM
No such restrictions here. Nothing wrong with having a beer after work and not having to leave my gun locked up in the truck. Being sensible is the key.

hogdogs
April 30, 2009, 05:51 PM
Medicine bow, I may be wrong but I do not think you can forbid speaking... maybe ask them to leave the business...
Brent

ftd
April 30, 2009, 05:58 PM
Yes.

And yes.

Good answer MedicineBow!

In fact, if I am on your property you can tell me to leave and don't even need a reason. If I don't leave I am trepassing. As someone has pointed out, in most places a merchant's establishment may come under some additional rules, some of which may include some type of "equal accomodation" statutes that may prevent the merchant from refusing service to someone. These, however are usually non-discrimination statutes. If TGIF's let's others wear OC guns but not you, you might have a case - depends on Virginia's laws. But if they prohibit everyone from carrying open in the restuarnt, that would come under the heading of "they would rather lose your business".

Did someone say that some states have laws that require merchants to serve gun toters?

jammin1237
April 30, 2009, 06:09 PM
here in the republic of Wisconsin - i think we are one of the last states to have strict anti "concealed carry" laws/policies ... just the other day our state attorney general announced that open carry is not illegal... the immediate response of the Milwaukee PD--- http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/43347632.html

"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it," Flynn said. "Maybe I'll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I've got serious offenders with access to handguns. It's irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them."

how is that for suppression? 2A rights? what 2a rights?

luvsasmith
April 30, 2009, 07:17 PM
For example, if you are on my property, am I within my rights to forbid you from speaking? How about your right to LEAVE my property...if I forbid you to leave, does it mean you must comply with my request? A little extreme, but you get the point. You have a certain rights that may not be infringed. If you wont allow me to carry a gun which I use for personal protection on your private property, then is it not reasonable for me to expect you to safeguard my well being and provide for my safety?

Sure it would be reasonable, in my mind. I'm not putting up their signs or demanding that armed citizens leave my property. I'm not the one that sees the gun as the danger, rather than the idiot carrying it or the good tool that it can be. The way gun owners are portrayed these days by TV and the extreme left really screws up how the gun- neutral people in society view armed, decent, responsible citizens. But on my property, what I say goes, on yours what you say goes and on theirs what they say goes.

grymster2007
April 30, 2009, 07:26 PM
Al nailed it. Right or wrong, once you open your property to the public, you're subject to any number of regulations.

Just because you are on their property doesn't mean they have the right to violate your rights or compromise your safety, does it? On my property (not open to the public) I'd be leaving myself open to litigation if I did something to compromise your safety, but your right to free speech, carrying a firearm, etc. goes away at my discretion.

Of course I'd probably let you carry on my property and maybe even speak your mind.... maybe. :p

Heepstress
April 30, 2009, 09:43 PM
It's really very simple, on a couple of points...

1. I have the freedom to choose where I spend my hard-earned cash. I'd rather support those merchants who support the 2A.

2. If you feel the need to carry in a place that may be prohibited in your state, that's your choice...but concealed is concealed.

DG45
May 2, 2009, 12:13 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see how a business owner of any commercial establishment that advertises to and serves the general public can legally refuse to serve a patron who is quietly going about his own business and breaking no public law. I'm assuming of course that what we're being told in this forum about this particular situation is true, i.e., that carrying a concealed weapon into an establishment that serves alcohol in Virginia is illegal, but that openly carrying a gun into such an establishment isn't illegal. Of course, I don't know if that's really true or not - it sounds crazy - but if it is true, why isn't that business owner required by law to serve that patron? The business owner is not running a private club in which the members have as the price of joining, agreed to check some their rights at the door before entering.

This seems very much akin to the restaurants in the South who once refused to serve blacks. They can't do that now. You can't just stomp on someones civil rights like that any more. What I think would be very interesting to see, is what would happen if a well-dressed, card-carrying NAACP-belonging, black patron, who was quietly minding his own business, openly carried a gun into this white(?) Virginia establishment. The owner wouldn't know whether to s*#! or go blind. But I do imagine that owner would think twice before he refused to serve that black patron and ordered him to leave because the price of violating that patrons civil rights are known to be very high. I'd pay money to see that confrontation.

Swampghost
May 2, 2009, 12:18 AM
The one that we had closed months ago. Never went there, just saw it in the paper.

Doggieman
May 2, 2009, 12:23 AM
As I always say...

