Turning the Tables

No-Guns-AP

A reader who prefers to remain anonymous writes,

I’m a well-dressed man with a fabulous sense of style. I’m a patron of the arts and a philanthropist. I help those in need and perform volunteer work in some of my spare time. I’m in a committed partnership, but occasionally I go down to the club and let off some steam with some buddies. (My partner knows about it and is accepting of my fun as long as I always come home.) But the other day my partner and I were refused service because of something the store owner didn’t like about us. We were asked to leave and were unable to purchase what we needed . . .

“We don’t want your kind in our store” he said with a hint of disgust. His wife nodded her agreement.

Dumbfounded, we left. What could I do? I didn’t want trouble and I didn’t want to involve the police in a matter that should be a non-issue.

After reading my story, do you feel that I have been victim to a cruel injustice? As a law-abiding citizen of this nation, don’t I deserve to have all of the privileges of “normal” people?

I am not talking about being gay.

I am not talking about being black.

I am talking about being a gun owner who carries a firearm in order to protect myself and those I love.

Does that change how you feel? If so, perhaps you should reflect on your pre-conceptions about groups of people.

comments

  1. avatar racer88 says:

    How did the store owner identify you as a gun owner / carrier? Open carry? Sincere question. I’ve CCWed for over 20 years. I’ve never once been ID’ed and called out.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      What difference does that make to his point, which may have been a rhetorical, made-up scenario to make that point?

      The moral right to self defense (from thugs or thuggish governments) does solely apply to concealed carriers. The Second Amendment does not say “The right to carry concealed shall not be infringed.”

      Private property is private property, and yes, a store owner has certain rights as well. But, the problem is, by asking this question, you are conceding that carry method is what is really at issue here, not “the right to bear arms.”

      You are saying some forms of bearing arms are more acceptable than others?

      1. avatar racer88 says:

        Nope. That’s not my point at all. My question was sincere. I assumed the story was a true one. So, I was genuinely curious how the store owner ascertained that he was armed. I am not opposed to the concept of open carry. I am fully committed and supportive of the 2nd Amendment in a literal sense. My state does not allow open carry. If it did, I would likely continue to carry concealed the vast majority of the time. If it was put on a ballot, I would vote FOR allowing open carry. It’s personal preference. But, I understand and accept that some prefer to open carry. Each method offers advantages and disadvantages.

        So again… it was a sincere question about how the store owner became aware of the armed status of the customer.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

        2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @JR

          You’re being too polite, the fact that the question “How did they know you were carrying?” was raised clues us into the fact that this guy is one of those “concealed means concealed” types.

          How/why anybody knew this guy was carrying is irrelevant. Whether he is gay, black, arab, or cross-eyed is unimportant. If this is a non-fictional scenario, the business owner was well within his rights to refuse service under current law (and under any reasonable standard as well. Feel free to take the bait)

          We as gun owning and carrying members of society have no more obligation to patronize such businesses as these individuals have to provide it.

          Let’s stop sweating the small stuff…

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          @Matt

          Actually, when you open your business up to the public you give up about 90% of your property rights. The way I see it, a “No Guns” sign is not more morally acceptable than a “Whites Only” sign. Civil rights are civil rights.

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          Bingo. Further “shall not be infringed” is codified in the Bill of Rights. It’s not just one of the recently invented “right not to be offended civil rights ” so popular today with the leftists.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          “Shall not be infringed” is a limitation on the government, not on private persons. I can totally prohibit you from carrying a gun in my house, and kick you out if you refuse to comply.

          For businesses, we came up with special rules, but that only happened during the Civil Rights era, and it’s all legislation, not constitutional guarantees. And said legislation does not cover gun owners. It also doesn’t cover LGBT folk. In fact, it doesn’t cover a great many things, except for a few specifically enumerated in the text of the law, such as race or religion.

      2. avatar Diamondback says:

        You’re correct, the 2A does not say, “.. the right to carry concealed …”

        It does NOT mention the method of carry but goes on to stipulate clearly that the right to BEAR and KEEP arms “shall not be infringed” by any level of government.

        That means we have the right to KEEP and BEAR any and all arms that we can afford in any manner we see fit anywhere we might be and regardless of what we’re doing except in TRULY “sensitive places” (and those do NOT include schools, government buildings other than courthouses and incarceration facilities, nor churches).

        The only truly “sensitive places” I’ve been able to identify are courthouses and correctional/incarceration facilities.

        From slingshots to Tanks, Frigates and fighter/bomber aircraft.

        I do NOT agree with the Supreme Court’s statement in Heller v. D.C. on page 8, approximately 3/4 way down page: “… the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms …” because it neither addresses the right to KEEP arms nor the clear stipulation that the government has no legitimate authority whatsoever to “infringe” on the right in any way whatsoever.

        I do agree with the referenced statement in that we are entitled to KEEP AND BEAR fully automatic firearms, RPGS, anti-tank/aircraft missiles and every other “bearable arm” but believe the statement doesn’t go far enough in addressing the whole of the right PROTECTED.

        Jmho but I’m willing to kill and die for it if necessary.

        1. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          All one has to do is understand that 99% of the laws scalia inferred to, are for the abuse of the right, not the lawful exercise of the right.

          Anti gunterds hate it when you remind them about that as they always shut up when they are confronted with an ireefutable fact they dont want to acknolwedge!

      3. avatar Rick says:

        Apparently, in CO shop owners *don’t* have the right to not serve someone if they don’t want to, e.g. not make cakes for homosexuals………….

    2. avatar Chuck in IL says:

      It’s amazing that everyone can ascertain someone’s thoughts or prejudices just because they asked a simple question. Mind readers, the whole lot of you. Being a fairly new CC’r, my first thought was how did he get made? My next thought was, maybe he open carried. It doesn’t change the point, but it is a detail left out of the story, therefore inquisitive minds are drawn to ask. I’m not sure what kind of minds are drawn to draw conclusions about someone for asking a simple question.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “my first thought was how did he get made? “

        The reason I (and perhaps others) jump on this question is because it is completely irrelevant if the discussion is “Do we or don’t we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?”

        That you are even asking the question shows how far to the “anti” side of the equation you / we have allowed the discussion and dialog to go.

        The Right To Keep and Bear Arms has nothing to do with open or concealed. It should not matter how he got “made,” because it should not matter if anyone knows he’s carrying.

        This, folks, is why “normalization” of OC is important. We have to take the language back.

        Bearing Arms is either a fundamental right or it is not. By asking the question, by allowing ourselves to get focused on carry method details in stories like this we are giving ground the anti’s before the discussion even starts.

        THAT’S the point I’ve been trying to make.

      2. I was “made” at Comerica Park by the metal detectors. Major League Baseball is saying “We don’t want your kind here”.

    3. avatar PavePusher says:

      No-one should ever have to chose between a closet, and Constitutional Rights.

  2. avatar Eric L says:

    Its their business but your money. I hold no contempt for those who I don’t agree with, I simply go where I’m ( or my business ) is wanted.

    1. avatar Alpo says:

      Would you say the same about a store that said “No Jews” or “No interracial couples”, etc?

      1. avatar Chuck in IL says:

        A very good question. Just because Jesse Jackson isn’t involved doesn’t mean it’s not a civil rights issue.

      2. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        “Freedom of association is sacrosanct, except when we don’t like it. In that case, it’s illegal!!”
        – every stupid liberal ever

        1. avatar J Russell says:

          Thanks for this. I love the hypocrisy that always comes out when it comes to something like this. The same people that will fight for gun rights and rail against the government for FORCING people to disarm or to get a permit or some other such nonsense will be the first ones to declare that a business owner should be FORCED to give up their rights no matter if we don’t agree with them.

