Why I Agree With Panera’s Decision on Guns in Their Stores

53a34ea85995a.preview-620

Reader MAC writes:

Imagine you’re at a close family member’s funeral and one of the cars in the procession has a rubber pair dangling from the tow hitch. Or there’s a baby crying incessantly in the movie theater. Let’s be honest, the only good reason to carry an AR-15 into Panera is because there are zombies waiting outside. I know, Panera issued a blanket request which didn’t differentiate between concealed carry and open carry. They’ve effectively disinvited all guns . . .

But please notice their emphasis was on people feeling warm and comfortable, which doesn’t preclude keeping things concealed where ignorance is bliss. Put yourself in Panera management’s shoes for a second, though, and ask yourself if you want uncomfortable situations created in your place of business, sometimes created for political reasons, no less.

I don’t want the loud, drunk speech ranting about Obamacare at my son’s wedding. And I don’t want some jerk wearing a t-shirt that looks like a topless woman visiting the family restaurant I operate. Open carry demonstrations are about politics first, which make them out of place in a neutral environment (have you ever thought to yourself, “Shut up and sing?“). They’re also manifestly disingenuous because the whole point of carrying a rifle is that you might actually use it. So yes, I can understand why Panera made the decision they did.

 

comments

  1. avatar Hal says:

    I am not an OC activist, but OC is the right. If a business makes OC unwelcome then they are free to do that. Just as I am free to never spend another f*cking red cent in their stores.

    1. avatar Hal says:

      Also, just for the sake of argument, I have to disagree with this statement:

      “Let’s be honest, the only good reason to carry an AR-15 into Panera is because there are zombies waiting outside.”

      Let’s say you’re an 18 year old living in TX, which disallows the open carry of handguns. You’re too young to apply for a CHL. Your ex girlfriend’s new boy friend has an axe to grind. He’s twice your age and spent 10 years in prison for attempted murder. For two weeks he’s been calling you up and telling you that he’s going to find you and kill you. He sounds serious. You call the police, they take down your report and then merrily do nothing to help you. Earlier in the week you think you saw him following you from your work but thankfully you lost him.

      Now all you want to do is to go to Panera for a f*cking sandwich. Your only option is a slung AR-15. Sound like a good enough reason for you?

      1. avatar Colt Magnum says:

        Yep.

      2. avatar Harley Weewax says:

        And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

        1. avatar MarcusAurelius says:

          No, she’d just have a secret.

        2. avatar Mrbadnews says:

          She’d be carrying concealed. In your aunt’s case we’d all prefer that regardless of Panera’s preference.

      3. avatar Chris says:

        I “second” that yep.

      4. avatar Stinkeye says:

        Gotta say, if I was being stalked by a homicidal maniac, the last thing I’d be worried about is buying a mediocre sandwich at an inflated price.

        You’re correct, though, that the right to keep and bear arms makes no distinction between open and concealed, handgun, long gun, or sword. If only the founders had included some words to that effect. Something crystal clear and unambiguous, like “shall not be infringed”.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          I support the right to self defense in all situations. However, it’s legit point. What would you strap on if you knew someone was gunning for you that day? The correct answer is: running shoes. Well, and your favorite pistol. But still, if someone is out to get me I’m going to try not to give them any opportunities.

      5. avatar chris m says:

        I think you need better taste in women.

        1. avatar MarcusAurelius says:

          People too young for a CHL can rarely spot, let alone avoid crazy.

        2. avatar Vhyrus says:

          If you’ve never had crazy, you’re missing out.

      6. avatar pod says:

        I agree with the defensive posture since that’s all the kid has available to him. However, if that was the case, other tactical considerations would apply, including limiting public exposure. I’d eat at home, even if I had this massive addiction to Panera. However, if for whatever reason I had to eat out, I’m sure in Texas there’s plenty of restaurants which wouldn’t bat an eye at a slung (not low ready) AR on someone’s person.

      7. avatar Ron says:

        If I see an 18 year old with an AR15 strapped over his shoulder walking around a restaurant I will want to know exactly how well has he been trained to handle that rifle. The author has a point. I do think Panera tried to thread the needle with this silly policy. What exactly did Panera accomplish by doing this? I would submit nothing.

        1. avatar Vhyrus says:

          As opposed to the 18 year olds that carry rifles for us in other countries?

        2. avatar Montana DAn says:

          It doesn’t matter how “well trained” he is and it never will. The right to keep and bear arms in public is an inalienable right to all people. You will never be denied the right to self defense regardless of age, race, sex, creed, religion, or any other ridiculous reason including “training”. Because an individual may or may not be well trained is no excuse in this situation or any other to resign them to the fate of victimhood so that others can have a warm and fuzzy feeling about how “oh that guy with the rifle must be well trained because we made a law so now I don’t have to worry”.

        3. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “…f I see an 18 year old with an AR15 strapped over his shoulder walking around a restaurant I will want to know exactly how well has he been trained to handle that rifle”

          First, why do you feel entitled to know that?

          Second, the only way you will actually find out that information is to walk up and introduce yourself and ask him that very question.

        4. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          ” What exactly did Panera accomplish by doing this?”

          Panera got some shrieking harpies off their backs (for now). Watts got another “win” to crow about in her fund-raising letters. Bloomberg got another decent-sized corporation to put out the message that guns have no legitimate place in polite society.

          Not a total loss. I got a legitimate reason to stop taking my daughters there.

      8. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        Dude, why would you go to Panera for that? Tactically unsound – lots of bystanders – one way in/out and worst of all your are standing with your back to the damn door ordering a sandwich? Drive in is the right answer if you have no food in your house to brown bag it.

      9. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

        If I was in the situation you described, I doubt I’d be thinking about bread very much. Also, given that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, I wouldn’t be involved with a woman who had previously been involved with a violent convicted felon. Hepatitis C sucks, or so I’m told.

        1. avatar Hal says:

          Our hypothetical 18 year old’s TTPs, choice of women and love of hipster sandwiches are irrelevant for the purposes of this scenario.

      10. avatar EagleScout87 says:

        This. ^

      11. avatar joe dirt says:

        Guy is a idiot and that’s a shitty write up. WE OPEN CARRY AND CARRY AR 15s BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY IS AT WAR. WITH ITSELF AND ISIS

        Why is your local PD carrying a rifle. I’m a first responder and I know what’s really going on today. Stay safe guys

    2. avatar Hal says:

      By the way I am not just saying that to be cute. In TX the only business I have ever been to with a true no guns sign is Ikea. My wife LOVES that place and I don;t think it’s half bad either. That being said, the moment I noticed that sign I got in the car and drove away. No guns, no bucks.

      1. avatar XDs 45 says:

        What IKEA doesn’t know won’t hurt them, assuming it is technically legal. Don’t cheat yourself – with the exception of the food, they’ve got some great stuff in there.

        Just CC in there or wear a dark colored dress shirt untucked over your OC rig. (Like a lot of old fat white guys do).

        1. avatar Hal says:

          It is NOT legal. They went out of the way to post the truly official TX 30.06 sign. Disregarding it = jail time. F*ck IKEA

        2. avatar XDs 45 says:

          In that case they would be dead to me too.

          Most of these anti-gun business owners would probably wet their beds at night if they knew how many people CC in their stores.

        3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          @XDs 45

          I would guess that as long as you keep the gun concealed and spend money, most store owners would rather have you there than not. Then again, I have never really understood the emotions of collectivists (except on an intellectual level), so maybe I’m all wrong on that.

    3. avatar Howdy says:

      The author discusses propriety versus civil rights in many of the examples cited.
      As he is a restaurant owner, he can refuse service, as permitted by law, to anyone he finds offensive or turn away customers who are open carrying.
      If the author does not feel safe going to places where something he fears or is offended by, he has the right to patronize that business. Don’t really see the beef here.

      Wasn’t there an article on TTAG about “feeling” safe?

  2. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Ok so what about concealed carry of a pistol. Many chose to do so daily with never an intent to use, or anything else. Panera’s statement was blanket, not just OC, but CC as well. Being offended or not having a warm family atmosphere will happen if no one knows your carrying.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      I’ve got a first aid kit, emergency drinking water, a spare tire, handcuffs, and some other things in my trunk. I hope I don’t need to use any of them, but those things could be extremely useful in an emergency. You know a funny thing about emergencies? They tend to come up fast, and there is little or no warning. And if you’re unprepared, things go even worse.

    2. avatar Jim R says:

      What they don’t know won’t hurt me.

    3. avatar Bob72 says:

      Agreed. These blanket banishments are intolerable. All of us have reasons for carrying, and a lot of conceal carriers have specific threats against us that necessitate armed protection. For some of us, the people who threaten us will not any attempt to avoid collateral damage. So, do we ignore their rule? Do we avoid the store? Do we leave our firearms in the car, and risk everyone in our vicinity if for some reason that threat finds us? For me, it has been a few decades since my job put a target on me, and there is not a day I do not reflect on that even though the risk diminishes with time.

  3. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    As a Floridian I can’t OC by law, so seeing guns out in the open is impossible. I can ignore the ban since it has no force of law and if Panera knows I have a gun then I’m obviously violating the law of my state. CC guns and pocket pistols are very popular here so I imagine many are indifferent to the fight for open carry. If anything OC activists have damaged the reputation of gun owners, especially the ones in Texas, since it’s easy to brand them as extremist in the media by not stating what their goal really is (it’s absurd to walk around with an AR on my back, but the government won’t let me carry a modern handgun on my waist).

  4. avatar Kyle says:

    I am ambivalent about it. On the one hand, it’s a right, but it’s also a right for me to stand outside their stores with a sign saying something very hateful. Doesn’t mean I should do it.

  5. avatar C says:

    My thoughts on carrying in gun free zones are markedly similar to my thoughts as a teen on the subject of liquor. What mama don’t know…

  6. avatar John says:

    I’m not sure that folks outside of Texas understand that the reason people are OC’g rifles here as a demonstration is because OC of pistols is not legal in Texas (thanks to a Jim Crow law that both of the gubernatorial candidates say they will try to repeal). The intent is to show a firearm openly and safely, but the only option is a long arm (which most agree is not ideal as EDC).

    I probably won’t OC if the law is repealed, but it would be nice if it did, so I could carry in clothing not suitable for CC.

    For me, my statement to Panera is that I’m no longer a customer. And yes, I didn’t go often (maybe twice in last 6 months), but I will go there no longer.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I can just about guarantee you that 95+% of the regulars here know that handgun OC is illegal in Texas. The basis of their condemnations is not “why do you carry rifles when you could carry handguns,” it’s other things, depending on the individual.

    2. avatar dh34 says:

      Both candidates have said they’d sign it if it crossed their desks. But it has to get there first, and I really only believe one of them. Fortunately, he is the one likely to be the next Governor. If the Lt Gov goes to Van de Putte however, as the Grand Madam of the senate, it might not get there. So there’s that…

      While the legislature and state senate are likely to be farther right than they’ve been, perhaps ever, the bill has to get out of committee and on to the floor. The Dept of Public Safety, kind of likes the CHL program – It generates revenue. McCraw likes to buy toys, support a take home car program and give raises. I doubt you will find much support there for OC of handguns when it will most likely come at a revenue cut.

      I’ve said before, I’m not a huge OC fan, but I support it in the name of strengthening and preserving the rights of gun owners. The OC guys have friends in the legislature. They need to cool their jets and let them do their job. Instead of marching up and down 11th Street, they need to put on a suit, attend the hearings and provide coherent, concise testimony to the panel.

      As far as Panera or any of the others go…Texas has a legal policy for restricting carriage of firearms on private property such as business. A sign in accordance with the law prohibiting carry or they verbally ask you to leave. I tend to avoid those businesses that have done the “we prefer BS”. When circumstances dictate that I do visit one, I decide whether I carry or not, and I do in accordance with Texas law.