Big business is NOT pro-gun

mdvaden
May 2, 2009, 12:47 AM
If I had a restaurant, and it was my property, I'd want to set the rules for what goes on inside my 4 walls. I consider my business an extension of MY stuff. Interconnected to my home via my name.

So although some business owners are ignorant, I think going on rampages against them like boycotts for something like this, serves to make responsible firearm owners look bad. And may cause more damage in the long run.

Also - exposed guns in a restaurant can scare other people. And fear means lost business and income. To reply an obvious answer to post #58.

It's a business owner's responsibility to manage their own business, safety and protocol.

Personally though - all conceal carry license holders would be welcome in my joint. Might even offer them a 10% discount for improving the safety and security.

5Wire
May 2, 2009, 02:36 PM
I saw something like this on a similar thread, so I mad up a loyout that you can print, flip the paper on its long axis and get these two sided cards:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/5Wire/Bumper%20Stickers/NGNB.jpg

stilettosixshooter
May 2, 2009, 03:56 PM
5Wire - very nice. That says it all, IMHO.

DG - in Texas, it's because there is a statute that authorizes them to do so. It's their property, their right. If someone who is denied service (the person who started this thread, perhaps) wants to sue and get their case up to the Supreme Court, I'm sure you could raise the question of whether a restaurant that participates in interstate commerce has the right to prohibit CCWs on their property.

Problem is, (1) those with CCWs do not constitute a protected class (sex, race, etc.), and (2) it's a much smaller group of people than those at risk of race discrimination - so less restriction on interstate commerce by refusing to serve those with CCW. (Although the number of individuals with a CCW is probably growing exponentially as we type.)

I'm not a Constitutional expert, but I'm pretty sure you need to just take your business elsewhere. Someone else who has a better legal understanding of the nuances may want to jump in here :o

"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it," Flynn said. "Maybe I'll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I've got serious offenders with access to handguns. It's irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them."

Holy geez, that's nuts.

Keltyke
May 2, 2009, 05:07 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see how a business owner of any commercial establishment that advertises to and serves the general public can legally refuse to serve a patron who is quietly going about his own business and breaking no public law.

Actually, they can. An establishment/business has the right to "refuse service" to anyone (and some display signs saying so) for almost any reason, including the place just doesn't like their looks. The legal and civil ramifications would have to be settled in court later, but the expulsion would stand if the LEOs were called.

For example, in NC, open carry is legal except if carried "in terror of the public". What this means is: if you carry openly into Wal-Mart, and someone is scared of you and your gun and complains - you may be asked to leave, remove your weapon, or you may be arrested. Now, that being said. when I lived in Monroe, NC, I constantly open carried into several businesses, including Wal-Mart, and never had any problems.

5Wire
May 2, 2009, 06:45 PM
5Wire - very nice. That says it all, IMHO.

Thanks, stilettosixshooter. I can only take credit for the layout. As I mentioned, the bullet points (:D) were created by someone else a while back on this or another forum.

Microgunner
May 2, 2009, 07:05 PM
5Wire,
I like that.

brickeyee
May 2, 2009, 08:02 PM
Actually, they can. An establishment/business has the right to "refuse service" to anyone (and some display signs saying so) for almost any reason...

there are 'protected classes' that you may not discriminate against for membership in the class.

This is well decided law (thin Civil Rights Act of 1964) and any 'public accommodation' violates it at their own peril.

They will be run out of business with the legal fees alone, let alone if it gets into a court.

Carrying a gun does not place you into a protected class, and if the owner wants to eject you he will succeed.

If a member of a protected class is ejected for other reasons it will stand also.
The owner just better make damn sure he has enforced the rule evenly.

OuTcAsT
May 3, 2009, 11:57 AM
If I had a restaurant, and it was my property, I'd want to set the rules for what goes on inside my 4 walls. I consider my business an extension of MY stuff. Interconnected to my home via my name.

As a business owner I can tell you it does not work that way.


Personally though - all conceal carry license holders would be welcome in my joint.

Unfortunately the OP did not have that option, the only way he could legally carry was openly, or not at all.

For example, in NC, open carry is legal except if carried "in terror of the public". What this means is: if you carry openly into Wal-Mart, and someone is scared of you and your gun and complains - you may be asked to leave, remove your weapon, or you may be arrested.

Glad I live in the free part of the south.

Richard b
May 3, 2009, 06:26 PM
"As a side argument - does anyone think all handgun laws should be Federal and the same for all states - no individuality? How I dare suggest taking away some state's rights! "

Federal Law? Written by Nancy Pelosi and friends?:eek:

Surely you jest!