          It doesn’t matter if it says No Jews, No Gays, No Blacks, No Guns, etc. If that’s the way they want to roll, fine. It also means that I don’t have to spend my money there. And if their food or product is just so good that I can’t live without well then I guess I’ll just have to recognize that even though this place doesn’t see eye to eye with me I can still enjoy their product.

          What’s so hard about this? I’m so tired of this victim and entitlement mentality. News flash: The world is unjust and corrupt. Sports and Weather at 10.

      3. avatar Chris says:

        Yes.

        1. Because property rights and that of free association have been restricted. Just because one is in business does not mean one gets forced to do business with someone. (Public services like buses, etc. excluded). Property rights either exist, or they’re PERMISSIONS from the State.

        2. I would choose to shop elsewhere, now that the bigots have identified themselves.

        Yes, I’ve given up a relationship that was VERY profitable for Starbucks because of their non-stance stance on me and my firearms.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Because property rights and that of free association have been restricted.

          Freedom of association has absolutely nothing to do with a public business – i.e. with a proprietor who chooses to engage in business with the public.

          Freedom of association applies to private relationships between parties, as well as association of groups for first-amendment protected endeavors, such as petition for redress of grievances, political speech/advocacy, and religious expression. A business owner can express/espouse whatever views he wishes, but he cannot deny provision of the business’ goods or services on the basis of those views. Refer to Runyon v. McCrary.

          (Side note: I believe the first amendment protects a business owner from being required to engage in provision of goods or services that would constitute a violation of sincerely held religious beliefs. But that protection wouldn’t apply to “No Jews”, “No Blacks”, or “No Guns”.)

        2. avatar int19h says:

          Why religious beliefs are special? Most political views can be seen as a form of religion. And, say, if you look at Christian Identity, racism is an inherent part of their religion.

      4. avatar int19h says:

        It depends.

        Originally, when laws prohibiting this kind of discrimination were enacted in 1960s, it made a lot of sense because such discrimination was routine and widespread in Southern states. Basically, there were huge swaths of the country where the business owners, acting seemingly independently, and each exercising their property right to their specific property, in effect completely locked out a large part of the population. The social effect was just too significant to ignore. So the laws were enacted – yes, at the expense of the property rights of owners. A small evil necessary to fight a bigger one.

        Today, though, if someone were to try something like “no jews” or “no negroes” sign, media would be on them in no time at all, and the backlash from the community would likely be so severe that they’d simply go out of business in very short order. On the other hand, if someone is denied service by a bigot in one place, there’s hundreds of other places that they can go. So from that perspective, those laws have outlived their usefulness. The evil that they were made to fight is still here, but it’s much smaller, and also much subtler, and they no longer serve a useful purpose – yet they themselves remain a limitation on property rights. I think it’s time to acknowledge that they served their purpose, and move on.

        With respect to discrimination against people carrying firearms, I don’t think the scope of that is at the point where I (as someone who carries regularly) would feel the need of having a law protecting me against such discrimination, so for the time being I’d rather give preference to property rights. This might change in the future.

  3. avatar BradN says:

    That’s the anti-gun tactic. They want to make carrying, let alone owning a firearm so socially reprehensible that years down the line the “problem” will “sort itself out” and people will become disinterested in firearms due to being shunned by their communities. We must not allow this. Education, truth and facts ALWAYS wins over fear and disinformation.

    1. avatar Mike_M says:

      It’s already happened…
      I live where ANY person 21 or older that can legally own a firearm can also legally carry it open or concealed. While I admit that I can’t possibly spot every concealed carrier, it’s a safe bet that most people just aren’t doing it.
      I have watched several of my friends become first time gun owners and every single one of them was afraid to carry. Not because they were afraid of the gun but, because they were afraid of being seen and judged, or worse.
      Constitutional Concealed Carry is fairly recent here. Before that, open carry was legal and it was extremely rare to see anyone carrying.
      They have already successfully created the necessary social stigma.

      1. avatar Chris says:

        Maybe not judged, but SWATted? Or MWAGed and the commensurate issues that creates for the holder of the gun. Man with an Umbrella that looks like a rifle calls out nearly every cop in the north shore area of Massachusetts, but the person who made that call and started the hullaballoo gets no repercussions at all.

        That’s the #1 reason I don’t OC at all, and having to traverse two states on a nearly daily basis is the reason I don’t carry at all most of the time.

        FOPA didn’t go far enough, in my opinion – national reciprocity cannot come soon enough.

      2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        I have watched several of my friends become first time gun owners and every single one of them was afraid to carry. Not because they were afraid of the gun but, because they were afraid of being seen and judged, or worse.

        Your friends are worried about some perceived social stigma? Kinda weak-willed, aren’t they?

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Or young.

          Youth can do that to ya…

    2. avatar Herb says:

      Read what Amitai Etzioni & Josh Sugarmann have to say about how to stigmatize gun owners and make us social outcasts for exercising our Second Amendment rights.

      “Are there guns in your home? Then my children can’t come to your home.”

      “Docs vs Glocks” is about making your family physician into a government informant.

      “More and more guns in fewer and fewer hands”. Hear that a lot lately.

      “They’re just not our kind of people”. That’s the antigunners’ argument in a nutshell. Class warfare takes a new turn.

  4. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Who is your haberdasher?

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Here’s a nice one in downtown Portland. (Not me in the article)
      http://www.johnhelmer.com/level.itml/icOid/6

  5. avatar TwinReverb says:

    Not enough info. Was he printing in a state where that’s taboo? Was he open carrying in a state where it’s legal?

    It’s their right to turn people away, and our right to boycott their stores. That’s the interesting thing about rights: apparently our right to the 2nd amendment ends where their right to the 9th amendment begins. I get that.

    So I wish they’d tell us what business turned them away so we can all boycott, and give us more particulars.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      From a moral, natural rights standpoint, who gives a crap if he was “printing”?

      You are letting the anti’s set the narrative, while you “claim” to not be an anti. Sorry; still not believing it. You are doing nothing to make your case.

      How about “even printing should not be illegal.” Cuz, you know…that pesky Second Amendment does not apply solely to concealed carry.

      1. avatar Scrubula says:

        The right to freedom of speech, within one’s closet where no other person can hear them.
        Doesn’t sound quite as good…

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Was he printing in a state where that’s taboo?

      What state would that be?

      1. avatar Dennis says:

        South Carolina, for one.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          For one? In how many states do you think “printing” is illegal? Sigh.

          South Carolina

          Section 23-21-210, (6) “Concealable weapon” means a firearm having a length of less than twelve inches measured along its greatest dimension that must be carried in a manner that is hidden from public view in normal wear of clothing except when needed for self-defense, defense of others, and the protection of real or personal property.”

          So even temporary (accidental) exposure is okay, and printing certainly is. SLED (South Carolina Law Eenforcement Division) has confirmed this. No one has ever been arrested for “printing” in South Carolina.

          To preempt you on this, I’ll cite Florida and Texas as well as people routinely say printing is illegal there. It’s not.

          Florida

          790.053 Open carrying of weapons.— (1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

          Texas

          Section 46.035, (1) (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder’s person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Danny –

          The Florida provision is rather recent.

        3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          The Florida provision is rather recent.

          And how does that make a difference?