  7. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    I don’t support the OC movement as it is currently being done. Walking into a Panera or Target or any other place like that strapped into a rifle or shotgun is flat out inappropriate.

    A company that I worked for here in Texas had no policy on firearms until a couple of my idiot colleagues began carrying empty holsters into the work spaces. They also got together in the parking lot and made a big show of handling long guns. As a result the company not only banned any firearms on the premises but to this day refuse to obey the parking lot law. So far the State of Texas has not bothered to enforce it against them.

    The legislature in Texas meets in January of 2015. I will bet you 100 dollars that the first few bills entered will be to ban open carry of all firearms and rightly so. We could have had open carry of sidearms but these demonstrations have likely killed it for a generation. All because of a few who pushed the envelope beyond reason.

    Hate away guys but you did it to yourselves and now the rest of us will have to suffer for it. Thanks a lot.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      You sure you’re not more worried about Gay Marriage being legalized first? You’d think a Ham Radio operator would appreciate the importance of the free expression and practice of all rights.

      1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

        Yes I am concerned about the exercise of our God given rights. What concerns me now is your comment. I said nothing about “gay rights’ or ham radio. Why do you provide distractors instead of answering my points?

        1. avatar BDub says:

          I was just cheekily highlighting a hypocrisy inherent in wanting the rights you want, practiced the way you want them practiced.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      We could’ve had OC, but they got it banned by practicing OC. This does not follow.

    3. avatar tfunk says:

      The first bills will ban open carry “and rightly so”? Wow.

    4. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “… Walking into a Panera or Target or any other place like that strapped into a rifle or shotgun is flat out inappropriate.”

      The problem with this statement, and all the others like it made by so many other people, is who gets to set the standards for what is and is not inappropriate.

      YOU don’t seem to like it very much, that is obvious. But why should anyone else care what your opinion is about something that is otherwise legal to do?

      It is an oversimplification, but that doesn’t make it any less inaccurate…. you don’t like it so you don’t do it and leave the rest of us alone.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        Wait, wait! You mean to tell me that when I advocate for my rights I am tacitly advocating for the free exercise of other people’s rights too! Holy crap! I really need to re-evaluate my stance on freedom now! /sarc

  8. avatar Matt Richardson says:

    While I agree with MAC for totally different reasons than the ones he provided, referencing the Dixie Chicks left a VERY bad taste in my mouth…

    1. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

      Have Kabul Chicks replaced Hanoi Jane?

  9. avatar Scrubula says:

    Their wording is ridiculous. If they said that they didn’t want their store to be a political battleground, I would stand by them. Instead they talk about ‘warmth’ and the fuzzy feeling you get while waiting a half an hour for your food. I don’t think so.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      Exactly why I don’t align with MAC here. To be fair, Panera’s word choices are no different than Starbucks’ (a request, if you please) — they are trying to have it both ways. However, I prefer Kroger’s wording, urging customers to be respectful to one another (implied: even with a gun). Maybe ditch the stupid brand persona and say something like:

      Panera celebrates all our civil rights, and encourages their practice in a respectful manner while in our stores. Panera does not necessarily endorse views or political statements expressed by customers, and require all demonstrations to comply with local and state laws. We reserve the right to ask our valued customers to leave if they become disruptive.

  10. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    i have vision problems, so to me Panera’s announcement read like, “You 90 – 100 million inbred rednecks aren’t welcome here. We don’t want your money, your guns, or any constitutional rights.”

  11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    The first amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws that infringe upon certain rights. The second amendment says shall not be infringed. It makes no mention of any specific entities being thus prevented from infringement. Therefore, the assertion is universal.

    My right to keep and bear arms trumps anyone else’s non-existent right to feel “warm and comfortable”.

    That said: I’m fine with Panera’s not-legally-binding policy. Keep calm and carry on.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Try marching your ass through most people’s front doors with a gun and that f*cking attitude and you’re liable to learn a thing or two about “non-existent” rights. A private business is private property. The owners of said businesses have the same rights as individuals that you have.

      Panera knows their market, and they’re playing to it. Don’t patronize the business if you disagree…

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Try marching your ass through most people’s front doors with a gun and that f*cking attitude and you’re liable to learn a thing or two about “non-existent” rights.

        Wow, Straw Man much?

        What attitude would you be referring to? The one where I claim that the right not to “feel warm and comfortable” exists? Yeah, you’ll find it right next to the right not to be offended.

        A private business is private property.

        I don’t have the right to “march through” the front door of anyone’s home uninvited, armed or otherwise. But a place of public business confers an implicit invitation to enter and to conduct business.

        The owners of said businesses have the same rights as individuals that you have.

        Indeed. But they don’t have the right to infringe my right to keep and bear arms.

        Panera knows their market, and they’re playing to it. Don’t patronize the business if you disagree.

        Their coffee sucks. Why would I go there?

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          I think he mistook your ‘universal’ rights idea to mean you have the right to do something universally, even in someone else’s business. Which is not all that crazy based on what you wrote.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I think he mistook your ‘universal’ rights idea to mean you have the right to do something universally, even in someone else’s business. Which is not all that crazy based on what you wrote.

          Yes, the right to keep and bear arms is universal. I’m not sure why that assertion is so crazy. Someone can ask me to leave their private property, but they have no right to ask me to disarm.

        3. avatar Paul G. says:

          On their property they have every right to offer you a choice between those options. Just like thy can tell you to shut up or get out despite the first amendment.

        4. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          I like parsing posts!

          Wow, Straw Man much?

          Not at all, you’ve asserted that you have the universal right to carry, which is simply false. As soon as you step foot on my private property, whether it be my home, business, etc, you are there with my permission and will utilize my property only in ways I see fit. As soon as you fail to do so you will be uninvited and further encroachment on my property is trespassing.

          You DO have the right to carry a firearm, you also have the right to smoke. I bet you don’t mind that restaurants ask their patrons not to smoke in their establishments, few do.

          I don’t have the right to “march through” the front door of anyone’s home uninvited, armed or otherwise. But a place of public business confers an implicit invitation to enter and to conduct business.

          Reference my first point, you are permitted on and within private property at the will of the owner. You conduct business via contract. If either the business owner or the consumer are not satisfied with the terms of the trade either of you have the right to end the exchange. A public business IS indeed an implicit invitation to conduct business, on their terms.

          Indeed. But they don’t have the right to infringe my right to keep and bear arms.

          Within their establishment, they can do whatever they choose. You’re free to never enter and trade with them.

          Their coffee sucks. Why would I go there?

          Agreed, and I can count the number of times I have been into a Panera over the last decade on one hand. Their request (and Starbuck’s, and Chipotle’s) doesn’t effect me directly as I already do not patronize their businesses, the exceedingly rare occasions that I have ever found myself in any of those establishments were pure convenience or desperation.

          Ultimately, while you’re awfully belligerent about your rights, you don’t seem to appreciate or respect the rights of others. Don’t attempt to wave the flag if your idea of freedom is picking and choosing which liberties are convenient and when. You said yourself, nobody has a right to feel comfortable. In my experience, both freedom and honesty are a real bitch, but well worth the effort.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          More in a bit, but for now I’ll just say: you’ve made a false assumption that I am belligerent in the exercise of my rights. I’m not. If I’m on private property and asked to leave, I would do so, regardless of the reason.

          My RBKA remains free from infringement by government or individual.

        6. avatar Paul G. says:

          Property rights are at least as inherent as RKBA. Remember, the original draft of the DOI was about life, liberty, and property.

        7. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          Property rights are at least as inherent as RKBA

          Nailed it.

          http://youtu.be/zu9ZxzsWchg

        8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Matt Richardson,

          “… you are there with my permission and will utilize my property only in ways I see fit.”

          I agree that you direct guests how they can utilize your property … and whether or not they are armed has no effect whatsoever on how they utilize your property. The key is “utilize” as you stated. You can direct someone to stay off the grass, staff off the sidewalk, etc. However, telling someone whether or not they can be armed is no different than telling someone if they can wear a coat for protection from cold. Can you demand that guests be vulnerable to cold and freeze on your property with no coat? If not, then why can you demand that guests be vulnerable to predators and die on your property unarmed?

        9. avatar Paul G. says:

          Yes, you can dictate attire, to include arms. Have you never been to a restaurant that required a coat and tie to be seated? The attire does not affect one’s ability to ingest food whatsoever.

        10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Matt Richardson,

          “… you also have the right to smoke. I bet you don’t mind that restaurants ask their patrons not to smoke in their establishments, few do.”

          Sure I have the right to smoke. I do NOT have the right to damage your building with smoke damage or to blow toxic compounds at you. Being armed with a firearm does not damage a building or create toxic compounds for bystanders.

        11. avatar Paul G. says:

          Do you breathe? Or drive? Both produce toxic compounds. Yes, even breathing. Try staying live in a closed box, the CO2 you exhale will kill you.
          Hey, you posit a stretch, you invite the same in return.

        12. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Carbon dioxide isn’t toxic. The CO2 won’t kill you, the lack of oxygen will. Carbon monoxide, on the other hand, is toxic and will kill you, because it bonds to the oxygen receptor sites on hemoglobin.

          This has been your pedantic science moment.

        13. avatar Paul G says:

          It is an asphyxiant gas, and we didn`t even cover your vehicle emissions or other noxious emissions you may create.

        14. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Matt Richardson,

          “A public business IS indeed an implicit invitation to conduct business, on their terms.”

          Is it? I thought business was about conducting business on terms that are agreeable to both parties.

        15. avatar Paul G. says:

          In a way, it is. They dictate their terms, if you agree to those terms, you will do business there. If you don’t agree to their terms, don’t expect them to change their mind. Go elsewhere.

        16. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          However, telling someone whether or not they can be armed is no different than telling someone if they can wear a coat for protection from cold. Can you demand that guests be vulnerable to cold and freeze on your property with no coat? If not, then why can you demand that guests be vulnerable to predators and die on your property unarmed?

          is it? I thought business was about conducting business on terms that are agreeable to both parties.

          Yes and yes, if the terms set forth by the property owner are unpalatable to you, you’re not being forced to stay. It’s a voluntary agreement to stay and conduct your business, whatever that may be.

          Sure I have the right to smoke. I do NOT have the right to damage your building with smoke damage or to blow toxic compounds at you. Being armed with a firearm does not damage a building or create toxic compounds for bystanders.

          You missed the point I was making entirely…

          It seems you and Chip want to champion the right to bear arms, but fail to realize the importance of other natural rights.

        17. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Paul,

          My act of breathing next to you does not cause an immune response in your body. My act of creating second-hand smoke next to you does cause an immune response in your body and damages cells.

          Carbon dioxide is in our environment everywhere. Second-hand smoke is not in the environment everywhere.

          Most importantly, it is morally wrong to ban something which can cause the immediate death of someone.

        18. avatar Paul G. says:

          Huh? Are you totally lost? CO2 makes up .04 percent of our atmosphere and as killed a whole lot of people.

        19. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Matt Richardson,

          The entire point of property rights is to protect human dignity. The concept of property rights that I laid out does exactly that. Whether or not a guest is armed has no effect on the dignity of a property owner. An armed guest is not telling a property owner that they are worthless. When a property owner requires guests to be disarmed, the property owner has insulted the human dignity of their guests. The property owner has told guests that their lives are worthless on the owner’s property.

          Under your concept of property rights where the property owner has infinite latitude, no one has any inherent right to life unless they are on their own property.

