Untitled-1

I took the above picture last night, after being asked to leave Lamberts BBQ restaurant in Austin, Texas. Although I scanned the door for legal 30.06 (no concealed carry) and 30.07 (no  open carry) signs before entering, I missed the cute little graphic banning open carry on the lower part of the door. I walked in with my Wilson on my hip. Before I tell you about my conversation with the manager, some legal clarification . . .

If an armed Texan walks into a business displaying a 30.06 or 30.07 sign, he or she can be charged with a Class C misdemeanor — no notice required. Someone drops the dime on the gun schlepper, the cops show up and issue the armed American what amounts to a ticket. If convicted, a violator would be charged a fine. His or her license to carry would not be revoked.

Regardless of signage (or lack thereof) if an anti-gun establishment asks an open or concealed carrier to leave — either orally or via a written card — and the violator refuses, he or she can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor. If convicted, the gun owner would lose their license to carry for seven years.

So when the Lambert’s manager approached and asked me to leave because of the chi-chi no open carry sign in the window and their policy for same, he was well within his rights to do so. Initially, I made no objection. I simply put my shirt over my gun. Done! Uh no . . .

“You still have to leave and store your gun in your car,” he asserted (nicely).

“But the sign says ‘no open carry,'” I pointed out, confused. “I’m concealed carrying now.”

“Yes,” he agreed, “but now we know you have a gun.” “Wait, you allow concealed carry, right?”

“Yes, but now we know you have a gun,” he repeated.

In other words, Lamberts allows concealed carry as long as they don’t know about it. So if they see a concealed carrier printing, removing his gun in the bathroom, or his shirt rides up too far, he or she is ejected. Because guns.

Again, it’s Lamberts’ right as a private business to set the rules for carrying firearms in their restaurant. I’m not happy about it; I was exercising my natural, civil and Constitutionally protected (against government infringement) right to keep and bear arms. I was a law-abiding customer trying to spend [a relatively large amount of] money in their business, posing no threat to their patrons or staff. Potentially protecting same.

In my mind, I should have been welcome. I wasn’t. So be it. I recommend that all potential customers of Lamberts and other anti-gun rights establishments refuse to reward their prejudice with their patronage. Let that be the unseen sign re: open or concealed carry.

Recommended For You

88 Responses to Austin’s Lamberts Restaurant Highlights The Hypocrisy of Anti-Gun Establishments

  1. They have a right to run their business in a way that does not infringe on the rights of their patrons. A “no guns” sign is no more valid than a “whites only” sign.

    • Dumbest. Comparison. Ever.

      Carrying a firearm is a behavioral choice. Being born a certain race is not.

      Please, get a clue.

      • Bearing arms is a constitutional right. If your business is open to the public, I should not have to give up my rights unless I am disturbing or disrupting other patrons or the ability of the business to conduct said business (loitering). Rude behavior disturbs other people. Carrying a concealed weapon cannot be shown to be a disruptive behavior. There may be some argument about open carry as that may fall under dress code. But if that is so, they can ban someone wearing a Yamaka.

        • A business is private property. They have every moral and Constitutional right to put whatever limits they want on how can be on their property. They can ban guns, gays, Democrats, Muslims, children, etc because it’s THEIR property – just like you have the right to ban such things on your own property.

        • Wrong. Businesses are public accommodations. They don’t have the same rights or rules that you do in your private property home. Rights outside of protected classes (religion, race, sexual orientation) hasn’t been tested in court, though.

        • @Publius

          Sorry bro, a business open to the public is not traditional “private property”. When you hang out your shingle you agree to abide by certain rules.

        • Sorry, Bros, but I said “moral and Constitutional”. I know that goons like you pushed for laws to violate the rights of private businesses because you think your feelings are more important than the rights of business owners.

        • Let me simple it up. It’s called the balancing of freedoms. The “rights” of private business owners do not come at the expense of the rights of everybody else. If you don’t like serving law abiding people, don’t open your business to the public.

        • Pwrserge, it’s about freedom. You seem to have accepted that the government has the right to regulate who you must conduct business with, as a private business. Just because the government says that your private business is now “public space,” doesn’t make it right.