Senator Vitaman
May 3, 2009, 06:48 PM
are any of the places that are prohibited to CCW carriers also prohibited to open carry? I think so. A CCW actually lifts some restrictions.

Toxdoc
May 3, 2009, 08:19 PM
This is what I found for Michigan.

It is unlawful to possess a firearm in a financial institution, church, court, school, hospital, theater, sports arena, restaurant with a liquor or alcohol license or day care center.

Since it states possess, I'd take that as both concealed and unconcealed.

This is only part of Michigan's law. Anyone who is authorized by Michigan or another state to carry concealed is except from the above restrictions. Concealed Pistol License holders are not allowed to carry concealed in any of the pistol free zones: school, daycare, arena, entertainment facility with seating capacity > 2500, religious institution, tavern with > 50% sales from alcohol, hospital, university or casino.

Michigan is an open carry state (confirmed by a Michigan State Police Bulletin). It is illegal for there to be any firearms in the areas mentioned in the quote, unless a person is police, a CPL holder or otherwise excepted by law. It is illegal to carry concealed (the law specifies concealed) in the pistol free areas.

David Armstrong
May 3, 2009, 11:20 PM
For example, if you are on my property, am I within my rights to forbid you from speaking? How about your right to LEAVE my property...if I forbid you to leave, does it mean you must comply with my request?
Yes to the first, no to the second. On your property you may forbid speech. You may not forbid exit, as that would constitute a kidnap, unlawful detention, etc. barring some special situations.
You have a certain rights that may not be infringed.
All rights are subject to restriction, and barring specific state statutes private property owners are well within their rights to prohibit guns.
If you wont allow me to carry a gun which I use for personal protection on your private property, then is it not reasonable for me to expect you to safeguard my well being and provide for my safety?
Your safety has been provided for by the business in a manner that is considered legal, reasonable, and in line with industry standards. By voluntarily entering onto the property you agree to accept the level and style of protection they have determined appropriate.

David Armstrong
May 3, 2009, 11:25 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see how a business owner of any commercial establishment that advertises to and serves the general public can legally refuse to serve a patron who is quietly going about his own business and breaking no public law.
Happens all the time. A restaurant can refuse to seat you for being improperly dressed, for example.
This seems very much akin to the restaurants in the South who once refused to serve blacks. They can't do that now. You can't just stomp on someones civil rights like that any more.
Not even close. Carrying a gun anywhere you want is not a civil right.

Tom Servo
May 4, 2009, 12:16 AM
Carrying a gun anywhere you want is not a civil right.
True enough. If there's going to be a conflict between 2nd Amendment rights and private property rights, I'm a bit uncomfortable.

Plain fact is, there are other restaurants. Your life isn't being disrupted all that much by this.

If you do want to carry there, I'd politely and diplomatically approach management and try to convince them to change their minds. It does work sometimes.

"Self control and intellect," to quote the OP. Instead, I see typing in ALL CAPS and the manager named personally on a worldwide internet forum, along with a call for a boycott before we've even heard a statement from the company proper.

I'm hoping the conversation didn't take the tone that the post implies, or you've lost any chance at converting the manager. Like most people under 50 in this country, he grew up in a culture that's done its best to teach him that guns are bad, and that anyone carrying one must have a chip on their shoulder.

By all means, fight the perception, but don't castigate the man for falling prey to the same pack of lies that's been fed to us for decades.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 4, 2009, 09:57 AM
Carrying a gun anywhere you want is not a civil right.

That is legally true. IMHO, that should be changed such that carrying is a civil right and can only be taken away in specific circumstances that can pose a clear and present technical danger.

For example, carrying by the MRI which will cause your gun to go off or be dragged to the machine.

Thus, carriers should be a protected class. But that's just my view. Does this view conflict with the property rights crowd - yes - but some of them still argue for the right to oppose segregation and I have little use for that view.

ZeSpectre
May 4, 2009, 10:15 AM
The business has every justification for asking you to leave if you don't abide by their policies (whatever they may be).

We have every justification for letting said business know how we feel.

If you want to protest then by all means take your business elsewhere but don't forget the other part which is a stream of letters to corporate headquarters with receipts showing them the business they are losing with their policy along with a nicely worded letter covering the "no guns no cash" talking points.