  12. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

    If they had restricted the request to open carry of long guns, I would have totally understood and respected their position. The problem is, that is not what the statement said. It was a total, blanket request for all guns and all forms of carry. So I have to disagree with the author in this case. Panera is in the wrong and will not be getting any more of my business.

  13. avatar CCDWGuy says:

    If I did not read TTAG daily I would have no idea Panera even gave a rip and unless they post a sign I would have no idea they even took a position so to me it makes no difference unless they post the required legal sign in Kentucky.

  14. avatar Paul G. says:

    The only reason people would lose their warm feelings in the presence of someone armed is conditioning. The only way to reverse that conditioning is to promote by putting firearm carry back in the public eye.

  15. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    These places are entitled to do whatever they wish.
    Just as Im free not to patronize them.
    No big deal.
    Nothing lost on my part, plenty of places to eat and buy furniture.
    Its the businesses loss not mine.
    Someplace else will just get my hard earned funds………..

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    Panera can do what it wants to do. So can we, and we choose to tell them to take their Panera Warmth and shove it up their collective bread warming culies.

  17. I do not agree. I feel most warm and fuzzy when I know that there are people (many, i hope) armed and ready to protect themselves and the folks around them. That’s why I carry all the time.

    Panera is no problem though. Boycotting and spreading the word, after all, there are repercussions to their position, ya know. I just added them to the pro-control Cities, States, and businesses in them. Now for the people that voted those politicians in, in the first place. Those folks should feel the financial pressure. Maybe their local taxes will go up! I also call, gun, ammo, and accessory manufacturers and tell them they wont get my business till they move away from those places.

  18. avatar Dave357 says:

    “Open carry demonstrations are about politics first …”.

    The demonstrations with long guns are, but an open carry of a handgun is just an open carry of a handgun and is much more common that open carry demonstrations with long guns.

  19. avatar ST says:

    On this, I must disagree with the TTAG group here.
    MAC isn’t talking about the Constitution, and neither am I. Because social decorum is not dictated by that document.

    We often find the presence of the Westburo Baptist Church at troops’ funerals offensive. Yet, Constitutionally, they have every right to be uncouth turds. That doesn’t mean I’d want them at my family’s funeral, and so it goes for Open Carry in ANY retail venue.

    For one, let us dispense with the basura about rifle armed self defense at a typical American coffee shop. The prospect of drawing a snubbie .38 is statistically remote, to say nothing of some ex Spetznatz whack job shooting up the place. No, the core reason why someone not in Mogadishu or Downtown Chicago would openly carry a long arm into a Panera outlet is to make a psychological point. Just like the Westboro group.Its a giant middle finger to the hipster anti gun crowd , which is less likely to bring people to view firearm rights positively any more then the WBC has brought converts to Christianity.

    Social Decorum. If we gun owners keep ignoring it, every public business will be forced to make explicit rules to ensure their profits aren’t damaged by the US Constitution. We should ask ourselves why it is that a business must choose between their bottom line and restricting a civil right.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      WBC is an extortion racket; they illicit assault, then sue for cash. A ‘donation’ will keep them away from your kid’s funeral. Give a single example of an OC activist screaming profanity in the face of anyone as part of their “demonstration.” Or is that what the sight of a slung rifle is to you? If not, why the odious comparison?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        There are veterans groups down here in Florida that take a special interest in the kindly Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church…

    2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “…Because social decorum is not dictated by that document.”

      Like I said upstream already…. who gets to set the social standards? And why do they think they are entitled to do so?

      YOU don’t have to like OC (if it is legal where you are) and if you don’t like it then don’t do it. Your opinion of it is of no interest to anyone else who is doing it when it is an otherwise legal activity.

    3. avatar tdiinva says:

      As long as WBC uses public space to make their views known they have a right to be as obnoxious as they want. However, once they cross the threshold of a house worship, funeral home or other private space they are breaking the law of trespass. Private space is controlled by the owner. It is a Constitution free zone with respect to his actions.

  20. avatar Shane in Chandler says:

    If you are uncomfortable around a law abiding citizen OC’ing, you’re the problem.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Spot on.

      I reject the premise that banning all carry is somehow worse than banning only open carry.

      If the firearm is not the problem, that is, if guns don’t have agency, as we often assert, then the mechanism of carry is irrelevant. As is the length of the barrel and mechanism of firing, loading, holding ammo, etc.

      I further reject OC of long gun being somehow bad or unpalatable on the basis of “threat assessment.” If you are doing your threat assessment solely on the premise of a firearm, be it long gun, concealed handgun or whatever, you have bought into the anti’s assertion that the gun is the problem.

      We should be internally consistent. The problem is the human holding the gun and what he is doing. Is he acting in a threatening manner? Is he breaking one or more of the four rules? Is he offering up a healthy dose of ability, opportunity and jeopardy to cause imminent death or serious bodily injury?

      By walking the path of “OC Rifle = Bad,” we are giving the anti’s the rope to hang us. Once they have all of us freely admitting that, it’s a short step to “All guns, including concealed handguns are bad. Ban those, too.”

      Panera and others have to be continually hammered with the fact that most gun owners, and this includes those that would OC even the dreaded long guns, are law abiding citizens with a lower “gun crime rate” than even cops.

      So, as I wrote: I reject the premise that this is an OC vs CC issue. This is one step in a guns vs no guns issue.

  21. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    notice their emphasis was on people feeling warm and comfortable, Such as gun free zones where fuzzy happy sheep play all day long, until the criminal element strolls through the door.

  22. avatar Dermott says:

    Somebody correct me if I’m wrong. Isn’t what Panera said the same as Target et al?

    I’m in NC and I don’t see any signs at Panera stating no firearms/weapons, so I can CC.

    They are in business to make money, they are splitting hairs to get money.

    How many of you have owned Fords (pinto on fire), GM vehicles (corvair, ignition switches), Toyotas (floor mats?), Hondas (air bags), and it goes on. Ford actually calculated the cost of settling burned to death lawsuits vs cost of fix, guess what they did? GM probably did the same with ignition switches.

    Don’t get me started on Vioxx -Merck has so far paid out over $6 billion in settlements. Do you think they give a s&@t? It was all about $. Which drives PB’s decision. Not a big deal. Though I do think those bas)$&ds at Merck should be hung. Bet some of you use their scripts.

  23. avatar Mark says:

    “Let’s be honest, the only good reason to carry an AR-15 into Panera is because there are zombies waiting outside. I know, Panera issued a blanket request which didn’t differentiate between concealed carry and open carry. They’ve effectively disinvited all guns . . .”

    Golly, I’m surprised that our author did not go right to the carrying of the nuclear weapon the antis love to prattle about. As for “‘feeling warm and comfortable”, well, no one can do anything about that one. As it is with most subjective things, it is an individual concept. Personally I have no problem with a battle rifle buffet at Panera. If someone wants to lean the AR against the table while they chow down than so be it. I don’t carry an AR in public. Don’t really like the things anyhow. That said, I do keep the 1911 hidden whenever I go out and that DOES include going to Panera.

  24. avatar Bernard says:

    Is carrying an AR-15 lower receiver considered open carry of a long gun?

  25. avatar TheBear says:

    My anti virus tells me that the t-shirt link contains malware. Just FYI

  26. avatar Weylon M says:

    I will still go to Panera, and I will still have my gun concealed on me. F ’em. I live in Florida, am legally allowed to carry there. Could not care any less how they feel about it.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      Firearms owners who have no respect for the rights of others give the government lots of ammo for further degradation of gun rights. Congratulations on your myopia.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Well, see, here’s a problem. This is not a property owner’s rights issue so much as it’s a follow the law issue.

        Here in NC, the statute EXPLICITLY STATES that a permit holder can CC everywhere except certain prohibited places. Among those places is private property “conspicuously posted.”

        That is, under our statute, the property owner has to post the property to be in compliance with the law that denies my 2A Right. There is no other way. Making a request does not do it.

        And, further, here’s why the “request” method is flawed. There is no way he could meet a legal standard that you knew about his request. Any otherwise legal CC-er could carry with no moral or legal ambiguity because he may not even know about this “request.”

        That is, the property owner has the legal duty to inform the CC-er of the wishes on his property. We are not mind readers. We can’t “know” a business doesn’t like guns.

        One might say, “Well, you are posting here, so you know about the request.” To that I would reply, “How do I know that he did NOT recant and I did not hear that?” It’s just as plausible if we are going to allow press conferences, twitter posts and huffpo stories stand to satisfy duty to notify.

        So, the upshot of this is with this request but no sign, the owner (or local manager) is not doing the one thing he legally has to do to actually claim is “property rights” to ask me not to carry into his business.

        No sign = no notification of his wishes. And, as others have said, this is not about “feelings” and “warm fuzzies.” He doesn’t want me to carry on his property, the law says he HAS to notify me of that wish specifically with a sign.

        Other states are different. But the law here is very clear. A press conference “request” is not assertion of “property rights.”

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          Ok, now I understand completely. You are in favor of government intrusion into the realm of property rights, but likely do not feel the same way about government intrusion into firearms rights…..shall not be infringed and all that. You really do not value rights at all, excepting firearms ones.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Ok, now I understand completely. You are in favor of government intrusion into the realm of property rights, but likely do not feel the same way about government intrusion into firearms rights…..shall not be infringed and all that. You really do not value rights at all, excepting firearms ones.”

          You Are Wrong, and so completely so that I wonder rational discussion is even possible at this point.

          First of all, I did not say I like the law as it’s written or that I favor it or that I think it should stand. I was reported as to what the law here IS. You have extrapolated conclusions about my “beliefs” that are not only incorrect, but not even supported by the comment you claim to have drawn them from.

          For a private property owner to disallow me to carry on his property, he HAS TO POST IT. That’s the law. That is the ONLY mechanism he has to keep me from being ARMED on his property.

          Second of all, no where in that post did I say ANYTHING whatsoever about my personal beliefs about property rights or government intrusion or whatever other made up accusations you want to sling at me.

          Neither the phrase “I believe” nor “I think” nor anything else in that genre appears in my comment.

          Third: why is “posting” vs “not posting” such a sticking point, anyway? We have the same rules about trespassing. You can’t expect every human being to know where property lines are. Similarly, you can’t expect every human to know which other humans want guns and don’t want guns on their property.

          Fourth: There is no way “dislike property rights” is even remotely possible to glean from what I wrote. We are talking about disarming.

          If I am on a man’s property, and he asks me to leave and I don’t, that’s trespass. That’s property rights.

          If I am not his property armed, and he asks me to remove my gun, I can tell him “No” and I have not violated his “property rights” at all. I am not denying him use of property or control of his property. If he does not like my answer, he can ask me to leave, and we are back to “trespass.”

          If I leave when he asks me to leave, how have I disabused him of his property rights?

          Your conflation with “gun on my person” and “his property rights” is very, very strange. His lack of “Right” to disarm me is completely separable from his “property rights.” You obviously don’t understand how important this separation is, but it is, in fact, very, very important.

          Fifth: you have not addressed the “notification” issue. How can a person be expected to know a private property owner does not want guns on his property unless he communicates it in some way? There are quite possibly far more cc-ers and oc-ers that have NOT heard this stupid flap from Panera than have heard it.

          In the case of NC, the law clearly states that the only statutorily accepted way is to post the sign. If I then carry into the place, I’m in violation of that statute and NOT just trespass.

          Sxith: Because of a combination of these factors, what you seem to fail to appreciate is that in the absence of the sign laws, it would be a complete mess. It would have to be “carry EVERYWHERE” or “carry NOWHERE” because there would be no way to KNOW if you are violating any given property owners desires or not.

          So, in a way, and in a VERY important way, the “post a sign” laws PROTECT private property rights of the property owner by giving him a simple, concise mechanism to inform others “no guns on my property.” It protects HIM from the later assertion, “Well, I didn’t know he didn’t want guns.”