      2. avatar Mike_M says:

        Texas is another one…

        1. They changed that law- an accidental exposure can no longer cause you legal trouble. Printing is a bit frowned upon socially, though.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Texas is another one…

          No, it’s not. How do people get these laws wrong so much? See my post above with cites for SC, Texas, and Florida.

        3. avatar Steve Day says:

          @Danny Griffin – In 2013, the Texas congress passed several pro-firearm bills, including:

          SB 299 : Section 1[A]: Amended the Texas Penal Code by changing the language from “fail to conceal” to “intentionally displays” (in plain view of another person in a public place).

          Prior to this it was an offense to fail to conceal a handgun and people were arrested/charged for it.

          SB 299, Section 1[H] added provision for the use of “force” alongside deadly force – allowing people who are threatened to legally brandish their concealed firearm.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          @Danny Griffin – In 2013, the Texas congress passed several pro-firearm bills, including…

          I know.

    3. It was a metaphor. Any analysis of the facts in the story distracts from the point that gun rights should be no less protected than any civil right. Debate that point and that point alone but don’t get caught up in whether or not this actually happened. One fact is…he is gay. Use of the word “fabulous” proves that.

  6. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    Since I live in Florida there are 2 things to note about how and where I can/will open carry:

    1: Gun Free Zones have no power of law in many businesses (malls, theaters, restaurants, etc.)

    2: I HAVE to conceal carry, by law. If I try to open carry and I’m not on my way to the lake to fish with a pole in hand I can kiss my freedom goodbye.

    Depending on how I carry (typically it’s a pocketed .380 in a sleeve) there is no chance of an employee at any of these places asking me to leave. I will continue to go to those places and hell maybe even send them anonymous emails about my practice and background to make them change their minds about the practice. “Hey I’ve been going to you places for X year and haven’t killed anyone yet. Can you trust me, already?”

  7. avatar Paul53 says:

    Maybe people who don’t honor The Constitution need to be singled out. So high and mighty they are (as Yoda would say) yet they are really being un-American. Let’s start calling it for what it is!

    1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      Hell, the liberals who hate guns would probably consider being called “un-American” a compliment. They hate the foundations on which this country was built (hard work, personal responsibility, small government, firearm ownership, individualism, etc), so I’m sure they would embrace being called such a thing.

  8. avatar Karl says:

    I’d want to remain anonymous if I wrote something that stupid too.

    1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      Tell, me, what’s stupid about it? You’re one of those morons who thinks homosexuality is a mortal sin, aren’t you? Do you people genuinely not see the massive disconnect with that? “I should be able to own as many guns of as many type as I want, as long as I don’t hurt others with them. As long as other people aren’t being hurt, what business is it of theirs if I want to own 10 full auto, suppressed SBR’s with drum mags and grenade launchers?” (a sentiment I agree with). But then you turn around and say, “Homosexuality is wrong! What happens between consensual adults behind closed doors doesn’t effect me in any way and is thus none of my business, but it’s a horrible, immoral practice that should be banned immediately.”

      How can you possibly justify that disparity?

      1. avatar Jack in the Crack says:

        “I’d want to remain anonymous if I wrote something that stupid too.”

        Seriously, dude, where in the hell did you get homophobia from that comment?

      2. avatar Jim R says:

        Boy, that escalated quickly.

      3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        I don’t know of anyone who believes homosexuality should be banned, in the sense that it should be a criminal act and police should go door to door rooting it out.

        I do know of a great many people, however, who oppose the current tide of pro-homosexuality that forces them to hire someone or sell to someone or rent to someone or provide health insurance benefits to or subsidize the social security payments for, despite their objection to the lifestyle.

        All of the “behind closed doors” propaganda goes straight out the window in the real world, where lawsuits imposing real sanctions on you exist for not condoning the lifestyle. Private disagreement is disallowed. Open embrace is mandated. If it really and truly were just a matter of being behind closed doors, no one would care, but it’s not. It’s in people’s faces, in their lives, and in their pocket books, every day, everywhere, and against their will.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Very well said. Good points.

          Funny, too, how a post about carrying, concealed, open, concealed but printing or whatever has now ‘become’ a discussion about homosexuality complete with name calling and insults.

          It would seem, based on observation of this page and others, we don’t get to claim an across-the-board “the anti’s run on emotion, we run on logic.” We have our share of ’emotion’ as well.

      4. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

        Seriously? Addressing the off the wall homosexuality issue that came out of nowhere–you don’t think it’s possible that people believe (because in both the NEW and Old Testament, such behavior is outside God’s law (and it is) that makes one “homophobic?” It doesn’t. All sin is sin, period!

        And making a segue back to 2A rights, you’d better believe in a personal God if for no other reason than you cannot justify natural rights, including RKBA without a Supreme Authority that confers those rights on man. Man cannot confer those rights (well, not and actually BE rights–because the authority that gives can take) and they cannot exist a priori just because we say so.

        No God, no rights! And existing as he does (this is an article of faith obviously) He certainly has the authority to establish the rules as to what sin is–but man is wholly rebellious to His authority, and I suspect many people who think they are good (and positively NO ONE is good other than the one, Adonai, who was nailed to a tree) are going to be unpleasantly surprised.

        That should stir the pudding a bit!

        v/r

        SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
        Molon Labe
        Qui tacet consentit
        Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
        Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> because in both the NEW and Old Testament, such behavior is outside God’s law (and it is) that makes one “homophobic?” It doesn’t. All sin is sin, period!

          It doesn’t matter whether homophobia is an article of religious belief or not, and where that belief comes from. Christians (the ones that take their scriptures seriously) are homophobic, and so are Muslims. For a different example, many “White Power” guys are homophobic for non-religious reasons.

          >> and they cannot exist a priori

          Of course they can exist a priori. Your own God does, by your own account, why other things should be any different?

  9. avatar Hannibal says:

    One cannot change their racial makeup. One can choose whether to carry a gun.

    If someone doesn’t want my business because I choose to be able to defend myself I walk away.

    1. avatar JasonMfromSoDakota says:

      This logic sounds straight out of the anti-gun, knowledge deficient handbook. You are saying that it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against one group of free American citizens, because they are exercising their constitutionally protected means of self-defense and it offends you. You are allowing yourself to be fooled about what liberty truly is by saying that you choose to take your business to a gun friendly environment. You are not willfully and freely choosing to not frequent an anti-gun establishment, instead you are being told at the door your kind is not welcome here. When you are being forced, that is because you have limited options to change the outcome, to go patronize another establishment because the management is discriminating who to serve based on the customer’s personal beliefs and physical appearance. Unfortunately some gun owners lack the moral conviction and intestinal fortitude to fight for their rights like the brave souls of the civil rights movement. Imagine if the Americans at the diner counters in the 60’s said its my free choice, with no outside factors, that I can’t eat in this White Only cafe with my fellow countrymen and just accepted that as law. Rights of the citizens are supposed to be protected from the government and corrupt tyrants by the constitution, but every now and then a righteous fight is needed from the people to restore the honorable peace.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        I believe in property rights.

        My position is at least more concise than whatever you were trying to say.

        1. avatar JasonMfromSoDakota says:

          “One cannot choose their racial make up. One can choose to carry a gun.” This is a blanket statement that tries to justify that some rights are better than others and more deserving of protections. As Americans we are all supposed to be held accountable to the same protections under the constitution. I must have missed the part that said private business owners can suspend the bill of rights when the see fit to. If a Private business owner is not intending to provide access and services to the general public then by all means the can make unconstitutional rules that apply to paying, consenting customers. Now if a business is to be open to and dependent upon the constant flow of random people entering through unsecured doors they can’t deny the constitutional right of the public to self-defense. Private Business Property rights don’t trump the natural right to self-defense of the citizens.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          You also missed that the Bill of Rights constrains the government and not business owners. You do not have the right to bear arms in my home or business.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          For once in my life, I agree with Hannibal.

