One always has to ruin it for others

[TemplarKormac]

Sure, as if I would let a restaurant tell me where I can take my firearm.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, we fundamentally disagree on this one. You know I'm strongly pro-second amendment. The second amendment does not give you the right to take your firearm without approval onto someone else's personal property.

If all you mean is that if they prohibit your gun you won't eat there, then I retract my statement we disagree. But that isn't how I interpreted what you said. Let me know.

@kaz as in I will boycott the restaurant, amid a strong compulsion to ignore the sign anyway. The sign is backed by no applicable law or statutes, and normally doesn't have them listed along with the warning. I'm willing to follow it otherwise if it does.

 

[kaz]

Sure, as if I would let a restaurant tell me where I can take my firearm.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, we fundamentally disagree on this one. You know I'm strongly pro-second amendment. The second amendment does not give you the right to take your firearm without approval onto someone else's personal property.

If all you mean is that if they prohibit your gun you won't eat there, then I retract my statement we disagree. But that isn't how I interpreted what you said. Let me know.

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] as in I will boycott the restaurant, amid a strong compulsion to ignore the sign anyway. The sign is backed by no applicable law or statutes, and normally doesn't have them listed along with the warning. I'm willing to follow it otherwise.

OK, fair enough. That's why I asked.

Just so you know though, your statement that "The sign is backed by no applicable law or statutes" is wrong. People do have the legal right to ban guns on their own property. I just updated my company employee manual, and one of the new sections I went through with my attorney was the gun policy for my employees. Don't take a gun on private property where you are clearly banned from doing so, I'd hate to see you get arrested under the mistaken belief of what you said. A conceal permit does not allow you to take guns on private property where you are prohibited by the owner from doing so.

You are however completely free to object to their policy by eating somewhere else.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Second Amendment applies to the government, not a private entity. You're another "small government" conservative who thinks the Constitution only applies when you agree with it. No different than the so-called liberals.

No, buddy, you are NOT a libertarian.



Which makes you an anarchist, not a libertarian.



You just outed yourself with no help from me.

You're blind.

New York does issue concealed carry permits on a may issue basis, and unless notice is duly posted, I can freely enter and exit the premises with a concealed weapon.

Correct, unless a notice is posted, which you just said in your opening comments you would ignore anyway. That is not libertarianism.

I would still ignore the sign, dude. As Professor points out, the restaurant doesn't really care. There is little the waitstaff can do, and rather than cause a conflict, the gun owner would be allowed to enter, rendering the sign moot anyway. I won't be told what my views are or aren't, OK my friend?

Your right to carry conceal firearms doesn't trump someone's property rights. I'm very pro second, have conceal carry but property rights are just as important as second amendment rights.

 

[hazlnut]

Open Carry "activists" are to the second amendment what Westboro Baptist is to the first.

They make all gun owners look bad.

 

[kaz]

Your right to carry conceal firearms doesn't trump someone's property rights. I'm very pro second, have conceal carry but property rights are just as important as second amendment rights.

The right to life, liberty and property is at the top of the list, I am amazed at some of the people arguing otherwise.

 

[sameech]

Their property their rules. If you come on it with a gun when it is posted for no guns, then you are criminally trespassing and they can have the other guys come take care of all the shooting you in the face for them. It is no different than a landowner posting his woods with a no hunting sign.

So trespassing in a public accommodation area is a shoot on sight offense?

Dumb troll is dumb, and a fag.

Once someone is declaring nobody is taking their gun and the police get called, it is only going to end badly for the person availing themselves of "My second amendment rights trump your property rights". The police get away with shooting people without guns. They certainly will have no problem getting away with shooting someone with one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure, as if I would let a restaurant tell me where I can take my firearm.

So you would defy a sign saying "no firearms allowed".

Good to know but it doesn't make me safe from idiots like you.

(Who buys your guns and ammo for you?)

=====

Recently posters have said they would not leave a restaurant if an armed person walked in.

We all have the right to be safe and keep our kids safe. Force these cowards to wear their guns where we can see them.

They aren't posting signs, they are asking their customers to treat each other like pussies.

 

[Siete]

No Shirt
No Shoes
No AR15
No Service


Eat at your own risk .. stray bullet zone.
Kids under 12 must wear Kevlar vests
Limit 3 Grenades per person.

Enjoy your meal !

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, buddy, you are NOT a libertarian.



Which makes you an anarchist, not a libertarian.



You just outed yourself with no help from me.

You're blind.

Correct, unless a notice is posted, which you just said in your opening comments you would ignore anyway. That is not libertarianism.