          Do you want to have a logical discussion about this, or do you want to fly off the handle with baseless, unsubstantiated accusations about what you think my beliefs are or are not?

          I’m open to the former, but will not allow the latter go unchallenged.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          Bullshit. You are hiding behind color of law that you claim not to agree with in order to justify your actions. A true spine of jelly.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Fourth: There is no way “dislike property rights” is even remotely possible to glean from what I wrote. We are talking about disarming.

          If I am on a man’s property, and he asks me to leave and I don’t, that’s trespass. That’s property rights.

          If I am not his property armed, and he asks me to remove my gun, I can tell him “No” and I have not violated his “property rights” at all. I am not denying him use of property or control of his property. If he does not like my answer, he can ask me to leave, and we are back to “trespass.”

          If I leave when he asks me to leave, how have I disabused him of his property rights?

          I was going to come back to elaborate on the point I was trying to make, but JR_in_NC already made exactly the point I would have tried to articulate.

          Exactly this. +1

        5. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Bullshit. You are hiding behind color of law that you claim not to agree with in order to justify your actions. A true spine of jelly.”

          Wow. Again, a complete and total fail.

          I nowhere claimed that I did not agree with the law. You really are not getting this.

          I said that my first post, and now am adding that my second one, did not say one way or another whether I agree with the law, so your assertion that I believe in government intrusion upon property rights is quite simply, false.

          I’m not hiding behind anything. I’m stating quite specifically that I don’t think you understand this issue at all.

          But more to the point, I am not hiding behind anything because I have not stated what I believe, one way or another, about “property rights.” I am simply stating facts about what the present law says and how it gets applied as I understand it.

          You have to separate the “armed” from the “trespass.” If you cannot do that, even as merely an intellectual exercise, there is no discussion on the topic.

          You keep attacking me personally on this which is quite puzzling since I have not offered a personal position on the issue at all.

          What I am arguing is that they are two different issues. So, swear at me, accuse me of things you have no basis to accuse me for all you wish, but it does not change that simple, basic fact.

          You have no moral basis to disarm me. You do have a moral basis to disallow me to be on your property, and you don’t even need to tell me why you want me off your property. The gun doesn’t matter. You ask me to leave, I don’t get to say, “You have to have a good reason.” No reason need be given.

          That’s property rights.

          You do NOT have a right to ask me to disarm, on your property or elsewhere. If you don’t want me to be armed on your property, you have a duty to inform me of that fact. You cannot assume I am a mind reader.

          Maybe you don’t like blue shirts. Or leather wallets. You cannot come up to me and ask me to remove my blue shirt or get rid of my leather wallet. By your logic, that would be required to respect your “property rights.” Sure…you can ask me to leave if I’m wearing a blue shirt, but the point is that you don’t have to tell me or offer any other reason whatsoever. “Hey you. Off my property.” That’s all it takes.

          In other words, it’s not an “either – or” proposition. You seem to have set this false dichotomy in your head that there are situations where EITHER property rights OR RKBA is the ruling principle. But that is, in fact, a false dichotomy because they are orthogonal issues. They don’t overlap. They don’t “mix.”

          One can exercise both, one or neither. They are independent of each other.

          Unless or until you recognize that, discussion of the signage laws is pretty much pointless. But, for those playing at home, the sign give ME the option to disarm or not in order to proceed onto that property.

          That is, the only person that can morally take away my right to bear arms is….me.

        6. avatar Paul G says:

          Well, you seemed intelligent, but I guess not so much. On private property your RKBA is at the whim of the property owner. You can disarm or leave…or argue and find out if he believes in Castle Doctrine.
          Reality, not your chest thumping BS.

        7. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Castle Doctrine.

          Wow.

          So. I have a gun in a holster and you are claiming somehow Castle Doctrine comes into play.

          I have a gun in a holster and that alone invokes the notion of “threat of imminent danger” and you think you are justified in using deadly force? Without even TELLING ME you don’t want guns on your property?

          So, the gun is the problem? If I have a holstered gun on your property you are going to shoot me without you even telling me you don’t want guns on your property?

          Dude. This is beyond crazy. Don’t feed into the anti’s notion that the presence of the gun is the problem. Please. We have enough actual anti’s making that ludicrous claim.

          Just. Wow.

        8. avatar Paul G says:

          You keep reinterpreting what was written, can’t you discuss intelligently?
          Maybe you need to get someone to read things to you?

        9. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Paul G.

          You were doing OK until you brought up the Castle Doctrine. Then you failed.

        10. avatar Paul G. says:

          No, not at all. If a person is on my property, and I tell them they need to disarm or leave, failing to do such can invoke Castle doctrine. No “fail” there. I must have missed that “fail” stuff when I was a teenager.

        11. avatar foggy says:

          Wow, Paul. If that is your understanding of Castle Doctrine, then I hope that you can afford a good defense lawyer.

        12. avatar Paul G. says:

          I understand it just fine. Maybe you need to study more. Also, are you another one of those crtiics who cannot read? I said “can”, not “will” or “must”, and even intimated certain circumstances that would affect that….maybe you just need comprehension skills. Seeing your screen name, now I understand.

        13. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @Paul G:

          On private property your RKBA is at the whim of the property owner. You can disarm or leave…

          RBKA is not at the whim of the property owner; rather, one’s invited presence, armed or otherwise, is at the whim of the property owner. Legally and morally, a property owner cannot disarm you; he can only ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespass if you fail to do so.

          …or argue and find out if he believes in Castle Doctrine.

          Now that’s interesting. Castle Doctrine is the legal concept that a property owner has the inherent right to use force, including deadly force, in defense of his home. So, what exactly are you suggesting or implying when you invoke a property owner’s belief in Castle Doctrine?

        14. avatar Paul G. says:

          Wrong.If you wish to stay on my property, you will surrender your RKBA. No two ways about it. Perfectly legal. Refusal to disarm or leave, and arguing about it, I may be in a situation to need to resort to defense.
          Your rights exist in the public, not on my private property.

        15. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Wrong.If you wish to stay on my property, you will surrender your RKBA. No two ways about it. Perfectly legal.

          Again, you may revoke my right to be present on your property, but you don’t get to touch my RBKA. You can attempt to expel me using reasonable force (not including deadly force), or you may call the police and have me arrested for trespass. But you don’t get to infringe upon my RBKA.

          Refusal to disarm or leave, and arguing about it, I may be in a situation to need to resort to defense.
          Your rights exist in the public, not on my private property…

          Mere trespass does not invoke a need to use force in self-defense. Trespass is a tort, not a threat of use of unlawful force.

          Armed trespass. Remember? Read my original post.

          I defer back to the advice given to you, to have a good lawyer on retainer. If you use deadly force to expel a trespasser, you will be held legally liable for your unjustified use of deadly force.

          You seem to place property rights above all others. I find that strange. In my view, the right to life is the supreme, paramount right that supersedes all other rights. And I’m fairly certain that the law agrees with my view. (For example: I can legally trespass to seek shelter from a storm in your barn, and you cannot legally expel me until the threat to life – i.e. the storm – has passed.)

        16. avatar Paul G. says:

          You are wrong. No use arguing further.

        17. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @Paul G:

          You are wrong. No use arguing further.

          We’ll just use Texas, since it is the first one that popped up.

          http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

          Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
          (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
          (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
          (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

          Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
          (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
          (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
          (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
          (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
          (3) he reasonably believes that:
          (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
          (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

          Mere trespass does not meet the standard of 9.42(2), which is required to be met in order to use deadly force to protect property against trespass.

          Any other State’s statutes you’d like me to research/reference?

        18. avatar Paul G. says:

          I’m not in Texas and I don’t take legal advice from internet legal beagles.

        19. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Doing a bit more digging, found this:
          http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.selfdefense.laws/

          Based only on this information, it would appear that Indiana and Georgia allow for the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate trespass on one’s property. Connecticut and Illinois allow the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate a trespass that involves the commission of a forcible felony.

          (I don’t know how current the data are, since it fails to reference the Texas trespass statutes – but those require commission of a forcible felony in order to use deadly force to terminate a trespass.)

          Actual Indiana statute states that the force used to terminate a trespass must be reasonable, and must be in response to a reasonable belief that the force used is required:
          http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar41/ch3.html

          (d) A person:
          (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
          (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
          if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

          Georgia’s statutes explicitly require the use of deadly force in termination of a trespass must be in response to a reasonable belief that doing so will prevent a forcible felony:
          http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-24

          (b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

          So again: be sure you’ve got that lawyer on retainer.

        20. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @Paul G:

          Oh, I see:

          If a person is on my property, and I tell them they need to disarm or leave, failing to do such can invoke Castle doctrine.

          No, it cannot. Trespass is a tort, not an act that compels one to self-defense. Mere trespass does not represent a threat of use of unlawful force, nor does it represent a threat of death or great bodily harm, nor (when the trespasser was initially an invitee) does it represent a home invasion.

          A property owner may use force to expel a trespasser, but only such force as is reasonable and sufficient to effect the expulsion. Mere trespass does not justify the use of deadly force, and in fact, many state statutes state explicitly that deadly force is not justified my mere trespass.

          Castle Doctrine does not apply to mere trespass.

        21. avatar Paul G. says:

          Armed trespass. Remember? Read my original post.

        22. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Armed trespass. Remember? Read my original post.”

          A quick google search for “armed trespass and deadly force” got a number of pages discussing the concept of deadly force to end trespass.

          So far as I could tell from quick reading, they all required additional circumstances beyond the mere trespass to justify deadly force….such as the forcible felonies Chip mentioned above.

          If you are arguing that the mere presence of a gun constitutes a forcible felony, or meets any of the other requirements for “reasonable force” in response, then you are saying possessing a gun is a crime.

          The anti’s are loving you.

          The real problem here is you STILL refuse to acknowledge that this “debate” is NOT about which “right” is higher. They are orthogonal. You can exercise your “property rights” without imposing on my RKBA. My exercise of RKBA does not impose upon your right to control your property.

          If I am on your property armed, and you ask me to leave and I refuse, that’s a problem for me but not because I’m armed. My being armed is completely irrelevant. In fact, the result is exactly the same whether I am armed or not–such as arrest for trespass.

          Please provide a link to a legal opinion or court case where a person killed another SOLELY for having a gun on their property and “got off.” That is, no other crime or intended crime.

          Let’s take a look at https://www.texaslawshield.com/portal/texas-gun-law/ where we some some interesting discussion (TX chosen as example since there is ‘right to protect property with deadly force’ in play there):

          Private property owners are allowed to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns on their property if they provide proper legal notice of trespassing by a CHL holder with a concealed handgun given in compliance with Texas Penal Code §30.06. Notice may be given verbally or in writing with a statutory warning or by signage with the statutory warning in English and Spanish, in one inch high block letters posted in a conspicuous place.”

          That is, the property owner has to notify a person. There is no “presumption of guilt” on the part of the trespasser. And also, please take specific notice that this does not say owner can disarm the trespasser. Only via adequate warning can the property owner assert “property rights,” and that right only extends to removal from the property. It says precisely nothing about a property owner disarming a trespasser.

          Now, what does that page offer about deadly force?

          There are a couple of paragraphs on that:

          (1) “In Texas it is presumed that deadly force was reasonably necessary if it is used against an individual who was unlawfully or forcibly entering or entered into an occupied home, business, or vehicle or is attempting to forcibly remove another against his or her will from an occupied home, business, or vehicle. Deadly force is also presumed to be justified to prevent the commission or attempted commission of murder, aggravated kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery and aggravated robbery.”