          “You also missed that the Bill of Rights constrains the government and not business owners. You do not have the right to bear arms in my home or business.”

    2. avatar Alpo says:

      People “choose” their religion or lack thereof, too.
      You ok with business banning Christians/Hindus/Atheists?

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    As an OFWG with a black wife for many years I can relate. But I don’t take s##t from anyone. I also don’t seek approval…but I have that from my God. If someone gives me a hard time they not only lose my business but I make it MY business that they lose THEIR business. And I have a big mouth…

    1. avatar Tomyironmane says:

      If she married you, I doubt she’s the “meek and silent” type, and your wife knows how to unleash her own special brand of hell too. Good on you both.

  11. avatar Ben says:

    “……don’t I deserve to have all of the privileges of “normal” people?” Don’t you really mean “entitled”? When you signed on in this life, were you given a guarantee that life would be fair? Suck it up and go on with your life – just like the rest of us have to do when life deals us a bad hand. We all meet people who don’t like us – for whatever reason. Live with it.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Oh, sweet Christ! THANK YOU!

      It’s a sadday wen the “OFWG” crowd is entitled.

      And yes, I say this expecting that the autho is gay, black, female, muslim, insert some other “protected” minority in here….

      Suck it the f*ck up, we all have a tough row. It’s only what you make it.

  12. avatar pod says:

    Most people I know in Florida who carry operate under the “concealed is concealed” ethos. The No Weapons Allowed signs don’t have the weight of law around here, unless you choose to make a ruckus about it if you are “made”. There’s no 30.06 statute around here.

    IKEA is famous for their No Guns sign. So say you go into IKEA, and some store employee “makes” you and asks you to leave, you have to. If you don’t, the cops are called and it gets messy from there.

    Poster BradN has a great insight though. The antis aren’ t taking this to the courts and legislative halls, they are taking it to the streets, as it were. I think about it, and I agree, the antis want to make firearms ownership socially unacceptable, so the “problem” will sort itself out, or firearms ownership will be in the same class as swingers’ clubs and BDSM dungeons, i.e. it’s legal, but no one goes around proclaiming it. Gun ranges will have covered parking and discreet entrances and only be open from 9 PM til 6 AM. Rumors will abound about Bob in Accounting being “one of those kinky gun guys”.

    Actually, all kidding aside, I’d love to have access to a range late at night!

    The seeds of that have been planted for awhile. The younger generation (30 and under) lean left and anti. Unless the gun is in a video game of course.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “The younger generation (30 and under) lean left and anti. Unless the gun is in a video game of course.”

      And that is the key here. The first person shooter games are played by a large number of the youths, female as well as male. In these games, the guns are tools to win the game, nothing more. This inoculates them to anti-propaganda.

      Another thing to consider is the natural rebellion of youth. I can tell you the latest generation is getting quite cynical of big government overreach, thanks to Snowden and the NSA. Add to that the reflex to reject their parent’s politics.

      I am confident a fresh crop of Libertarian attitudes are being cultivated with this current generation.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Yes, millennials are turning off to Obama. But they’re still suckers for a good “hope and change” line of bullsh!t. If it’s not Obama, it’ll be some other left-wing moonbat who feeds it to them. And they’ll swallow it hook, line and sinker, because said moonbat is “cool” or supports free dope or something.

        Critical thinking is as extinct as the dodo.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          They’ve been raised to think the government and society is obligated to care for them. Obama didn’t shake that conviction; rather instead they think he’s just incompetent at delivering the goodies, or a liar.

          Millenmials will be a problem in the voting booth until/unless they kick their entitlement mentality, which was carefully cultivated by the school system and entertainment media.

        2. avatar Jake Tallman says:

          Some of us will, sure. But I’ve talked to enough people in my age group to know that the stereotype of idealistic, left-leaning young people seems to be dying. Are some of us dumbasses who are suckers for slogans that look good on Twitter? Absolutely, but it doesn’t seem to me that that portion is any bigger than it is with the rest of the general population. If anything, it may be slightly smaller. Millennials, as a generation, are definitely leaning towards libertarianism.

          Frankly, I have pretty high hopes for the future of our gun rights. I’m a gamer, and I’m also a hardcore airsoft player. And I’ve met a surprising number of people who grew up in the suburbs, raised on leftist propaganda, etc. Then they got into first person shooter video games. From there, they took an interest in the sport of airsoft. And from airsoft, they got into shooting real steel.

          I’m not saying everybody in my generation does this, but airsoft is growing rapidly, and I’ve met enough former “codsofters” at the many games I’ve attended (whose airsoft games prompted an interest in firearms) to have reasonably high hopes for the future, despite the utter insanity with which our public schools treat anything even tangentially related to firearms.

        3. avatar pod says:

          Moonbat is my new word of the week. Awesome.

          The below respondents make a valid point and give me hope, too, in that not all is lost. If someone under 30 wants to fire a real live gun, I’ll be the first to step up and show them the basics, and then turn them over to a real instructor. The key here isn’t freezing them out because they are moonbats, the key is to reach out to them and catch them before they go over the line into frenzied moonbattery.

          People rip on airsoft, but in some states, that’s all they can get without breaking 30 different laws. And if airsoft sparks an interest in the real thing, then airsoft away. I know plenty of people who come from “Up North” (I live in Florida) and one of the first things they want to do when they get here is go shooting. And, if they move here, they often want to get their CWFL in short order, too. The ones moving for the life we lead in the free states outnumbers the moonbats (oh there’s that word again) looking to make Florida into the Sixth Borough.

          And as far as lifestyle, I don’t care what someone does in their spare time, if they want to learn how to shoot, I’m all for it. The more diverse our shooting and firearms culture is, the better it gets. White, black, yellow, green, purple, red, gay, straight, fat, thin, upside down, if someone wants to purchase a gun and learn how to use it properly, then we should do everything possible to accommodate them. As a matter of fact, I think anyone who is from a discriminated group should be armed. Hate crimes would go way down if the victims were able to respond with deadly force.

          People are often surprised to find I own and carry. I’m not a stereotypical gun owner. I work in entertainment, build web applications, and my “side job” is art-related. But I also respect and embrace the right to keep and bear arms and self defense. Hell, politics aside, when you are driving around with thousands of dollars worth of cameras, you should be carrying a gun. They aren’t going to steal your Canon when you have a cannon pointed at them.

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “I’m not a stereotypical gun owner. “

          That’s the problem with stereotypes.

      2. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

        Most of my peers tend to like shooting and/or own guns, and I run with a fairly earthy hipster type of crowd at times. They are definitely more libertarian than they like to admit, but mostly they are fed up with a system that seems to be run by egotistical nut jobs on both sides of the aisle. I live in Texas though, so that might be part of it.

    2. avatar Royal Tony says:

      I disagree. May be true for some simps.. But teaching my girl to play shooter games has led to me teaching her to be a shooter. And like many others have experienced its a hell of a lot more fun in real life. It’s true a lot of fools out there get their opinions from clowns like bill maher or john stewart but its not all of them.