That is what tends to get some attention.

hogdogs
May 4, 2009, 10:46 AM
If you can't figure out how to fry frozen chicken nuggets, cheese sticks and seasoned curly fries from sam's wholesale club and pour a beer into a glass... by all means go to TGI Fridays:barf: But rules is rules... And heck if yer gonna eat "kiddie food" what makes you think yer mature enuff for a pistol:eek::D...
Easy folks I am just ribbin' and flaming me won't work as I am wearing brand new nomex superman under roos...
Brent

David Armstrong
May 4, 2009, 12:31 PM
That is legally true. IMHO, that should be changed such that carrying is a civil right and can only be taken away in specific circumstances that can pose a clear and present technical danger.
Would you argue that should be the case with all civil rights?
Thus, carriers should be a protected class. But that's just my view.
Are there any other protected classes based on what you do instead of what you are?

Glenn E. Meyer
May 4, 2009, 01:30 PM
What you do and what you are? Interesting divide - your 'race' (which is an ill-defined concept) might be what you 'are'. Your religion is what you do and that is protected. Your religion is supposedly part of the package of measures you choose to employee to protect you from an unpleasant after-life experience. It is protected. I would protect the right of the citizen not move into that afterlife earlier than expected due to action of a criminal action.

I would agree that private property owners and employers cannot control the exercise of civil rights unless it overtly and clearly disrupts the property or actual operations of the enterprise. Not PR issues.

David Armstrong
May 4, 2009, 02:34 PM
Your religion is what you do
I think I'd disagree. You are Jewish, you are Muslim, etc. Some of the acts promulgated by the religion may be a "do" concept, but I think the religion itself is what you are. I ask because I always felt that was the essence of civil rights, we protected what you are.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 4, 2009, 02:49 PM
But not to wax theologically, you can convert to or adopt various religions. Faced with job discrimination or the Inquisition - you could change this for pragmatic reasons. I know folks who have done such (not the Inquistion though).

It is hard to argue that you could change the biology tagged as race or change the basic right of self defense.

Now whether I think there are basic fundamental rights like self-defense and where they came from is another argument set. :D

Tennessee Gentleman
May 4, 2009, 03:54 PM
Glenn,

You are correct about religion I think. You can change that like socks and no one is the wiser. Maybe the answer is religion is what you proclaim to be.

I think this is a very difficult question. I have debated this issue concerning employer's work rules against CCW on TFL a few times.

So the moral question might be does your right to self defense (which predates the COTUS) trump the rights of employers and private property?

The issue that to me in the defining one is that of true choice. It would seem that if you have a true choice (and that is NOT always a given) then should you simply take your business/employment elsewhere where you can carry and respect the work rule/private property of another?

I have posited the case of the battered woman who is being stalked by ex-hubbie/boyfriend who is not safe anywhere without a firearm. Does her right to self defense get trumped by work rules or private property? Should she just quit her job and not leave the house shopping thru the internet or risk injury/death at the hands of her ex?

If the business/employers does not allow firearms should it then take stronger steps to insure your safety with metal detactors and armed guards? Some businesses do that.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 4, 2009, 04:15 PM
We have cell phone alert system as our first means of defense. :D

I suppose I will call the Rabbi so he can smooth my journey to the Afterlife.

David Armstrong
May 4, 2009, 05:13 PM
But not to wax theologically, you can convert to or adopt various religions. Faced with job discrimination or the Inquisition - you could change this for pragmatic reasons. I know folks who have done such (not the Inquistion though).
But won't you still "be" as opposed to "do". Does one "do" Jewish or is one Jewish? Is one Muslim or does one "do" Muslim? If one "does" muslim but is not a Muslim, does it count? :confused:
Carrying is not a status, carrying is always something you do. Just as ones religion may give protected status, some of the religious practices that are done are allowed to be prohibited.

ftd
May 4, 2009, 05:55 PM
Carrying a gun anywhere you want is not a civil right.
That is legally true. IMHO, that should be changed such that carrying is a civil right and can only be taken away in specific circumstances that can pose a clear and present technical danger.

For example, carrying by the MRI which will cause your gun to go off or be dragged to the machine.

Thus, carriers should be a protected class. But that's just my view. Does this view conflict with the property rights crowd - yes - but some of them still argue for the right to oppose segregation and I have little use for that view.

We are beginning to sound a little like spoiled children - IT's NOT FAIR!

I have a right to keep and bear arms. You have a right of ownership of your property. If I want to go onto/into your property, don't I have an obligation, prior to entering, to accept your permission as you grant it?