          (2) “Texas law allows a person to use force in the protection of property to prevent or terminate another’s trespass or other unlawful interference with the possession of real or personal property. Deadly force can be used in Texas when the crime against property is classified as arson, burglary, robbery, criminal mischief at night or theft at night.”

          In neither of those paragraphs is the word “gun” found. Nowhere in the statute will you find “okay to kill a person just for having a gun.”

          It is my belief that you are sorely misinformed on this. Two different folks have offered actual statutory content or third party discussion of the interpretation of those statutes and all you’ve offered in response is your opinion and accusations that for some reason (because we can read a statue, I guess) we favor “big government” and “hide behind laws.”

          Here’s a thought for you. If you are WRONG in your understanding, as I believe you are, it will be the application of laws that take away your freedom and impose a lot more “punishment.” Good luck in your trial (hypothetical, I hope it never happens) for shooting someone solely for being armed, especially after announcing here your very questionable understanding of Castle Doctrine.

          Castle Doctrine does NOT give you the right to murder people. Let that sink in. That’s what the anti’s say all the time, and we expend tremendous effort trying to bring to light that they are wrong. The other elements of self defense come into play, and the mere presence of a gun does not itself constitute ability, opportunity and jeopardy for imminent threat of death or severe bodily injury.”

          If you have case law or other discussion to point to, I’d be glad to see it. But your “opinion” does not interest me, since it is not your opinion on which I would or would not be put on trial.

          You cannot shoot me SOLELY for having a gun on your property.

          Sticking with Texas, I suggest you read the following page:

          https://www.texaslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/

          “What About People Who are Only Trespassers?

          Make sure that you do not fall victim to the common misconception that the Castle Doctrine gives you carte blanche to use deadly force merely because someone is on your property. It does not. Many people think that the law allows you to use deadly force against a mere trespasser. In fact, Texas law says the exact opposite. Texas Penal Code §9.41 allows you to use force, not deadly force, that is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate another’s trespass on your land.

          You still have a legal right to exclude or remove trespassers from your land; however you are limited to only using non-deadly force to do so. The use of force can have many different manifestations, from physical confrontation to displaying a weapon. Texas Penal Code §9.04 states that for defensive purposes the display of a weapon in order to create apprehension in another person is considered a use of force, not deadly force. That means if someone trespasses on your property, you may display your firearm to create apprehension that you will use deadly force if necessary. You will not be legally justified in discharging the firearm, but you will be legally justified in displaying it to “create apprehension” under the law. Only if the trespasser is committing other acts where the law states that you are justified in using deadly force would you be allowed to discharge your firearm legally.

          “As you see, criminal trespass alone is not one of the crimes listed in Texas Penal Code §9.42 or even as part of the “Castle Doctrine” under §9.31 or §9.32. A mere criminal trespass may, however, evolve into one of the above crimes where you may be justified in using deadly force to protect your property. Let’s take another example, if someone decides to sit on your lawn, you holler at them from your bedroom window to “get off my property.” If the trespasser refuses to leave, you are almost certainly not justified in using deadly force to remove him.

          As I said, if you are in Texas, good luck trying to assert your self defense claim if you shoot a trespasser. The presence of a weapon (which may, for example, be concealed) does not elevate trespass to the level where deadly force is justified.

        23. avatar Paul G. says:

          You obviously only read what you want, to support your blather. I set the situation as a possible, dependent on circumstances, and you ignored that.
          Also, if you are on someone’s property and they inform you to disarm or leave, you have your notice. You have a choice, you have been offered a decision. If the rights are orthogonal, it is you who is making the assumption that the RKBA trumps. It does not.
          No legal opinion needed, you did a good job of killing your own case.

        24. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          No legal opinion needed, you did a good job of killing your own case.

          Name one State, just one, that allows the use of deadly force in response to mere trespass.

        25. avatar Paul G. says:

          First, why would I alter my initial premise to suit you?

        26. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          First, why would I alter my initial premise to suit you?

          Your initial premise invoked Castle Doctrine, which is the legal concept that one may use force, including deadly force, in defense of one’s home, and has no duty to retreat from one’s home, in response to mere trespass.

          If I have misunderstood your initial premise, I welcome a clarification/correction.

        27. avatar Paul G. says:

          Your claim of mere trespass is faulty. I posited a possibility, not a certainty, and alluded to the Castle Doctrine as a possible end result. Even to that end, using such doctrine as support for compelling an argumentative armed trespasser (my initial statement) to depart does not absolutely create a shooting or killing situation.

        28. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Your claim of mere trespass is faulty. I posited a possibility, not a certainty, and alluded to the Castle Doctrine as a possible end result. Even to that end, using such doctrine as support for compelling an argumentative armed trespasser (my initial statement) to depart does not absolutely create a shooting or killing situation.

          Okay, so your premise is argumentative armed trespasser.

          You’re still conflating trespassing with threat of use of unlawful force. Once the argumentative armed trespasser threatens the use of unlawful force with his firearm, you are justified in using deadly force in self-defense – but that has nothing to do with trespass status, and everything to do with the threat of use of unlawful, deadly force.

          Your invocation of Castle Doctrine is, was, and will always be justified as a response to the threat of use of unlawful force. It will never have anything directly to do with trespassing.

          A trespasser 1) being armed, 2) being argumentative, and 3) refusing to leave is never a combination that alone will justify the use of deadly force to compel the trespasser to vacate the premises.

        29. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “You obviously only read what you want, to support your blather. “

          I invited you to provide other material for me to read. Quite explicitly so. Put up or shut up, as they say.

          You are defending not one, but two unjustifiable positions. (1) That a trespasser being armed or not is a property rights issue and (2) that Castle Doctrine applies to trespass.

          You specifically stated that if you ask me “disarm or leave my property” and I refuse, Castle Doctrine is your friend. This is a blatant falsehood, and no less than four people called you on it.

          Show me where “armed trespass” alone constitutes justifiable deadly force…that is, in the absence of any other aggression or criminal act. I’m willing to see it and have my mind changed, but your opinion that it’s true is insufficient.

          I provided specific documentation of TX law that refutes your claim and very clearly states CD does NOT apply to trespass. Show me the counter example.

        30. avatar Paul G. says:

          I’m not in Texas, neither are you, and I have explained my situation enough. You jumped to unsupported conclusions, seems you like to do that. Cherry pick words, maybe you just don’t understand English well. I don’t know, but I am done with you. Call me when you learn to read and comprehend whole statements, and don’t ignore pertinent parts that just don’t support your need to argue.

  27. avatar an everyday normal guy says:

    I don’t agree with the zombies remark. How about some people open carry a rifle because its what they have. If my choices are legally carry a firearm or be unarmed, rifle wins every time. As to open carry demonstrations are about politics first… Well no feces, that’s what all demonstrations are about. Outside of a demonstration though a person open carrying a rifle (not exactly concealable for a non sbr) is just an armed citizen. I know quite a few people that don’t own handguns for a variety of reasons. Why should they not be able to use the most effective means of defense? If the sight of a firearm induces pearl clutching and pants wetting, I posit the person experiencing said effects have other more serious issues they need to address first. All that said, panera can do what they want. I have never nor will I ever of my own choice go into one. Same with the majority of these other places that have banned (kinda sorta not really) firearms from their stores. I have always and will continue to shop and do business with small local shops. I have nothing against these mega corps doing what they do, I just prefer to know the people I do business with. Do I pay more for some (I said and do mean some, cause I don’t pay $5 for a coffee I have to pour milk and sugar in where I go) things? Yeah, but its worth it to me. I get more from the mom and pop shop. That my $0.045375273 (2 cents adjusted for inflation and taxes)

  28. avatar former water walker says:

    Meh. Panera is overpriced and mediocre at best. And the service very slow. Oh yeah +1 Chip.

  29. avatar barnbwt says:

    Hey, weren’t the M1 carbine and other PDWs developed for everyday carry, specifically to improve upon the role of pistols in largely non-combat zones? No place for OC of rifles my foot.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Not exactly. The M-1 Carbine was designed to give non-infantry MOS and compnay grade officers a better option than a pistol or an M-1 for personal defense. There is a difference between being a frontline infantryman an being a tanker, artilleryman or a rear area but they aare all in a combat zone.. By the way Gen Gavin continued to carrie an M-1 Garand while Maxwell Tayler swtiched to the carbine.

  30. avatar tfunk says:

    It’s interesting to me the number of posters who think someone is an idiot for choosing to carry a rifle, and that carrying an AR (or similar) is “absurd”.

    And those same people will argue that their viewpoint is NOT based on the same emotional argument gun-control advocates use to say it is idiotic or absurd to carry ANY gun for self-defense.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      EXACTLY

      +1,000,000 and some.

  31. avatar 33AD says:

    “But please notice their emphasis was on people feeling warm and comfortable…”

    No – the emphasis is on their customers being ignorant.

    Ignorant in their belief that there were only guns around when people were open carrying AR’s, and that no open carry adherents in the store means no more guns – and I can drown myself in this delicious soup without having to imagine what I cannot actually see.

    Man oh man, ignorance is bliss….

  32. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    I feel warm and comfortable when I have access to the most effective self-defense tool ever invented, concealed, open or whatever.

    I feel even warmer and more comfortable when there are people around me similarly protected.

    I don’t feel warm and comfortable when when I and everyone around me has been rendered disarmed and defenseless, just to get a sandwich.

    This isn’t about AR-15s, people. Panera didn’t specify what kinds of guns they don’t want. They didn’t differentiate between concealed and open carry. Panera has taken sides when they could have (should have) stayed out of the fight. I’ll respect their property rights by dining at establishments that respect my right to armed self-defense.

  33. Just my opinion but I think that open carry will knock a lot of fence sitters to the side of the antis. We may wish we never heard of OC. For us political disaster.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      And CC keeps things out of sght, out of mind, so you can pretend you have a right.

    2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      Maybe.

      But if the mere sight of someone open carrying a rifle is enough to push them to the other side, weren’t they kinda there already?

  34. avatar Don Diego says:

    You call it “open carry”. I call it “shoot me first carry”.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      Call it what you want, you don’t get to make up statistics. Plenty of others call it “skip me, I fight back” carry.

  35. avatar Grindstone says:

    I completely disagree with Chik-Fil-A’s politics, but I love their food. And now ditto with Panera. Boycotts take a concerted effort to work. Whining about it on a blog isn’t a concerted effort.

  36. avatar Robert Inguaggiato says:

    There Is really something wrong with people in this country when they confuse open carry with Carring and A.R. 15 I open carry I don’t own an AR 15 open carry does not mean you carry a rifle around with you what is wrong with you people ? You can conceal carry or you can open carry a pistol if permitted to do so in your state! I have not heard the 4 or 5 corporate statements say anything about an AR 15. So why in the hell are you making this into an AR 15 issue ? You all need to do just one thing before you engage the trap you call a mouth and it should be very simple for most. That is first engage your brain so as not to let the stupid shit flow from your lips. It’s that easy.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      You have much to learn Grasshopper.

    2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “…if permitted to do so in your state!”

      The unraveling of your statement is IN your statement.

      Texas, for example, does not allow open carry of handguns. If you are going to open carry you are going to be doing so with a long gun. Maybe even the scariest of scary…. and AR15.

  37. avatar Christopher Hall says:

    I didn’t bother reading it all the way through. I got to the butters argument. And then where the second amendment was used as the first amendment.

    Ok that’s IT! I’m so done! Carrying that damn rifle IS MY STRICT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT!

    Is that clear?
    it is my religion.
    It is my political speech.
    It is my right to rub your nose in it.
    it is my right to stand outside and scream at you.
    it is my right to defend me and my family any way I want.

    Yup you have the right to cry like a whiney little Beotch. Just remember if you work to remove my rights. You are giving up yours.