          I believe that government’s only proper role is as an extension of our individual right to defend our lives from attack and our property from theft. When the government starts forcing compliance with other moral or philanthropic ideas outside of that narrow purpose, the government itself begins to engage in attacking our lives, property, and liberty.

          All that to say, I agree that “no guns” and “no whites” signs are no different; I, however, propose that they are both valid on private businesses (even though I think both are morally and logistically wrong).

        • Unfortunately though Goldwater, lost that argument. And the Civil Rights Act also included a provision that essentially trumped the private property rights. Yes, it sucks that it did, because that has been used to further and further restrict business owner rights, but it’s the current law.

        • @Publius

          No, no, no, no, no, and NO! As a business open to the public (businesses with memberships can get away with a bit more), you MUST abide by certain rules of public accomodation. While the right to deny service to anyone for any reason is retained, you can’t say “no cripples” and get away with it OR seek restitution for resultant bad press of your policies (as they would no longer be slander/libel as applicable). If you think you can do whatever then try running an establishment not up to building/electrical/health codes or the ADA. You can not utilize exclusionary or dangerous policies and think that claiming to be a ‘private business’ will save you. As such in this case the business was entirely IN THE WRONG for trying to eject Mr. Farago. I do not know if they are any legal remedies available under TX law (and your piss poor open/concealed protections), but in several states (NV and AL for example) a business has NO right to eject yoi for such behavior as the presence of a firearm alone is not ‘disruptive’ to a business. That is as it should be.

          When we start cherry-picking others’ rights that DO NOT INFRINGE UPON OUR OWN, we become no better than the antis.

          Someone wants to wear a big-ass Obama hopey change cape in my place of business? Fine. Their money is just as good even if I don’t like them. The second they harass other customers, then that is a whole ‘nother matter.

        • Pwrserge, it’s about freedom. You seem to have accepted that the government has the right to regulate who you must conduct business with, as a private business. Just because the government says that your private business is now “public space,” doesn’t make it right.

          Indeed. IF our laws were properly set up, the ONLY difference between an “open-to-the-public” business and completely private property would be that, by default, you’re welcome to enter a business (unless told otherwise), whereas on private property, it’s assumed you aren’t welcome to enter unless specifically invited.

          It’s not a matter of denying you your 2A rights; the business is exercising its right not to admit you. You’re trying to deny them that right, with the rationale being that you’re carrying a gun.

          “But,” you say, “we don’t have ideal laws; businesses are forced to serve certain classes of people.” So? Do two wrongs make a right? Requiring someone to serve gays and gun carriers is MORE WRONG than requiring him to serve gays.

        • @Publius is right about the children as they can be detrimental to the operation of a business, no kids under 6 at a R rated movie or a midnight showing.

        • Belief and behavior are two different things. You can believe what you want. However, if I owned a restaurant and you came in a shouted, “Death to the infidels!” you wouldn’t be there very long. I would eject you not because of your beliefs, but because of your behavior.

          Same deal if you came in without a shirt, or started dropping f-bombs loud enough to be heard. Change your behavior or leave.

      • It’s a bad comparison, but for the wrong reason.
        A private property owner has the right (although it’s infringed in this country) to refuse service based on any criteria he chooses, even a racist one. I for one would prefer it if restaurants could display those signs. I’d rather avoid a restaurant that didn’t want to serve me based on such stupid criteria. And it allows us to know which businesses to boycott.

      • a ‘No Jews’ sign, then.

        You’re fine as long as they don’t know. Once they do, you have to leave.

      • How about we change the sign so it says “Blacks Only”? Think they’d be okay with Shaun King or Rachel Dolezal coming in and asking for service?

    • Unfortunately, the way the law reads, the only people they are forbidden to discriminate against are members of “protected classes”. The rest of us have no recourse other than to take our business elsewhere and encourage our friends to do likewise.