  13. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    To me is doesn’t matter who or what someone is. The second amendment applies to ALL Americans. And so do the rest of the constitution. Along with a private citizen in their privatly owned business having the right to refuse service to anyone. However in some states they are not allowed to tell gun owners that they can not be there. Just refuse to sell to them. As well as anyone for any reason.

  14. avatar Anon says:

    Sorry, I’m as pro-2nd and libertarian as they come, but I would side with the store owner. If they don’t want you money that’s their business. As long as the law isn’t involved in preventing you from going in, its the store owner’s choice. Write a letter. Explain that you were refused and went elsewhere to spend your dollars. Explain that you won’t return until the policy changes. Explain what happened to your neighbors. Show them that refusing our dollars isn’t in their best interest.

    1. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

      So you think it is OK for them to refuse to sell to black people? Asian people? Jewish people? Women?

      The point is that choosing carry for self defense in a completely legal manner is a civil right, and descrimination against those who do is no more moral or acceptable than descrimination based on race, creed or sex.

      1. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

        Yes they should be able to discriminate, it’s there property. How long do you think a business would stay in business in today’s world if they put no blacks or Jews signs in the window? Plus, all they have done is freed up a business opportunity for someone else who isn’t a racist a-hole.

        1. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

          Absolutely correct. THAT would be a free society! THAT would be property rights, constrained not by heavy-handed laws, but by a free market!

          I give you a gold star sent to from John Galt! 😉

          SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
          Molon Labe
          Qui tacet consentit
          Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
          Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

      2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        If it is a privately run business, I have no problem with them being Anti-Asian. I’ll just take my business elsewhere and let all my friends and co-workers know about it. It’s that easy.

  15. avatar Mediocrates says:

    No, it doesn’t. I am all about the person.

  16. avatar Dave says:

    This article is a mess.

  17. avatar Charles says:

    the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is a ambiguous statement to begin with. it states that “bearing arms” is somehow different than “owning” arms- the point here is that no one would contest the notion of self defense- however, if we are talking about open carry- that “may” be for self defense, but in many circles, is considered “get shot first” carry because you are advertising the gun. So in that realm, it doesnt provide much deterrence if someone is a serios adversary- because they will be doing everything possible to conceal their intentions.

    If one has a tangible risk factor necessitating the carrying of a firearm, I cannot see how OPEN carrying it is going to provide more security- the only time one sees PSC’s open carrying is if they are carrying long guns as well as sidearms. if they are not carrying long arms, they are likely not brandishing handguns unless their principal is in direct contact with danger.

    common sense goes very far here- and to advertise being armed in a stupid political landscape only causes more retarded restrictions.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      open carry…is considered “get shot first” carry

      I hate it when that happens.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        Or it could be considered “not get shot at all” because the criminal in question weighed the risk vs the reward of the armed would be victim and felt it wasn’t worth it.

        Pros & Cons.

        Why target a victim who you know is armed, when you could target one who may not be, or one you know who isn’t at all.

    2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      “get shot first”

      Citations please.. Because aside from open carriers with badges being shot because they have badges, I’m pretty sure everybody who doesn’t call open carriers chipotle ninjas thinks you’re a jackass…

    3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “open carry … is considered “get shot first” carry”

      Prove it. Data please.

      Meme fail.

    4. avatar Sock Monkey says:

      “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is a ambiguous statement to begin with. it states that ‘bearing arms’ is somehow different than ‘owning’ arms-”

      Bearing and owning are indeed different. Bearing doesn’t imply ownership; it just means you’re carrying it.

    5. avatar Excedrine says:

      Except that it’s the “right to keep and bear Arms” [emphasis mine]. There’s no ambiguity there. Nor is there any ambiguity in “shall not be infringed”.

      Gun-grabbing lunatics artificially added this so-called “ambiguity” — and all by their lonesome mind you — for the simple, sole, and express purpose of pushing their sexist, racist, anti-rights, and anti-Humanist agenda.

  18. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    Don’t ever do business with those fools and tell your friends about that dump. A new Chipotle opened near me recently, and I’ll never spent a penny in that COMMIE grease pit. I’m doing my best to avoid doing business with the evil gun grabbers. They still have plenty of other good little sheep to shear, and I’m sure they don’t need my money.

    1. avatar Jim R says:

      I spoke to the manager of the local Chipotle. He knew of the “official” company policy. His words: “As long as you’re not waving it around like an idiot, I don’t care.” Good enough for me.

    2. avatar Nimda007 says:

      We have a Chipotle opening in my town very soon and I plan on carrying there every time I go. I enjoy their food and we have few enough restaurants here that I am sick of eating at so…

      I have been to 2 other Chipotles and have not seen a sign at either one and wonder if this one will post a sign. Also, in my area, I have never heard of anyone having any issues with carrying, concealed or open. Most of the time I see open carry, the biggest reaction I see is maybe someone saying “hey look at that” and then going on with their business.

  19. avatar Chauncey Labonza says:

    Unlike being gay or being black, carrying a gun is a choice. With that fact established, the comparison to bigotry is fatally flawed and it renders the sentiment of the author moot.

    And if the author is in fact gay or a minority, you’d think he’d be able to tell the difference, so one should question the authenticity of the conveniently anonymous author.

    It’s legal to go shirtless. No shirt? No service.
    It’s legal to go shoeless. No shoes? No service.
    It’s legal to carry a gun. Gun? No service.

    That’s the right of the property owner/business manager.

    1. avatar Sock Monkey says:

      “Unlike being gay or being black, carrying a gun is a choice. With that fact established, the comparison to bigotry is fatally flawed and it renders the sentiment of the author moot.”

      The idea that being “gay” is not a choice does not fall within the realm of settled fact. It is an opinion, supported by little to no evidence.

      In any case, store ownership should have the right to refuse service to anyone, whether chosen behavior, or otherwise. No one has a right to expect others to serve them.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Shirtlessness and shoelessness are legal in general, but some might argue they’re banned in restaurants per local health codes. Perhaps. I don’t know.

      That always struck me as specious and apocryphal, given that the strip clubs often offer a buffet table right there in the showroom (or so I’ve heard).

      Even with pasties, though, I’m not confident there’s enough coverage there separating the ariola from the ravioli. And don’t even get me started on the lack of prophylaxis offered by a g-string.

  20. avatar Bob72 says:

    I support a registry of companies that are gun free zones. Gun free zones are dangerous places where criminals can do bad things with impunity, and I would prefer to know where these places are so I can avoid them. It would be good for the criminals to know where these gun free zones are, for I want the criminals to go where I am not.

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      In California, gas stations and other businesses are required by law to post signs warning customers of the presence of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer and/or birth defects. As virtually all mass shootings have occurred in so-called gun-free zones, I propose a requirement for signage reading something like this:

      This establishment has been identified by the State of California as having an increased risk of injury or death. As a designated gun-free zone, it is an attractive venue for disturbed individuals to carry out an attack on innocent individuals with little chance of encountering armed resistance. Patrons are advised that begging for one’s life, throwing cell phones at an active shooter and pretending to be dead are only marginally successful tactics, and they can expect any armed rampage to continue until the eventual arrival of law enforcement. Good luck.