I would still ignore the sign, dude. As Professor points out, the restaurant doesn't really care. There is little the waitstaff can do, and rather than cause a conflict, the gun owner would be allowed to enter, rendering the sign moot anyway. I won't be told what my views are or aren't, OK my friend?

Your right to carry conceal firearms doesn't trump someone's property rights. I'm very pro second, have conceal carry but property rights are just as important as second amendment rights.

I agree. But if all the sign says is "gun free zone" and doesn't list what laws back it, I am under no legal obligation to obey it. I am of the belief that if you don't make something legally enforceable in both statute and on signage in public places it is not legally binding.​

 

[koshergrl]

Good on chipotle. Now every psycho on the face of the earth knows their customers are sitting ducks.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If I happen to be carrying a concealed weapon you would never know if I had it when I came in to the restaurant.

Not that I would eat the slop that Chipotle serves anyway.

 

[koshergrl]

If you run a public establishment, it's always a good idea to advertise the fact that there's NOT A SINGLE ARMED PERSON on the premises.

You know, like Virginia Tech...and Ft. Hood...and that movie theatre...worked well for those guys.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Ok, so a restaurant shouldn't be able tell folks they can't bring their gun in, but they should be able to tell a man he can't bring his boyfriend in?

Ah, the hypocrisy bred into hyper-partisan politics.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I would still ignore the sign, dude. As Professor points out, the restaurant doesn't really care. There is little the waitstaff can do, and rather than cause a conflict, the gun owner would be allowed to enter, rendering the sign moot anyway. I won't be told what my views are or aren't, OK my friend?

Your right to carry conceal firearms doesn't trump someone's property rights. I'm very pro second, have conceal carry but property rights are just as important as second amendment rights.

I agree. But if all the sign says is "gun free zone" and doesn't list what laws back it, I am under no legal obligation to obey it. I am of the belief that if you don't make something legally enforceable in both statute and on signage in public places it is not legally binding.​

I can agree with that.

 

[DriftingSand]

Chipotle: Don't bring guns in our stores: Associated Press Business News - MSN Money

NEW YORK (AP) - Chipotle is asking customers not to bring firearms into its stores after it says gun rights advocates brought military-style assault rifles into one of its restaurants in Texas.

The Denver-based company notes that it has traditionally complied with local laws regarding open and concealed firearms.

But in a statement Monday, the company said that "the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers."

The announcement came after a petition by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which has called on other companies to ban firearms in their stores as well. The group said its petition was in reaction to open-carry gun activists appearing at a Dallas-area Chipotle restaurant over the weekend.

Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman for the group, said she thought the move by Chipotle was a "bold statement," especially considering its previous stance of complying with local laws.

Many states allow people to carry licensed guns in some way, but some businesses exercise their right to ban firearms.

Conceal carry will take care of the issue. Don't ask ... don't tell.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So let me get caught up on the talking points here

1) Public accommodation provisions of civil rights act = bad
2) Refusing service to gay customers = good
3) Refusing service to gun wielding patrons = bad

Business owners have a tough time knowing who they can and who they cannot refuse service to.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The Second Amendment applies to the government, not a private entity. You're another "small government" conservative who thinks the Constitution only applies when you agree with it. No different than the so-called liberals.

No, buddy, you are NOT a libertarian.



Which makes you an anarchist, not a libertarian.



You just outed yourself with no help from me.

You're blind.

New York does issue concealed carry permits on a may issue basis, and unless notice is duly posted, I can freely enter and exit the premises with a concealed weapon.

Correct, unless a notice is posted, which you just said in your opening comments you would ignore anyway. That is not libertarianism.

I would still ignore the sign, dude. As Professor points out, the restaurant doesn't really care. There is little the waitstaff can do, and rather than cause a conflict, the gun owner would be allowed to enter, rendering the sign moot anyway. I won't be told what my views are or aren't, OK my friend?

Well, somebody needs to because you don't seem to know.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If you run a public establishment, it's always a good idea to advertise the fact that there's NOT A SINGLE ARMED PERSON on the premises.

You know, like Virginia Tech...and Ft. Hood...and that movie theatre...worked well for those guys.

There were armed people at VT and FH.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Ok, so a restaurant shouldn't be able tell folks they can't bring their gun in, but they should be able to tell a man he can't bring his boyfriend in?

Ah, the hypocrisy bred into hyper-partisan politics.

Depends on whether the boyfriend has has a gun.

 

[OKTexas]

It's simple, I avoid businesses that have signs that say no firearms, it's called voting with your dollars. If enough people do the same, policies may change. Any yes that strategy can work both ways.