    • You are correct. And I believe that people have the right to free association. And if that means that a business owner wants to refuse to serve blacks, whites, muslims, christians, jews, atheists, men, women, nazis, republicans, democrats, bald people, or children, they should have that right. I, as a consumer, also have the same right of free association and can choose not to frequent such an establishment. It’s the answer to the question of whether a baker should bake a cake for someone whose lifestyle the baker doesn’t condone, whether that lifestyle is homosexual or neo-nazi. The government not allowing free association, whether it’s forced segregation or anti-discrimination, is suppressing rights and causing a backlash and strife in communities and across the states.

    • “A “no guns” sign is no more valid than a “whites only” sign.”

      Not really; a better comparison would be a “No Baptists” sign, since choice is involved.

      But that’s beside the point: the Constitution says “shall not be infringed”, and does not specify “by Congress” or “by government”. It’s the strongest protection in the Bill of Rights, an absolute prohibition against anyone at all imposing their opinions on what a person may do with his/her own body in terms of arms.

      A gun on my person is not on anyone’s property but my own — it’s on my body.

  2. I already boycott places with 30.06 and 30.07 signs. They have the right to ban my Constitutional rights on thier private property and I have the right to not spend my money there and let my pro-gun friends know to avoid it as well. They don’t want to provide security for me and won’t let me have the legal means to defend myself, then they do not deserve my patronage.

    • The point Robert was making seems, though, to be that their sign was NOT a 30-07 sign AND that they asked him to leave even though they DO NOT ‘ban’ concealed carry.

      So, this story has nothing to do with 30-06 or 30-07 signage per se.

  3. I assume they bar open carry vs. concealed because, lord forbid, someone get nervous when they see a gun! So one thought… you could have said “Understood” then walked to your car and back. As long as it was concealed when you came back in, they would have assumed you put it in your car. They would HAVE to assume (not like they can frisk you or escort you to your car). In that case, you are still carrying, and they are none the wiser. 🙂

    • Yes, he could probably have done that. However, he then opens himself up to the potential for another, less-pleasant interaction if they suspect he may have done that. But worse, he would be rewarding their behavior and letting them know that he can be cowed.

      The proper response would be “I was planning on spending over $100 here tonight. You’re telling me that I am not the type of customer you want? Then I will leave.” And then go somewhere else.

      The operative point being — they have to know that they lost business because of their decision.

      • “You’re telling me that I am not the type of customer you want? Then I will leave.” And then go somewhere else.”

        “And, I run arguably the biggest firearms blog on the Internet, so I’ll be more than happy to let all other gun owners know to avoid your business as well.”

        Finished it for you.

    • And then after your meal, outside and in plain view of the restaurant, transition back to open carry, give them a jaunty wave and continue your day. Screw Lambert’s feelings. They deserve to have their gun free zone illusions shattered and their faces rubbed in the pieces. If you want to be a lunatic attracting hotspot stop arseing around and post the State signs.

      • Why would you want to spend your hard-earned dollars there…so they can take a portion of their profits and donate to the Moms or other Bloomberg .org?

        Why patronize a clearly anti-gun establishment? At all?

        • Well in this particular case it would be just be for fun. Being someplace or doing something you are not supposed too. But, I agree with you, boycotting is the prudent thing to do to anti-gun establishments.

  4. They have a right to demand you leave, but they can’t prevent you from reporting your terrible experience with them on Yelp, etc…

    • Or here, which probably has a MUCH higher readership than Yelp, and a readership that would care about such a thing.

  5. As much as I believe in our Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, I also believe in private property rights. Lamberts has the right to ban firearms in the place of business. We as consumers have a right to take our business elsewhere. I don’t agree with Lamberts; therefore, I wouldn’t eat there regardless of the food.

    • So what other constitutionally protected rights can they ban you for? Can they ban you based on religion?

      • Well, let’s see…
        They could set up metal detectors and X-ray machines at the entrance. Unreasonable search? I don’t know, but they could do that.

        If your t-shirt says, “Burn in hell, faggot!” it’s free speech but the owner could tell you to get lost.

        Those are just a few that come to mind.

    • Greg,

      Private property owners have no right to hinder their guests in a way that endangers their guests. Example: a private property owner has no right to remove a guest’s options to escape a fire, even if the private property owner does not want people to use certain options (like a “private” back door). And a private property owner has no right to remove a guest’s options to defend themselves from attack, even if the private property owner does not want people to use certain options (like personal firearms).