      Heck, I would even be willing to let them throw in a little propaganda about magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

    2. avatar GunGuyInNC says:

      If your traveling to or live in North Carolina consult this list:
      http://grnc.org/scripts/findhrr.php?sort=merchant

  21. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

    You don’t have a right to shop at their store. It’s their business, their property and they should be able to do whatever they wish with it. If that means refusing service to anyone for any reason they see fit, that’s their right (or at least it should be, without the government sticking its nose into everything). It doesn’t matter what their reasons are, or what you think they are. If a business didn’t want to serve me because of my looks or features or whether or not I had a gun on my hip, that’s their choice. In fact, I was refused service at a restaurant once for wearing flip flops. I guess they had a ‘no flip-flops’ policy, which was fine. As a consequence I took my money to a different restaurant and rewarded them with my patronage. So if a business is willing to refuse you service, for whatever reason, why would you feel bad about it? At least now you know which store to avoid. Would you rather shop there and spend your money, while they secretly loathed you? If they don’t like ‘your type’ or ‘your kind’ then I think it’s best when they admit to it openly. Makes it much faster and easier to turn around and go shop elsewhere. Free market works both ways. Consumers discriminate all the time. Businesses should be free to do so as well.

  22. avatar Accur81 says:

    I’m a straight, white lean dude with little sense of style. I support your right to carry, but property rights trump your carry rights. So I would go out of my way not to patronize a business that is anti-2A. However, I don’t judge you if that isn’t feasible. And, in I also carry in plenty of places that “request” I keep my hardware at home. Concealed means concealed.

    Besides, if there aren’t metal detectors at all entrances, they aren’t serious about their “no weapons” policy.

    1. avatar XDs 45 says:

      Me too, exactly. Except the lean part.

  23. avatar Billythorn says:

    “Boo hoo hoo! I can’t dictate the terms for someone else’s private property! Therefore my rights are being infringed or something!”

    Seriously? Is this what the gun rights movement has come to? Thinking that our preferences should overrule the private property rights of others? Get over yourselves. You’re as bad as the other side. Private property trumps all. If you don’t like it, don’t go in there. Or go to Cuba.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      No, this isn’t what it’s come to..

      Unfortunately, too many in our group have been all about being inclusive and whatnot. So instead of getting folks that want to think for themselves we get nancies that get their feelings hurt.

      Welcome to taking responsibility for yourselves, b*tches. It sucks sometimes. Suck it up and spend your money elsewhere, or leave your piece in the car if you can’t bear to be without whatever it is this asshole is selling.

    2. avatar foggy says:

      “Private property trumps all”, so you could murder anyone who entered your property with impunity?

      Fake libertarians like yourself wouldn’t last five minutes if your Randian “paradise” ever became reality.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        No, murder is a crime. The Bill of Rights applies to the government. If you say something sufficiently stupid in my house, you’ll be asked to leave. I would expect the same response if I verbally disrespected a homeowner or a business owner.

      2. avatar Sock Monkey says:

        Murder violates one’s right to the private property of one’s body.

        But no right trumps another right. You just don’t have a right to be in someone else’s store, so they can tell you to get out, if they don’t like your gun, or necktie, or choice of musical accompaniment.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        You are a distraction and nothing more. Come back when you have something meaningful to add to the discussion instead of strawman arguments.

      4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Foggy isn’t raising a strawman argument at all. He is responding to people that keep claiming property owners have infinite property rights which trump everything. And Foggy stated an example that obviously dispels the notion of infinite property rights.

        I finally thought of the perfect example which absolutely clarifies that a moral and just society must have limits on property rights. Suppose your toddler wanders onto a neighbor’s property and your toddler is physically unable for some reason to wander back. Unfortunately for you, the neighbor refuses to allow you to come onto his/her property and retrieve your toddler. Since that property owner has infinite property rights, you are royally screwed, and will never get your toddler back, right?

        Property rights have nothing to do with property and everything to do with human dignity. It violates another person’s human dignity if a stranger comes along and confiscates their property against their will. That act tells the property owner that they are garbage, that they have no value, that have no dignity. What we are trying to prevent is treating people as garbage. It is about people, not property. And in my example where the property owner refuses to allow the parent to retrieve their wayward toddler, that property owner is treating the toddler like garbage.

        Anyone who views other people as garbage is a threat to all human kind. Property rights end when their exercise treats other people as garbage.

        1. avatar Mike_M says:

          Except that rights don’t protect you in committing a crime.
          The freedom of speech doesn’t allow you to yell fire in a theater. Your property rights don’t allow you to imprison or kidnap a child.

        2. avatar Billythorn says:

          Property rights end when their exercise treats other people as garbage.

          I’ll do you the favor of ignoring your ridiculous toddler example and address the ridiculous quote above instead. First of all, my property rights don’t end when exercising them treats other people as garbage. Aside from being feelgood nonsense, it’s subjective. Who gets to determine what “garbage” is? And do you really think we should be legislating morality – which is exactly what you’re advocating. “Treat people nicely or lose your rights.” Um, no.

          Each and every one of us has the right to treat others as garbage if we so choose. Once it crosses over into a criminal act (and violates the actual rights of others), that right has hit its limit. If I think you’re an idiot, I have every right to tell you so without you getting the government or anyone else involved. And if I tell you to GTFO of my shop with your OC rifle or toy poodle or whatever, you’d better GTFO. You have no right to use my private property in ways that I don’t approve, just as I have no right to use your private property in ways you don’t approve. That still applies even if your panties get all bunched up because I don’t agree with your gun or other fetishes.

          A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Before you start making demands about respecting your rights, you might want to investigate the limitations of those rights.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Billythorn,

          By all means humor me and address my toddler example. Tell me how the parent ever recovers their toddler without “violating” the property owner’s property rights.

          And let us up the ante. Suppose a neighbor sees a dead human body on a property owner’s property. There is zero evidence of foul play … and absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the property owner harmed the dead person. But because property rights are infinite, the property owner has the right to refuse to let anyone on his/her property to recover the body or investigate the cause of death, right?

          Everyone likes to say, “Don’t be ridiculous, property rights do not allow a property owner to commit a violent crime.” And why is that? Because committing a violent crime is a hostile act against a human being which is inherently worth way more than property. Property can be replaced or repaired, a human life cannot. Before you jump all over people about infinite property rights, think before you jump.

          Don’t get me wrong. I am not claiming that a property owner has to allow guests to do anything they want. What I am telling you is that property rights end when they will cause a guest to suffer bodily harm or die.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Property rights end long before that.

  24. avatar Jim R says:

    I’m not going to raise a fuss about it. If they don’t want my business I’ll take my money elsewhere. They are not the only purveyor of whatever it is I went in there for.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      I see your point and don’t necessarily disagree, but I do think it merits asking the question why they, such business owners, are taking a stand on bearing arms.

      I think that is the larger point that gets lost in these discussions. WHY do they assume doing business with a carrying customer is something they don’t what to do? Why do they assume “carry = bad guy?”

      That’s the problem we need to address, and that’s where we need to stop letting the anti’s set the language.

  25. avatar Lee says:

    Suck it up and stop being such pussies. I swear men of today are worthless losers. Trying to equate discrimination of concealed carriers to the struggles of being black, Mexican, or gay is laughable. You dont choose to be black. Your just black. You choose to carry. And if a businessman doesnt want you around because of your choices, go somewhere else and let everyone know that businessman doesnt support gun owners. You want to know the definition of a weak man, the guy that has to be liked by everybody. Seriously, grow a pair people.

    This article is a joke and sounds like some fake made up story to prove a point. This is the kind of article a feminist writes on jezebel. TTAG need to seriously find some new writers. These kind of filler articles and the daily “omg active shooter!” alerts are a joke.