  38. avatar janklow says:

    you know, i think a LOT of these OC guys are counter-productive. but Panera is handing a PR win to MDA while basically telling concealed carriers than they’re not welcome, as they’re technically not complying with the request. pass on giving them a pass for it.

  39. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I never OC for several reasons and it is none of there business what is inside my pants! That said they were simply wimping out and taking what they saw as the avenue of least resistance. Since they are overpriced I don’t go there much but sometimes the wife wants to go there (it is like a chick flick but for food). If they ever put up a sign even though it has no force of law in this state I will tell the wife she will have to get in her own truck and go by herself. That sign has the force of law in many states some of which I travel to so I will treat all their stores everywhere the same way.

  40. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    I asked this on the earlier post, and never saw a reply: can anyone cite an actual instance where someone open carried in a Panera, that resulted in a complaint or other incident? From what I can tell, Panera simply reacted to pressure from MDA, rather than in response to anything that actually happened in any of their stores.

  41. avatar Tom says:

    Is this pronouncement on guns by Panera going to apply to the franchisees. The local Panera places here are owned by a franchise.

  42. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    So what you’re saying is, open carry protests, particularly of rifles, belong in parades, perhaps parks, the Washington Mall, and such traditional places of protest? Ahhh…..got it.

    Just like civil rights protests of a previous generation should have been relegated to such places, and never allowed to take place in neutral places like schools or buses, huh?

    Panera Bread is the new lunch counter. Sit-ins, teach-ins, gun-ins, it doesn’t matter, it’s all the same. It’s 2014, “No Black (Rifles) Allowed” policies, and their apologists, are on the wrong side of history now just as their rights-infringing forebearers were then.

    When the moment comes, and it will, when your grandkids excitedly ask you what you did during the Firearms Freedom Civil Rights movement, do make sure you can honestly answer with something better than:

    “Well, little Timmy, Suzy, I called 911 on a couple of peaceful OC’ers, so that I could shove yet another Napa Almond Chicken Salad Sandwich into my fat face and down my capacious gullet, without being irked by people exercising their God-given right to keep and bear arms. Then I repaired to the Internet to call them Chipotle ninjas and claim a halo for myself.”

  43. avatar Anmut says:

    Zimmerman, you’re 2A Lite is ready at the bar.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      It wasn’t Zimmerman, he’s posting what some reader named MAC wrote to him. (A common and confusing practice here, to have a mod post something written by someone else.)

  44. avatar GiJoJo says:

    I can’t agree with this decision myself. When you state that you’re objective is to “make people feel warm and comfortable” and in the same breath tell people who are obeying the law that they are not welcome to enjoy your restaurant in a legal manner which makes them feel warm and comfortable you’ve made a mistake.
    It is Panera’s mistake to make however, if they continue to be successful in the face of this, which they likely will they’re going to do it without the aid of my business.

  45. avatar Kevin A. says:

    Well, honestly, I think the business owners have an absolute right to dictate what enters their store.They should be able to deny business to anybody. The customers have the right to choose to not go there. Yay capitalism!

    And you know what saying, “The law says I can carry anywhere!” is? It’s relying on the big-government to justify your actions.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “And you know what saying, “The law says I can carry anywhere!” is? It’s relying on the big-government to justify your actions.”

      That’s a baloney statement. More specifically, it’s a logic fail.

      Premise: The Constitution says RKBA “Shall not be infringed” with no restriction on location.

      Premise: Laws must be Constitutional to be ‘valid’ (for lack of a better word) in our form of government.

      Conclusion: Laws must be consistent with “Carry everywhere” to be Constitutional.

      By your statement, the free exercise of Constitutional protections are “relying big government,” which is pure nonsense.

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        Public domain versus private property. Seem you are the “logic fail”, again. And yet you try to use the Constitution as your source. You claim Texas law as a source that abridges people’s property rights, that seems pretty unconstitutional, but you like that, huh?

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          The problem is that RKBA is not a property rights issue at all. You refuse to acknowledge that.

          You have no idea what I think about property rights or where they end or begin because I have not commented on that at all. You don’t understand my point about the orthogonality of rights, which is fine.

          That’s not the same thing as me believing things you wrongly accuse me of believing.

          I’m done. Think what you want.

        2. avatar Paul G. says:

          I understand completely. Your ignorance shows.

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        @JR

        If I can untangle all of the threads you have participated in, your position is approximately that a property owner can tell you to leave his property, if he doesn’t like the fact that you are carrying a gun. Or for any other reason, for that matter, but the scenario in question is the carrying of a gun. He’s not allowed to tell you “take that gun off” but he can say “leave and don’t come back unless you are unarmed. If you don’t leave now, it’s trespass, and you are now on notice so if you come back armed, it’s trespass.” Is my understanding correct?

        If so, it’s a fine (but real) distinction. But fine enough I think it confuses a lot of people, especially when it’s not clearly articulated up front. (And of course they have to have read where you did so, too.)

        I believe Kevin’s issue is with people who maintain that property owners cannot even do this–“I can carry in your store and you can’t throw me out just ’cause I’m carrying, RKBA neutralizes your property rights.” (I suspect that the perception of this attitude is a lot of people’s actual issue, and there has been a lot of talking past each other going on. Some of your interlocutors have displayed a great propensity for not expressing whatever it is they actually mean clearly enough that I can understand what they’re getting at.)

        If you actually agree with the attitude I put in quotes (I don’t think you do, but maybe I have misunderstood you all along) then I have to ask, is this not the very alleged confusion/conflict of rights you have been arguing against all through this thread?

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “If I can untangle all of the threads you have participated in, your position is approximately that a property owner can tell you to leave his property, if he doesn’t like the fact that you are carrying a gun. Or for any other reason, for that matter, but the scenario in question is the carrying of a gun. He’s not allowed to tell you “take that gun off” but he can say “leave and don’t come back unless you are unarmed. If you don’t leave now, it’s trespass, and you are now on notice so if you come back armed, it’s trespass.” Is my understanding correct?

          Yes, that is the essence of the matter. The gun is immaterial to his asking me to leave; he does not even have to tell me WHY he is asking me to leave. That he offers the gun as a reason is superfluous to the ‘trespass,’ and thus property rights, issue.

          If so, it’s a fine (but real) distinction. But fine enough I think it confuses a lot of people, especially when it’s not clearly articulated up front. (And of course they have to have read where you did so, too.)

          I did try to be clear about this, but I suffer (as we all do from time to time I suppose) in thinking I’m stating something clearly that is not as clear as I think it is.

          I believe Kevin’s issue is with people who maintain that property owners cannot even do this–”I can carry in your store and you can’t throw me out just ’cause I’m carrying, RKBA neutralizes your property rights.”

          I most certainly am not saying that, because he can throw me out for whatever reason he wants, and he does not even have to tell me what his reason is.

          If all he were to say to me is “disarm” with no “or leave” (as an example), I could tell him no and there is nothing he can do about it. Nothing. He cannot legally or morally disarm me, even on his property. He can certainly give me the choice to disarm myself, but without the required element of trespass (notification), he can do NOTHING to disarm me if I refuse.

          Disarming me has nothing to do with his “property rights.” Once he tells me to leave, it become a trespass if I refuse…for ANY reason whether it’s RKBA or I just don’t like the way he asked me. The gun has nothing to do with his request (or doesn’t have to), and the gun plays no role in my being able to refuse his request to leave his private property.

          That’s why I say these two rights are orthogonal. That’s the term I use to mean that they are independent. The exercise of one has nothing to do with the other. WHY he’s asking me to leave is immaterial to THAT he is asking me to leave.

          (I suspect that the perception of this attitude is a lot of people’s actual issue, and there has been a lot of talking past each other going on. Some of your interlocutors have displayed a great propensity for not expressing whatever it is they actually mean clearly enough that I can understand what they’re getting at.)

          Miscommunication certainly lies at the heart of many disagreements. I thought I was being clear; perhaps I was not, so I accept culpability for that. I just don’t see much point in continuing to hash over the same old ground when it has clearly gotten to repetitive name calling and insults. Not much hope after that. (I’m not claiming innocence there, either).

          If you actually agree with the attitude I put in quotes (I don’t think you do, but maybe I have misunderstood you all along) then I have to ask, is this not the very alleged confusion/conflict of rights you have been arguing against all through this thread?”

          No, as I said, I don’t think “throwing me out” is a RKBA issue at all. Anyone making that claim is completely missing the point I think lies at the heart of this.

          Asking me to leave (for any reason, gun or that my eyes are blue) comes under what we are calling “property rights” and as such, RKBA and 2A are not an argument against it. There is no argument against it.

          But saying “my property rights trump your RKBA” is likewise as fallacious, because they are not in “competition.” Neither trumps the other. They are on completely different planes, so to speak.

          A property owner cannot disarm me by ANY legal or moral mechanism. Whether I am armed or not, he can ask me to leave his property. Neither has anything to do with the other.

          Does that clarify or just make it more muddled? I’m really struggling here. It may be a fine point…but as you said, it is an important one. The devil’s in the details, as they say.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I think we’re on the same page here as far as we’ve gone so far. Where we seem to diverge is on whether or not one is obligated to stay out of a business whose CEO has requested the guns be left behind (or to leave the gun behind… naaah…) Even there the gap between us might not be so huge since I agree there’s no legal obligation to stay out of Starbucks, et. al.

          I’ve been making moral arguments that once one knows a property owner’s wishes one ought to comply with them (and boycott his sorry ass) even if he doesn’t go to the trouble of creating a formal policy document or posting a sign. Yes, it’d be hard for him to bust you for trespassing right off the bat, because he couldn’t PROVE you saw the news story saying “please don’t bring your gun in here,” but morally it makes no difference since you know what you are doing. (Part of the disputation we’ve had over this might be because I tend to use the word “ban” in such circumstances; as I use that word, it’s not limited to legal action.)

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I’ve been making moral arguments that once one knows a property owner’s wishes one ought to comply with them…

          My issue here – and I know that it places me on the opposite side of the fence from several of the libertarians here – is that someone who opens a business to the public is opening his private property to the public, and at that point cannot deny would-be customers of their civil rights while in the conduct of that public business.

          I am not convinced by a property-rights argument here, because the owner of the property has willingly opened up the property to the public, for the purpose of commerce. At that point, the act of public commerce affords the participants the full protection of Due Process and Equal Protection.

          …(and boycott his sorry ass) even if he doesn’t go to the trouble of creating a formal policy document or posting a sign. Yes, it’d be hard for him to bust you for trespassing right off the bat, because he couldn’t PROVE you saw the news story saying “please don’t bring your gun in here,” but morally it makes no difference since you know what you are doing.

          I’m equally unconvinced by a morality argument here. By statute, a business owner expresses his desire by following the procedures defined in the statute. Writing a legally non-biding memo, while knowingly failing to implement the statutory signage to enforce the sentiment of that memo, compels me neither statutorily nor morally.

          I may choose not to patronize such a business, but that decision will be made for reasons other than being morally compelled by a weasel-word memo/policy.

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Steve, I think the differences in our viewpoints are smaller than the ways in which we agree.

          “morally it makes no difference since you know what you are doing.”

          My point is what about the cc-er that does NOT know the “policy” as announced in a news statement? I’d be willing to be that I could go hang out at my LGS and ask a random sample of local gun owners if they know Panera’s policy and a healthy percentage (non-0!) would say “no.”

          We can back-n-forth where the line is in regard to boycotts and bans, but one big fundamental problem this “Policy By Press Release” has is on the issue of notification. That’s one of the reasons the “post a sign” laws are written – to give all parties a far shot at knowing what the ground rules are for that particular establishment are.