      That is the righteous way of things. Unfortunately, our courts refuse to recognize this “because guns”.

    • “Lamberts has the right to ban firearms in the place of business.”

      A bit of problem with your argument in this case is that the law proscribes a very specific way for they to “ban firearms in the place of business.”

      They have not followed that law with respect to Open Carry signage. The sign does not meet the legal requirements.

      Then, in keeping with Rule 2 (SJW’s always double down), they went into full dumbass mode with not letting him stay with it concealed even though they have NO signage there.

      Yes; them asking him to not carry meets the legal requirements as well. But they can’t well fault him (legally) for entering the business since the sign does not serve as proper notice. They’d have to let him enter or physically meet him at the door to legally ask him not to carry there.

  6. No need to argue. Simply say “I guess you don’t need my money, or any of my friends or family’s money, or any of the thousands of my blog reader’s money. Good day.”

  7. The “problem” with the majority of us honest, ethical POTG, we won’t stoop to leaving bad reviews on Yelp or other ratings sights.
    Can you imagine if the entire NRA membership or all gun owners left a bad review?
    But, next trip down there, they won’t get my business. I’ll even make a point of walking in with a wad of cash in my hands, walk up to the manager and say “See this? You won’t get any of it because of your anti-civil rights stance.”

    • Could be kinda like the DePaul rating on their faceplant page…which they removed earlier this week.

      Over 10,000 “1” reviews since their implosion with regard to appeasing SJW’s/BLM.

  8. “Now we know you have a gun.”

    But I’m a cop.

    “Oh, okay, carry on.”

    Hang on, you’d let someone carry just because of their *job*??? That’s all kinds of wrong.

  9. Hmmmmmmm, I wonder what the outcome would have been had the open carrier been a Pink Pistol as opposed to RF. (Just thinking out loud).

    • I think they would get away with it because their response is based on the firearm rather than on sexual orientation.

      • But if he’d said, “I’m gay. A whole bunch of gay people just got killed in Orlando because the place they went didn’t allow them to have guns. Are you telling me you’re in favor of gay people being killed?”, how would things have gone?

        Yes, the logic is sloppy — but that’s the kind of “reasoning” these people use. Give them a “choice” between letting you in and agreeing that gay people should be killed, loudly enough that their customers can hear, and what would they do?

        • This guy is onto something: good use of liberal logic. We need to use these sorts of devices against the gun grabbers; speaks to them on the child-like emotional level evident in all their justifications for withholding liberty from the public.

  10. I got an idea-put ’em out of business. Boycott, write bad reviews and let America know Lambert’s Austin needs to go away. Do they ban open-carry po-leece?
    I just don’t see RF as a “threat” 🙂

  11. Situational power — it’s a real thing. In this case, an employee who probably couldn’t afford to eat in the restaurant where he works gets to exercise power over a guest who can afford to pay the price and is clearly in a superior economic position. This gives the little shit a big ego boost.

    It happens every day. Visit your local motor vehicle department or other government office and odds are you’ll experience it first hand.

    When it comes to dealing with petty bureaucrats, you don’t have a choice. But you can choose where you spend your money. So, choose. Choose wisely, Grasshopper.

    • Agreed with you on the situational power thing, Ralph, but here’s what I don’t get. Why cave in and leave when the manager just repeated “but huur-huur duuuh, we know you have a gun?” If the establishment didn’t have a 30.06/30.07 sign that met the law in Texas then TOUGH SHIT – they had no right to kick him out! Should have thought of that first before trying to put that cute little thing in the window!

      I would simply have pointed out that he had no legal signage in place, therefore no legal authority to ask me to leave and watched as his tiny little brain tried to process this without exploding all over the place. Oh, and tell him to ask the waiter to bring some more beans and crackers while he’s at it.

      Tom

      • As stated in the article, he did have the legal authority to ask me to leave, and have me arrested if I didn’t.