    1. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

      The right to keep and bear arms IS a natural, pre-existing right. GOVERMENT under the Bill of Rights is (in spite of horrendous, unconstitutional rulings at all levels of the judiciary) is WHOLLY prohibited from regulating the keeping and baring of arms. BUT private property owners should (again notwithstanding ridiculous rulings) be able to discriminate against ANYONE for any or even no reason. And if that private property is also a business, they can take the fallout from their choices. But never EVER suggest that it is not on the same scale as other civil rights–it is singularly the most important of them all. Disarmed we are all of us fodder for tyrants.

      SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
      Molon Labe
      Qui tacet consentit
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
      Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

  26. avatar fuque says:

    I own my own small business, and I’ll damn well dictate who I choose to do business with..
    If Anti’s wore badges I would refuse service to them.. and if it was illegal to do that I would still deny them service id just lie about why…and thats just the way we do it here..I own it, it’s mine, I can do what I want.

  27. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I think we’ve gone way too far in extending the concept of civil rights to private actions. It’s private property and the owners should be allowed to exclude gays, blacks, the handicapped, firearms carriers, redheads, lefties, fans of Michael Bolton, people who say “YOLO!”, or whomever else they choose, just as you are allowed to exclude anyone you want for any reason or no reason from your own home.

    It’s a free market and the owners will be punished economically for their prejudices. If they’re willing to pay the price in customers and good employees foregone, all to indulge their bigotry, then so be it. The market will punish them more swiftly and severely than the courts, anyway, as their competitors swoops in and seize business without bias.

    And don’t anyone come back with “But it’s an establishment open to the public!” So what? That only matters…..because you say it matters. If you accept it as a postulate, then of course that’s valid, but nobody ever proved the postulate in the first place. It’s like saying “because I said so”, which is hardly a forceful rejoinder.

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      As one business owner to another, I would point out that the courts almost certainly will not agree with you, and the forceful rejoinder you refer to could very well arrive in the form of a large jury award.

      This is sincere advice meant to be helpful.

      1. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

        They probably would, but just because the government courts hand down a decree does not mean they are necessarily right about the issue when it comes to natural rights. By the general political leanings of this site I would bet a lot of people here aren’t saying to themselves, “well the Supreme Court says obamacare is constitutional so therefore they’re right and I am wrong because government decisions are never wrong.”

  28. avatar Darryl says:

    Maybe its just my inner a**hole coming out but I think places that desire you to NOT carry a firearm on their property should be held liable for your security & protection while you are there. After all they are saying with words & their lil signs that they do not want you to be capable of protecting/defending your self while you are there. So obviously they are assuming the social responsibility of doing that for you! A few restaurants, gas stations, & banks being sued by victims of crime for failure to so should start a Legal wave of Terror the other direction from the way its always been. All because they put a sign in the window telling criminals “Patrons Have Been Disarmed For Your Safety”. After all that says to me they are assuming responsibility for your safety & well being right there!!

    1. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

      No they should not be held liable for your safety. If they post a no guns sign and you enter anyway without a firearm, you have made the decision on the margin that your safety is less important than whatever good or service you went into the store to buy. You can’t always have it all, and people face tradeoffs.

  29. avatar GuyFromV says:

    I don’t know where all this thinking that Millennials are the biggest video game-playing generation or that the FPSs of today impress upon players’ (posited in this thread) younger minds an unreal or fantastic aura and are possibly detrimental to the future of the 2A. Last statistics I saw about gamer demographics was, in the US, the average age of PC/console gamers was 31…but the largest demographic of gamer age was 37+ (I believe around 40%). I was born during the early 70s, as were most of my friends: I am firmly Generation X… as are many “friends” I stay in regular contact with over the Internet (70s-early 80s). I grew up a gamer in the truest sense of the word, as did my friends and as are 80% of my acquaintances I know. I can count on 0 fingers any of those guys and gals who have a warped or unrealistic idea about guns, even if a few are somewhat not gung-ho about the 2A or even care much about it. if there is any factor that has driven Millennials to the state that they have in their mind about firearms, one extreme or the other, which seems to be the case a lot with a good deal of them…video gaming is NOT that factor driving it. I feel that Gen X is firmly entrenched in the culture of video games and computers for that matter, we were the first generation to grow up and watch the whole gaming culture evolve…followed closely by the Internet. The only difference in the next generation’s perspective on such matters is that all of this game and digital culture was firmly in place and several iterations down the road when they were introduced to it…that could be the criterion that puts the fly in the ointment on the different way they seem to approach these matters: a bit more lightly and a lot more recklessly (IMHO at least).

    …Now the culture of entitlement that predominates their mindset, the “everyone is special” idea and their way of keeping a mind so open that their brains spill out…that is something that neither I, nor any of my peer group (even those that are Millennials themselves..they see it in their own peer group and question it as well), can really account for.

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      No paragraphs = bad.

      Wall of text = TL;DR

      1. avatar GuyFromV says:

        GTFO

  30. avatar Tomyironmane says:

    I see it as quite simple. Rights go hand in hand with responsibilities. We have a second amendment because it is every citizen’s responsibility to defend themselves. There’s no one else who can do it, not even the police (Don’t believe me? There have been at least two cases before the Supreme court where it ruled both times that the police cannot be held responsible for your safety EVEN AFTER THEY ARRIVE ON SCENE.).

    So! The citizen has been held ultimately responsible for their own safety, and their rights to have access to the necessary and most effective tools to be held responsible for their safety has been recognized by the Constitution of the United States.

    If you abrogate, infringe, or suspend those rights, you have taken away the citizen’s most effective tools for self defense and therefore have taken the duty of defending those citizens from threats upon yourself, and SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR FAILURES, in civil and/or criminal court.

  31. avatar FoRealz? says:

    Meh.

    Civil rights work all the way round. A store owner or a private property owner should be able to refuse service or entry to anyone for any reason or no reason. Doesn’t matter and I don’t care. If they don’t want me there I’ll take my dollars elsewhere and put the word out if I’m feeling butt hurt about it.

    See, if you get into this game thinking you have a right to have access to someone’s private property or to be served at someone’s privately owned business, and if your “right” is violated you’re going to involve the law or the court, you can get into all kinds of pickles.

    Like, being forced by the government to bake cupcakes for or to take wedding photos of a gay couple, if you have an objection to that. Or being forced to do all manner of things. Maybe a court orders you to allow bums to sleep and piss in your doorway, dunno.

    When you run and tell teacher about the meanies who are hurting your fweelings, you might not like the solution. Stop being a cry baby and just go elsewhere.

    I don’t understand how so many gun guys seem to think that their second amendment rights trump private property rights. They don’t. You have first amendment rights too, but if you peaceably assemble on my private land without my permission, or you’re in my place of business and start shouting swear words, I’m going to throw your ass out.

    If I don’t want you walking around my back yard or in my shop carrying rifles, I’m going to throw your ass out.

    You can exercise all your rights, all you want, out in the public square or on your own land or in your own business. If you’re in my place, it’s my way or the highway.

    It really is that simple, and if you don’t like it or your feelings are hurt, there’s the door sweetheart.

    1. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

      This x 1000

    2. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

      Correct. On my property, I let in whom i please and they can’t pray, or speak their political will unless I allow it–If they do and I don;t like their pray or their speech generally, I can kick them out. On my land, its my rules. If I visit you; its your rules.

      This is easy peasy people!

      SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
      Molon Labe
      Qui tacet consentit
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
      Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

  32. avatar libtard says:

    I am socially liberal. Whatever that means. Because of that in one sentence Mr. Tallman calls into question my patriotism, my work ethic, my attitude concerning government, whether I am personally responsibility, etc, etc, etc. Many years ago I took an oath. I volunteered for service in Vietnam where I served in the infantry and came home with a belly full of steel and a disability. I grew up in a working class home. I watched my parents get up every day and go to work. Sometimes they were so sick or hurt they could hardly get out of bed but they got up and went to work. I carry that work ethic with me and have been a laborer all my life. I pay my bills and mind my own business. I would welcome small, effective and nonintrusive government. I accept that defending myself and my family is my personal responsibility and to that end own firearms and carry either a G-36 or a Walther PPS daily. I wish a good day to all.

  33. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

    So here’s an idea that I’ve been hashing about with some morons elsewhere:

    “Police should not be exempt from any laws related to gun prohibition, except in the pursuit of their official duties.”

    That is (to use TX for an example), a posted 30.06 sign should prevent police from entering that premises armed, unless they’re engaged in official police business, such as criminal investigation, hot pursuit, official inspections, etc. When on-duty but not performing an official duty specifically related to that premises, or off-duty, they should be required to secure their weapon elsewhere before entering. Police should have no special privileges above and beyond those of other lawful carrying citizens, except when engaged in the aforementioned official business.

  34. avatar Mike_M says:

    I completely support a business’s right to refuse service to anyone for any reason but, the 2nd Amendment addresses the issue for businesses as much as it does for a private individual.
    If you are afraid of gun carriers in your business then you yourself have the right to carry so that you can feel secure. If everyone respected their civic duty and personal responsibility to keep and bear arms (which, accordingly, includes being proficient and safe with firearms) then a business owner would have responsible employees that he/she wouldn’t feel obligated to “protect” by denying their patrons their right to protect themselves.
    An individuals rights and a businesses rights can peacefully coexist.

  35. avatar former water walker says:

    You CANNOT discriminate against anyone for an
    y reason if you have a business open to the public. Private yes. Public no. You can’t discriminate for any reason. If you try the local & feds will f##k you up in short order. The GUN thing yes. Heck just ask the Branch Davidians about private property rights. Start your own state or country-good luck.

  36. avatar BDub says:

    “Does that change how you feel? If so, perhaps you should reflect on your pre-conceptions about groups of people.”

    Perhaps you should reflect on your pre-conceptions about rights of private property owners to set their own rules (even stupid ones)?

    Just sayin’

  37. avatar Mina says:

    so – exactly. It’s all about demonizing / dehumanizing “the other side”; Classic Rules for Radicals move (courtesy of Saul Alinsky)

    It also exposes their real reasons for opposing gun ownership: Fear. Fear of those kinds of people who are able & willing to learn how to manage a firearm and be prepared to use it if necessary. They prefer to simply hope nothing bad ever happens to them than to face their fear of what handling a firearm themselves would represent.

    That is classic r-Selection (courtesy of the Anonymous Conservative http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/how-r-and-k-type-psychologies-affect-societies-and-what-this-means-for-our-political-dialog/)
    video from Davis Aurini https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFWdx4gT0gQ

  38. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    On a lighter note (pardon the pun), the big Open/Concealed discussion in the context of this article just puts to mind chaps and six-shooters on parade during Pride Day in San Francisco.

  39. avatar meandmealone says:

    How did the shop owners know you were armed?
    And even if, so what? Private businesses are still AMERICAN businesses. If they didn’t want to serve you, for whatever reason, so what? Go somewhere else.
    Would it have been any different if they refused you service because you were black? Or gay? And if so, why?
    Us gun owners have made HUGE strides recently. Remember that the next time some anal, middle-aged housewife gives one of you a dirty look. For god’s sake, grow up and stop being so damn sensitive.

  40. avatar publius2 says:

    Welcome Black gay clever-witted reader!

    No, I dont care if you are black gay clever or not, nor do I care if you were mistreated by some nitwit store owner. Boo-frickin’ hoo. Just another idiot- you must have run into many, including in the black, gay, and the progtard think I am more clever than anyone else club.

    Just dont give them any more business. If you were REALLY serious about this why not mention the name?

    Or are you REALLY ragging on all us TTAGrs as being typically OFWG racist red-neck gay-bashers…

    Let me use your own words:
    ” If so, perhaps you should reflect on your pre-conceptions about groups of people.”

  41. avatar MarkPA says:

    I’m genuinely torn by the civil rights issue raised in this thread. Fifty years ago, I probably would have held an absolutist view that a business owner had a right to discriminate against any class of potential customer. My views have changed with the times and I now hold that discrimination against race, color, creed or religion by a “public accommodation” business is a violation of the potential customer’s civil rights. How should I apply my principles to guns?
    If the proprietor’s complaint is about the customer’s muzzle discipline I think the proprietor is within his rights. If his complaint is about the customer’s open carry I’m unable to reach a clear conclusion. If it’s the customer’s concealed carry I’m doubtful that the proprietor’s property right is infringed by the customer’s self-defense right. Should the State make it a crime for a customer to concealed-carry in violation of the proprietor’s policy?
    What is really at stake in the CC case? Is it the proprietor’s “right” to control the presence of a gun on his premises? If so, then should’t this constraint be applied equally to police officers not present in the exercise of official duties (e.g., eating a doughnut)? Perhaps the proprietor is objecting to the customer’s habitual exercise of his constitutional right of self-defense by gun.
    Could a religiously-prejudiced restauranteur refuse service to a customer who preyed over his meal? To a customer wearing a religious symbol? To a customer known to be a believer in a particular religion? What is at stake in each of these religious-rights vs. property-rights conflicts? Is it on-site behavior? Off-site behavior? Or, is it really belief?
    I have a humble suggestion for our society that might help me (and everyone else) begin to sort-out the debate. I propose that we PotG begin wearing buttons/ribbons/bracelets identifying ourselves as gun-owners/-users. In CC States we could wear buttons that simply declare: “I Carry”. We could wear such a button whether we are carrying or not as we enter a proprietor’s business.
    What will be the reaction of hopolphobic proprietors? If we are refused service for wearing our badges of honor then we know that the proprietors are discriminating based upon our adherence to our 2A rights. It’s not (necessarily) because we are carrying. We are being discriminated against on the basis of our beliefs.
    Do these proprietor’s object to patrons wearing badges reading: “I support 1’st Amendment Rights”? “. . . 3’rd Amendment . . . ” etc? No? Well, then, these proprietors are objecting to our exercise of 1’st Amendment rights to express support for 2’nd Amendment rights. I think that I would object to that sort of discrimination.
    Conversely, perhaps proprietors will serve us PotG while wearing our buttons with the same courtesy they show every other customer. Well, then, we could conclude that hopolaphobic proprietors ONLY object to the active exercise of 2A rights on their premises. That would be a different form of discrimination.
    Do these proprietors consent to customers preying, reading, speaking on their premiss? If a customer is not permitted to prey over her meal, read her bible, or discuss politics with a companion then this is on-premisis behavior based discrimination. If our courts (society) supports a restauranteur’s rights to control such behavior on his premises then I would suppose he could likewise prohibit CC on his premises. Conversely, if our courts (society) is repelled by the idea that a restaurateur constrains a customer’s exercise of his 1A rights on his premises then I think I would be left with the feeling that the restauranteur should not constrain a customer for exercising his 2A rights.
    I’m over-simplifying. I’m ignoring the restauranteur’s objection to loud speech just as I’m ignoring his objection to a gun-carrier drinking alcohol. These are arguably distinct on-premisis behaviors. I’m trying to focus clearly on the belief-holding discrimination vs. the physical presence of a gun discrimination.

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