          Since we have no idea what percentage of carriers even know about Panera’s policy request, there is no boycott. The ONLY way Panera can communicate the their policy/wish/whatever is to post it, and the law protects us in this regard.

          That last phrase is important in my read. That is, the “default” is “legal carry everywhere.” I don’t have to run around wondering who wants guns on their property and who does not. They have a duty to notify me in a way that works if I live up to MY duty to look for the sign before entering.

          So, if they post signs, a boycott can happen. “No Guns, No Money” cards passed on.

          Personal boycott or “self ban” (for lack of a better word for it) is just that…personal. We draw our lines separately and each for own reasons. Mine is that I want to “force” them to comply with the law if want to take a stand.

          Another way of putting it is that they (at least some of the theys) have said, “Full compliance with state and local laws” then go on to expect compliance with something else. That’s the part that makes no sense to me…and if they wanted to “ban” guns on their property, they very easily could do so in a way that is clear to all gun carriers, not just some fraction that have happened to hear their press release.

        5. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @JR As I said without proper legal notification it’s a moral issue, and I couldn’t hold someone morally responsible for something done out of ignorance, especially when it’s some obscure announcement carried on SOME news media, probably the media the carrier doesn’t frequent.

          Even a posted sign might not be noticed, not so bad when it’s not a “force of law” sign, but bad when he’s arrested on a gotcha because the sign was force of law (e.g., Texas 30.06). If the law isn’t COMPLETELY off the rails it will at least require prominent placement and size. (There should be no such law, needless to say.)

          @Chip, So any of a list of “civil rights” you get to exercise on someone’s property and he cannot require you to leave (providing it’s his publicly-accessible place of business)? What are those rights?

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @Chip, So any of a list of “civil rights” you get to exercise on someone’s property and he cannot require you to leave (providing it’s his publicly-accessible place of business)? What are those rights?

          I listed Due Process and Equal Protection. I would include first (religious expression, speech, press, etc.), second (RKBA), and fourth (security against unreasonable search and seizure) amendment rights, as well. Each of those rights enjoy equal protection as defined by the laws of the state (which means open/concealed carry laws, public disturbance, etc. laws still apply).

          TL;DR:

          “No shirt, no shoes, no service” = okay
          “No blacks” = not okay

          I believe the same should apply to RKBA (business owners should not be able to prohibit carry, where carry is legal), but state statutes vary on the matter.

        7. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Free speech? Are you SURE about that?

          If I come into your store yelling profanities, you aren’t allowed to order me to either leave, cease, or be arrested for trespassing?

          If I come into your church and start preaching some other religion during your service, you aren’t allowed to order me to leave, cease, or be arrested for trespassing?

          I think you need to think about this some more.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          If I come into your store yelling profanities, you aren’t allowed to order me to either leave, cease, or be arrested for trespassing?

          Other laws – including disturbing the peace, which I mentioned – would apply. Also, such behavior is subject to the proprietor’s policy, which can be applied to all, equally. A proprietor can have a “no profanity” policy without violating anyone’s civil rights. A “no turbans” policy? Not so much.

          Is there a balance? Yes. Is there always a bright-line demarcation between “competing” (for lack of a better term) rights? No.

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Addressing this one separately:

          If I come into your church and start preaching some other religion during your service, you aren’t allowed to order me to leave, cease, or be arrested for trespassing?

          A church is not a place of public commerce. It is a private association of individuals of like religious beliefs. Religious services are private, not public.

          A church, therefore, is a complete non sequitur.

        10. avatar Paul G. says:

          Churches often have ads in the local papers inviting people to come to them….that makes them as public as any business.

        11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Sophistry and Nonsense.

          A church is a private institution, conducting private affairs, not commercial affairs. Just because they invite others to join their private association does not constitute engaging in public commerce.

        12. avatar Paul G. says:

          Even the canon of the Catholic church calls itself a public institution, with some de facto private associations, not meaning the actual church or services.. Sorry, churches say “everyone welcome” and do not require any id cards of any kind for entry. That is very public.

        13. avatar Paul G. says:

          “Associations of the faithful which are erected by competent ecclesiastical authority are called public
          associations (Canon 301§3).” In the decree of erection, the competent authority must bestow public
          juridic personality on the association and grant it a mission by which it formally acts in the name of the
          Church (Canon 313). Only the Holy See, a conference of bishops or a diocesan bishop has the authority
          to erect a public association of the faithful (Canon 312). Before issuing a decree of erection, the
          competent authority must approve its statutes (Canon 314).
          Only a public association can receive a mission to teach Christian doctrine in the name of the Church,
          promote public worship or pursue a purpose which by nature is reserved to ecclesiastical authority
          (Canon 301§1). As a public association, the members act in the name of the Church when fulfilling the
          purpose of the association. Because of its public nature, the authority who erected it has direct
          supervision over the association and specifically has the right to confirm the election of the moderator,
          install a moderator presented or name a moderator in accord with the approved statutes; name the
          chaplain or ecclesiastical assistant (Canon 317§1); designate a trustee to temporarily direct the
          association (Canon 318§1); remove the moderator for a just cause (Canon 318§2); direct and audit the administration of goods and reception of offerings and alms (Canon 319); suppress the association or
          otherwise declare it extinct in accord with law (Canons 320, 120§1).
          http://www.catholiccanonlaw.com/Associations.pdf
          Better call the church and tell them how wrong they are!!

        14. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          More sophistry. What one particular church means by “public” has nothing to do with what the constitution and law mean by “public.”

        15. avatar Paul G. says:

          I have already covered that as well. Which church do you know of that is members only and checks cards at the door? Scientology? I have never seen a church that turned away a member of the public, and most invite them enthusiastically….just like businesses. Businesses have regular patrons and memberships for special offers and such as well, seems churches and businesses are in the same boat, despite your assertions.

        16. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You’re completely ignoring the critical issue: commerce. At this point, I tend to think that you’re doing so merely to be antagonistic. The very premise of equating a church to a commercial business is un-serious.

        17. avatar Paul G says:

          I can equate spending time, money, and other resources in a church for the assurance of a better afferlife as conmerce. It most definitely a service in which donations are expected in return….comnerce.

        18. avatar Paul G says:

          Selling salvation is very serious business.

        19. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Now you’re clearly just trolling, Paul.

        20. avatar Paul G. says:

          Not at all. A church is just as public or private as any business.,..cute words like sophistry don’t change that,

        21. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Chip,

          You’re going to rely on a “disorderly conduct” charge to get rid of someone who thinks he’s invoking his first amendment rights in your place of business, and is in fact in your business screaming profanities?

          “Disorderly conduct” is in the eye of the cop writing the summons. It might (or might not) cover a guy in your store walking around with sandwich boards advertising your competitor’s business. It might (or might not) cover the same guy just walking around with the same boards, but complaining about how you treated him (and if what he says is true, you can’t get him for slander/libel, and in any case those you can’t arrest the guy for). There is ALL KINDS of speech you don’t want in your business, yet you’d insist a guy has the right to engage in it in your business and you aren’t allowed to “trespass” him or ask him to leave, because “speech” is a civil right.

          And I could easily imagine a cop deciding that carrying a firearm in front of a bunch of hoplophobes is “disturbing the peace.” And a judge agreeing with him. Of course one could write a schitt tonne of exceptions and “this shall not be construed” into the Disturbing the Peace statute but that brings in a whole passel of other problems (including, eventually, the presumption that any DtP charge is valid unless one of the specifically enumerated exceptions applies). Do you really want to rely on “disturbing the peace” laws to bound and/or safeguard your rights?

          You end up in turd wrangles over where the line needs to be drawn, because you have this mistaken notion that rights can conflict. Properly understood, they do not. I am under no obligation to provide you any of my resources, not hospitality, not a place to let you shop, nothing whatsoever, except what I have contractually agreed to with you personally, Thus, although you have a right to free speech, using your resources, you don’t have any such right to do so using mine. There isn’t a conflict if I toss you out of my store because you are walking around wearing a “Vote for Obama” shirt because there is no such right to begin with. Likewise you don’t have a right to be walking around with a gun on your hip in my store, because you have no right to be in my store to begin with.

        22. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @Steve:

          You’re going to rely on a “disorderly conduct” charge to get rid of someone who thinks he’s invoking his first amendment rights in your place of business, and is in fact in your business screaming profanities?

          No, indeed I’m not. You might find my entire comment more instructive, rather than latching on to “disorderly conduct.”

        23. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Chip,

          Your “entire comment” indicates you are going to come up with a patchwork quilt of arbitrary rules as to what is allowed to curtail an alleged “right” and what is not. You might not like what they come up with, because it might not be the set of arbitrary rules as to what infringes on a civil right and what doesn’t, that you’d like. I found it very educational indeed, you are advocating for endless arguments over whether I can ask you to leave or not. Turban? I can’t? why not? Oh, because your religion mandates it? Maybe mine mandates bare heads? Or maybe it’s not your religion, it’s a frigging halloween costume, and it suddenly becomes OK because I have a “no halloween costume policy” and THAT’s OK except when it’s a pagan and halloween is their sacred ritual.

          Do you see that all you do is set up endless arguments over which side of the line something is on? What happens when you lose? What standard can you appeal to, to convince someone you are in fact right? None whatsoever. In our society it ends up being wherever nine people in black robes decide it is. They might decide guns is such a right, or they might decide the guiding demarcation is that you can’t be tossed off but only if it’s some characteristic you can’t change (skin color, sexual orientation, religion). Then you get to argue over whether sexual orientation is a choice or not. Or religion. Oh, never mind, religion can be a choice but it gets a carve out anyway. Ok, so then you get to argue over what’s really a religion or whether that guy just claims to be Native American so he can do peyote. Or Rastafarian so he can get pot. Or maybe he started a religion so he could claim it’s a sacrament to utter profanities at top volume in a business. How do you prove it’s a bogus religion and he doesn’t really believe it? If you decide that doesn’t matter, he’s objectively violating the law in any case and that trumps his religious freedom, well THANK YOU, because you’ve just made my point. These civil rights are indeed limited. In fact I’d go so far as to say they end when you attempt to assert them as an excuse to violate someone else’s right.

          “I can ask you to leave my property at any time, for any reason” is clear-cut, and it has the advantage of being based on an objective principle that you have no right to the use of my property without my consent.

          About the only thing it being “commercial property” should do is alter the default for determining whether you have permission to be there. Commercial makes it “you have permission until and unless I explicitly tell you otherwise” as opposed to a private house, where the rule is “you don’t have permission until I explicitly tell you otherwise.” You can walk into a business without explicit invitation, but must leave if asked, other private property you have to be invited, but even once invited you must leave if asked.

          The ultimate control must lie with the owner of the property, or you are claiming the “right” to use his stuff, and by extent, to take without consent, under circumstance whose enumeration is left up to a panel of judges that has often changed its collective mind.

          (As an aside I believe a lot of the difficulty people have is the fact that “public” and “private” are both used in two different senses “Public property” means “government property, some types of which (parks, streets, etc) are legally required to be available for use by everyone”, but a “public space” such as Best Buy is open to the public (by default) but still remains “private property”, it is not automatically lawfully required to be available for use by anyone. Some people, Chip, claim a sense of entitlement to use other people’s private property in a way the owner doesn’t approve of, simply because it’s “public space” blanking out on the fact that that space only exists in the first place because the private property owner created it and granted access to it for specific reasons.

        24. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          About the only thing it being “commercial property” should do is alter the default for determining whether you have permission to be there. Commercial makes it “you have permission until and unless I explicitly tell you otherwise” as opposed to a private house, where the rule is “you don’t have permission until I explicitly tell you otherwise.” You can walk into a business without explicit invitation, but must leave if asked, other private property you have to be invited, but even once invited you must leave if asked.