Don't we acknowledge the fact that the 2nd amendment is there to enable the keeping of our other inalienable rights?

I have a right to carry a weapon. I do not have a right to come onto your property. I need your permission for that. You get to set the terms of that permission. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

If I want to carry my weapon more than meet your terms of permission, I may make my choice to not accept your terms. In doing so I am refusing your permission. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

I do not have the right to being a special class, because I am not a special class. You owe me nothing because I carry a filearm, because I are not required to carry a firearm. Carrying a firearm and accepting your terms of entry onto/into your propery are my choices, which I have the right to make. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

Getting permission onto/into your property under my own terms is not my right. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

But I know, it's still not fair.
End of Rant.

Tom Servo
May 4, 2009, 06:14 PM
Getting permission onto/into your property under my own terms is not my right. There is no "rights" conflict in this.
Bingo. T.G.I. Friday's is not forcing anyone to frequent their establishment (thank goodness), and I'm willing to bet they're not the only place in town at which to procure food.

Simple enough. Don't go there. If you see value in changing their minds about this, contact the right people, in the right ways.

Boy, this one's drifted...

Hellbilly5000
May 4, 2009, 08:16 PM
I refuse to eat there just because the food is nasty and nothing and i mean nothing is fresh it all comes from bags or boxes (used to work in the kitchen) and the one I worked in no one cared how filthy the kitchen got.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 5, 2009, 08:56 AM
Does one "do" Jewish or is one Jewish?

That David is a core debate in the behaviorial sciences - only observable behavior vs. hypothesized internal processes. I'll let that go for my Fundamentals of Cognition course in the fall. :D

Needless to say - I will stand on proposing laws that prevent private businesses, public and private schools and governmental buildings that are open to the public from banning carry unless they can come up with the compelling technical reason.

Rights are a social construct and not a physical law of the universe or some abstract principle as in mathematics. I want the social construct of carry to be deemed as worthy as our other restrictions on property rights that forbid segregation and the like.

Let the legislative process enact this and it will be so.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 5, 2009, 10:23 AM
Here is a link of the conference committee in TN debating the provision to allow carry in restaurants (TN does not distinguish between bars and restaurants) and a lot of our arguments here are laid out in the video. The motion passed to allow carry. For those who might be interested:
http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=100&clip_id=1390

David Armstrong
May 5, 2009, 12:12 PM
That David is a core debate in the behaviorial sciences - only observable behavior vs. hypothesized internal processes.
I agree, and that is why I bring the issue up in the civil rights context, as that is a big part of the debate. Do we prevent discrimination based on what you are, or do we prevent discrimination based on what you do.
Needless to say - I will stand on proposing laws that prevent private businesses, public and private schools and governmental buildings that are open to the public from banning carry unless they can come up with the compelling technical reason.
And while I would agree with you on public property I would consider such a law an unwarranted extension of government power and intrusion regarding private business, as well as interference with free market capitalism.
Rights are a social construct and not a physical law of the universe or some abstract principle as in mathematics.
Hey now, you can't say that! We all know that rights are granted by God, inalienable, and society and people have nothing to do with them!:p
I want the social construct of carry to be deemed as worthy as our other restrictions on property rights that forbid segregation and the like.

If one grants such a construct based on what someone does instead of what they are, doesn't that open the door to forcing business to allow other things we "do" that the business might not want done on their property?
From the philosophical viewpoint, what difference is there between mandating that all businesses must allow people to carry guns and mandating that all businesses must prohibit people from carrying guns?

Glenn E. Meyer
May 5, 2009, 01:39 PM
From the philosophical viewpoint, what difference is there between mandating that all businesses must allow people to carry guns and mandating that all businesses must prohibit people from carrying guns?

I agree with first part and not the second. That's the difference! :D

grymster2007
May 5, 2009, 02:12 PM
I know folks who have done such (not the Inquistion though). Glad to hear you're not quite so old as I thought Glenn! :p

I can't believe that this thread has gone this far! The property rights vs carry rights issue usually blows up pretty quick. On the down side, I don't think we're any closer to resolving the issue here. On the upside, I think most everyone now knows what to expect out of TGIF's kitchen, as well as their lawyer's offices.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 5, 2009, 02:42 PM
If you want to see how old I look:

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2009/04/30/a-weekend-among-the-polite-society/

I once was young - sigh! Not to thread hijack. Hey - wore that vest to Red Lobster last night. Not posted and I carried without threat to any.

grymster2007
May 5, 2009, 03:19 PM
If you want to see how old I look: Ahhhh, you're but a young lad, Glenn!

