Stand up for your 2A rights - BOYCOTT T.G.I. Fridays!!

[mdvaden]

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]

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:

 

[stilettosixshooter]

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

"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]

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]

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]

5Wire,
I like that.

 

[brickeyee]

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]

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]

"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?

Surely you jest!

 

[Senator Vitaman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...
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]

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]

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]

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.