          Okay, I think I could get behind this distinction.

          I still believe that it is morally and legally wrong, and a violation of rights, for a business owner to enact a “no blacks” policy. I admit that I am struggling to articulate a consistent argument to support that belief. Just as the business owner has a right to engage in commerce, so does the black person who would otherwise be barred by the “no blacks” policy.

          Some people, Chip, claim a sense of entitlement to use other people’s private property in a way the owner doesn’t approve of, simply because it’s “public space” blanking out on the fact that that space only exists in the first place because the private property owner created it and granted access to it for specific reasons.

          Please don’t ascribe any sense of entitlement to the argument I’m attempting to articulate. If a black person enters a place of business, solely with the intent to conduct business, then that person is clearly using the property for the owner’s intended purpose.

          (Note: I’m using the black person/”no blacks” policy example to argue my point, but I believe that the underlying principle applies equally to someone exercising their second-amendment rights.)

          I do find it interesting that your statements imply that a property owner’s property rights supersede others’ first-amendment rights, while simultaneously balking at the mere suggestion that property rights may be, in principle, superseded by others’ second-amendment rights (and the natural human right to life from which RKBA is derived).

          Please don’t misunderstand me: I believe all such rights exist in concert and in harmony, not in hierarchy (well, except for the right to life, which I do believe supersedes all other rights). Rights that thus exist in concert will necessarily interact and overlap, which will either create agreeable boundaries in their exercise, or else will produce dischord. (Thus, the imperfect term “competing”, that I used previously.)

          Rights, and their exercise, do not exist in a vacuum. There is no hierarchy of rights. There is interplay and coexistence.

          Thus, to me, it is entirely logical to say that a property owner cannot infringe on another’s RKBA, but very much can demand that the person exercising RKBA vacate his property, or be considered as a trespasser.

          (In fact, here in Missouri, that’s exactly how the law works for concealed carry. A business owner can put up a “no CCW” sign, but if someone concealed carries in the business, all the owner can do is ask the person to leave, and call the police. If the police show up, they will ask the concealed carrier to leave. If the concealed carrier fails to do so, he will be cited for misdemeanor trespass.)

        25. avatar SteveInCO says:

          “Thus, to me, it is entirely logical to say that a property owner cannot infringe on another’s RKBA, but very much can demand that the person exercising RKBA vacate his property, or be considered as a trespasser.”

          OK now I am massively bewildered, because I thought all along you were arguing against this position.

        26. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          OK now I am massively bewildered, because I thought all along you were arguing against this position.

          Nope. 🙂 Both JR and I have been arguing for this proposition, all along. That you (and perhaps others?) thought that I was arguing the opposite might explain a lot of the head-scratching I’ve been doing.

        27. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I was able to figure out fairly quickly that JR was making a distinction that probably wasn’t clear to lots of people, and realize it was a useful clarification; it matched my thinking but I had never articulated it because the distinction was almost subconscious for me. Now I can go back to just about anything he wrote on this topic,including stuff I strongly disagreed with at the time, and understanding the distinction he was (sometimes) not being clear about, and filtering what he wrote through that, realize that I not only agreed with him, but had agreed with what he was REALLY trying to say all along.

          Gotta love “one sided arguments.”

          With you, though, I still can’t see what’s going on, Scrolling to OTHER conversations you seem to be saying what you just said here, but in your very first response in THIS chain, where you are replying to me as I realize what JR was about, (lot of scrolling involved, and my browser is REALLY slow now) it does seem like you are taking the opposite position, that it is a violation of my civil rights to require me to be unarmed as a condition of remaining on your property. I can’t reconcile how you started this particular sub-conversation, with what you just said that I quoted earlier today and see how you could hold both positions. I’m gratified that we seem to agree about more than I thought we did, but I can’t square it with your earlier statement to me that started this whole back-and-forth.

          So I must have misunderstood something

        28. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          With you, though, I still can’t see what’s going on, Scrolling to OTHER conversations you seem to be saying what you just said here, but in your very first response in THIS chain, where you are replying to me as I realize what JR was about, (lot of scrolling involved, and my browser is REALLY slow now) it does seem like you are taking the opposite position, that it is a violation of my civil rights to require me to be unarmed as a condition of remaining on your property.

          I blame the internet. Blog post comment threads aren’t always conducive to these sorts of discussions, as they’re not well-suited to long-form comments, comments can end up out of context, and it’s all too easy to find and latch on to one part of what is attempted to be a nuanced position.

          Let me try to recap.

          The genesis of the argument/discussion was the assertion that property rights don’t “trump” RKBA, that the two rights co-exist. (i.e. the statement you quoted earlier, about the RKBA, property rights, and trespass). Then someone said something about invoking Castle Doctrine, and the discussion went down a bit of a rabbit hole. At the same time, I was trying (poorly) to articulate a belief that, where private property is opened to the public for the purposes of commerce, private property rights must then co-exist with other constitutional rights, such as equal protection (e.g. a “no blacks” policy would be wrong). And I think that’s where things went off the rails.

          So, in trying to explain my position, let’s come back to your quoted statement above:

          Thus, to me, it is entirely logical to say that a property owner cannot infringe on another’s RKBA, but very much can demand that the person exercising RKBA vacate his property, or be considered as a trespasser.

          This is the starting point of my position. Where things get confused (because I’m not articulating a well-thought-out argument) is that I believe, in the context of private property opened to the public for the purpose of commerce, other rights must co-exist with the property owner’s private property rights, in a manner that would not be applicable in the context of private property used for private purposes.

          In short: I don’t think that Panera should be able to tell anyone to give up their RKBA in order to buy their crappy coffee any more than they should be able to tell black people that they’re not welcome to buy their crappy coffee.

          I admit that I haven’t articulated or supported that argument particularly well. So, while a great deal of digital “ink” has been expended here to discuss/argue that position (I actually appreciate people challenging such an argument, as it helps me to understand/clarify what I think, and why), it doesn’t change the underlying, default position.

        29. avatar SteveInCO says:

          A suggested first step is to figure out what a “right” is, then decide whether a shopkeeper having an obligation to serve a “protected” individual (but only a protected one), matches that definition. See what else matches that definition that you wouldn’t actually consider a right; if there are a lot of such surprises, rethink your definition. Once you’ve done that, if your definition is anything remotely like mine, you will be stunned at the number of counterfeit “rights” out there.

          (Also beware “right” is used in other senses as well, such as a privilege granted to you in a contract, or procedural rights in our court system, whose precise nature depend on how the system is organized and how it operates. What I am talking about are rights you have because you are a human being, rights you would have had in ancient Egypt, not rights you have because you signed a contract with your cell provider that says “you have a right to…” or rights you have because the court system happens to have courts of appeals in it or because someone invented the concept of a jury and empowered same with finding guilt.)

  46. avatar Renegade Dave says:

    If they differentiated between OC and CC I would have understood and been appreciative, but the way the press release is written it sounds like it is for all weapons, CC or otherwise…

  47. avatar Ted says:

    Topless women don’t really bother me or my children. They are just boobs.

    The only person in my family that care a little about a t-shirt with boobs on it might be my wife – and only if the boobs are nicer than hers.

    I care even less about a guy carrying a weapon. Here in NJ, there are tons of plainclothes cops that open carry in my local starbucks every morning. No one gives them a second look.

    As a society, we need to grow a thicker skin……or at least tell those that are “sensitive” to this stuff to sit down and shut up.

  48. avatar Powerwiz says:

    Have any of you felt warm and comfy at a Panera? You stand in stinking line helped by a inept worker sold soup that comes from a can and a sandwich that costs a buck to make and walk out paying many times more. There is nothing warm and comfy about that place.

  49. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Mac, I am pretty sure I understand what you are trying to say about the ‘open carry movement’ and Panera Breads just wanting to sell bread and whatever else they have on their menu and not be involved.

    I am unclear, however, on this part of your article …. “Open carry demonstrations are about politics first, which make them out of place in a neutral environment”

    This is an OC Demonstration.

    http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/62/69/62698a75e3f138e35fa25af8aed12bed.jpg?itok=INr1UyJz

    If those folks were against me and my business I wouldn’t want that in front of my business because it would be bad for business.

    This is NOT an OC Demonstration.

    http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/615/img/photos/2014/03/12/5e/12/rgz_open_carry_07.JPG

    This is a person getting a cup of coffee. This is what MDA and Panera think is bad.

    I would sling my rifle, if I was allowed to open carry in my state, across my back. I, unlike the guy in the second picture, have an ample belly that would make it uncomfortable to carry the way he is.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “This is NOT an OC Demonstration.”

      But assuming OC is legal where he’s at…what is wrong with that?

      Is the gun the agency of evil or isn’t it?

      The rifle is slung. He’s not touching it. His finger is nowhere near the trigger. He’s not pointing it at anyone.

      WHY do we let the anti’s set the narrative that this is “bad”? Why do we let them start with the assumption that he’s “evil” JUST because he has a rifle…evil looking (to them) and black though it may be?

      I just decided people carrying cell phones in cases on their belt are scary. Perhaps I should start sending Panera and Target a “please protect my precious feelings” email every time I see that in one of their stores.

      The guy in your second picture is not more frightening than anyone else…unless we accept the false accusation that anyone with a gun is up to no good.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        To be clear, I’m not saying that you are saying there is anything wrong with it.

  50. avatar wantmycountryback says:

    How many gun owners in America? How many of us go to panera? If my gun isn’t welcome neither is my wallet!!!

  51. avatar Matt says:

    FYI for the admins, I get a malicious site when I click on the “t-shirt that looks like a topless woman” link. Could be a false positive but you may want to remove it.

  52. avatar David P says:

    If that was paneras true position then I would have no problem with them saying “please do not open carry in our store”. The fact that they made it a blanket request is what I have issue with. I understand where you are coming from with the story but they said law enforcement only. Any business that comes out and says “please do not open carry” will still get my business.

    I know a lot of people on here that would disagree with me but open carry is not smart for the cause. I know it is a right, so is walking into a public business and screaming “wh&$@” at the top of your lungs. Just because it is a right doesn’t mean that it helps the cause. Screaming “Fire” in a crowded movie theater was a right, until it was not.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “… Screaming “Fire” in a crowded movie theater was a right, until it was not.”

      It still is a right.

      And there are potential consequences of you exercising that right.

      You have the right to keep and bear arms, just as you have the right to yell in a theater.

      If you shoot people with your firearm then there will be consequences just the same as if you yell in the theater and cause harm by doing so.

  53. avatar publius2 says:

    Last I checked, Panera is a business, and own their own property, so IMHO they have a right to set their policy as they see fit. I dont agree, but I respect their free speech and property rights.

    I’ll be glad to take my bread and coffee business elsewhere forever.

  54. avatar Seth says:

    I have not visited a Panera store, do they have the no guns allowed signs on the door? If so, then if you conceal carry into there you are running the risk of losing your license and ability to carry or worse your rights to own firearms completely. I know, I know, you just make sure that your concealed weapon isn’t seen but the reality is that you can’t be 100% certain it will not be seen if you have the gun on you.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      A valid point about concealment occasionally failing.

      However the consequences vary from state to state. In some states, if a place is posted with a sign that meets legal specifications, you are breaking the law right off the bat. In others, the owner of the establishment can ask you to leave and if you refuse, you can be charged wtih trespass.

      I personally feel morally obligated to not carry into a place where I know either via sign or some other way, that the firearm isn’t welcome–I won’t wait to be “trespassed” (i.e., told to leave or its trespassing) and I don’t care if they can see it or not; it’s morally wrong to carry against the wishes of the owner even if he doesn’t know about it. And I certainly won’t give him my money.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email