So, it seems Red Lobster may be more gun friendly than TGIF, but the big question is (in my butter-basted little brain anyway) is the food any better?

David Armstrong
May 5, 2009, 03:36 PM
I agree with first part and not the second. That's the difference!
You are right, that really is about the only difference, as the actual substance is the same.

upthegov
May 5, 2009, 03:57 PM
not sure but i think in ga you can carry consield if the place makes less than 33% of its sales on the bar where I WOULD THINK would be any tgif.:rolleyes:

ftd
May 5, 2009, 04:02 PM
palmnos,
Are you a member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), http://www.vcdl.org/ ? They are very active in getting VA gun laws changed for the good. If you want things to change maybe you should get involved.

grymster2007
May 5, 2009, 04:09 PM
Kinda ironic that the only places of business I recall seeing "no carry" postings are gun stores.... here in gun-friendly, sunny California.

ftd
May 5, 2009, 04:29 PM
From the philosophical viewpoint, what difference is there between mandating that all businesses must allow people to carry guns and mandating that all businesses must prohibit people from carrying guns?
I agree with first part and not the second. That's the difference!
You are right, that really is about the only difference, as the actual substance is the same.

I disagree. The substance is specifically very different from a rights point of view. The key word is "mandating", by the government. When rights issues are CONTROLLED by the government, that is called tyranny, and the rights do not exist. The laws concerning rights would always be better if they stipulated "may", in regard to the citizens, and WILL, SHALL, or MUST in regard to thegovernment. As in, "businesses MAY permit legal weapon carriers into the business", versus "businesses SHALL or MUST permit legal weapon carriers into the business" or "businesses SHALL NOT permit legal weapon carriers into the business"
or
"a CCW permit SHALL be granted [by the government] unless...", versus "a CCW permit MAY be granted [by the government] under certain circumstances".

It really makes a difference who may and who shall. If our only goal is to get a certain agenda mandated and in place, we are no better than the rights takers we say we are fighting.

Only thieves deny and violate an owner's property rights.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 5, 2009, 04:40 PM
We shall go off into the void if we try to argue that property rights are inviolate. We've been there before.

The government mandates that you have a toilet in your restaurant. Thus, are they thieves to do such for the good of public health?

When you open for business, you are not in your castle. Also, you expect tax payers to foot the bill for emergency services to come to your place of business. You can't claim splendid isolation and inviolate property rights when you interact with the populace and expect civic services.

But, if we do this again - we've reached the end - same old, same old. Anything else new to say?

grymster2007
May 5, 2009, 04:47 PM
we've reached the end - same old, same old. Amen!

Anything else new to say? Nope!... and I'll not post in this thread again..... unless someone comes up with a different restaurant to critique.

hogdogs
May 5, 2009, 04:55 PM
Lets hammer Applebees or Beef O'Brady's? I am sure both are likely rabidly anti gun as they both target college kids still eating deep fried kiddie food and both have a 'staurant in Madison Wisconsin which we all know is at least as anti/liberal as any hippie town on the left coast...
Brent

ftd
May 5, 2009, 05:21 PM
How easily we are bored:D!

My post, Glen, was about government mandating versus protecting rights. Nothing to say, huh?

rantingredneck
May 5, 2009, 05:27 PM
hammer Applebees

By all means hammer them flat.

Worst case of food poisoning I ever had. :barf::barf::barf:

Tennessee Gentleman
May 5, 2009, 06:33 PM
My post, Glen, was about government mandating versus protecting rights. Nothing to say, huh?

I think he did in post #100. The state can and does mandate certain things that involve private property. When you open for business you are subject to government intrusions. That is a fact.

jammin1237
May 5, 2009, 06:40 PM
whew! almost worked up a sweat just reading this thread... let me say this... i am for a free and "democratic" / "capitalist" society... that does not mean you as an individual has a "right" to rape, rob, steal, and or intimidate anybody... i say if the owner of any business displays a sign - "no smoking, no guns, no alcohol, no shoes, no shirts, no service" then the only individual right i have is to not to enter that establishment... especially if i am breaking their rules on their private property...

if you don't like their policies then don't patronize their business...


CHEERS!

Al Norris
May 5, 2009, 07:27 PM
I think it best to end on an upbeat note. That being, the debate did not dive into the gutter, as this one often does.

Since were are no closer to resolution than before, and since we are now arguing in circles, Closed.