        • Okay, I stand corrected. But damned if it still doesn’t grind my gears that you folks in Texas have to put up with that bull. We certainly don’t here. I’m not gonna second-guess you for leaving RI, that’s for sure, but I honestly don’t know what attracted you to Austin, considering some of the wackjobs there. I’ve only been there once, back in 2000 (and yes, it was eight billion degrees outside back then, PLUS my crazy aunt insisted on us going to the LBJ ranch in her old Honda with a busted A/C instead of my perfectly good new car) and while I found a lot of cool things to do it wasn’t nearly enough by a country mile to make me want to move there.

          But enough about that. Look, it’s a war out there now. That manager got his rocks off by telling you to leave because he knew you had a gun, not because it was illegal. To him you’re just an insect to be stepped on as quickly as possible, not unlike your ancestors in Auschwitz or Treblinka. And that is RAPIDLY becoming more and more the situation across the country in slave states at least. Take that Kuntzman guy. He’s so psychologically warped by his hatred of the NRA (which is just a political lobby, no more, no less) that I’d wager good money he would actually shove you into his fantasy version of the gas chambers, even though he’s purportedly Jewish himself. I honestly don’t know quite what to do about it now, since they’re monopolizing both force and victimology. But it’s going to come to a real head soon one way or the other. We best get a grip on this reeeal quick.

          Tom

  12. RF, you should call me before visiting BBQ in Austin. Lamberts is feaux-southern dog meat. The manager did you a favor.

  13. This is one of those things that I find rather odd.

    On the one hand, if they own the property I would argue they have the right to enforce whatever rules they like. No guns, no blacks, no Jews, no whites, no people in polka dotted shirts… it’s all the same. Private property owners get to make the rules for what they will allow on their property and we the public get to decide if we wish to patronize their establishment. I for one would certainly not patronize a business that was openly anti-Jew or anti-black or even openly anti-gay.

    However, that’s not the way it works. These days a private business doesn’t have the right to refuse service for any reason. The government has made it quite clear that you will bake that cake so I would then argue that such a rule applies to gun owners as well.

    Now someone’s going to come along and say “But strych9, carrying a gun and being gay are not equivalent. One is a choice and the other is the way you were born!” to which I say “Bullshit.”

    The issue is not whether or not being gay is a choice. The issue is that being open about your lifestyle most certainly is a choice. Wearing a gun on your hip (openly) is the same thing as wearing your sexuality on your sleeve. You’ve made the choice to act in a manner that makes clear to everyone else what/who you are. Gays can get cakes from the most hardcore, right-wing, Bible banging bakers if they don’t make it clear to the baker that they are gay and asking for a wedding cake specifically for a gay wedding. The baker will never know and you are under no legal obligation to tell them. The cases we’ve seen on this were cases where the homosexuals in question made the decision to rub the baker’s nose in the whole thing just to get a reaction from them. In those cases the government has come down on the side of the homosexual rather than the business owner.

    Therefore, there is no difference IMHO between open carry and being openly gay and if you can’t discriminate against the gay you can’t discriminate against the OCer either.

    But hey, I don’t get to write the laws nor do I get a say in whether or not the laws make even a modicum of sense.

    • The whole argument about what happened to the Kleins is infuriating to *anyone* who gives a damn about 1stA. Compelling someone to perform work for someone else is tantamount to slavery *cough cough* *Obamacare and healthcare being a right not a service* *cough*. The difference here being an imposition on someone else’s rights. The gay couple was NOT infringed upon by being told they would be unable to be serviced NOT for being gay, but for creating a cake for an event the bakers found disagreeable. Progs may believe gay marriage is a right (another debate for another time) but having a cake made for it damn sure isn’t. *Yet…*

      In the case of this article, Mr. Farago was the one infringed upon by being told that his lawfull, moral, and legal exercise of his rights was not what the business wanted at their establishment. A direct comparison would be if they Kleins said “GTFO fags” instead of disagreeing to bake a cake for a particular event. Or by being tactful and just declining without giving a reason at all.

      • “A direct comparison would be if they Kleins said “GTFO fags” instead of disagreeing to bake a cake for a particular event.”

        I would argue that this is incorrect or at the very least a distinction without a difference.

        The homosexuals would have been served were they not openly homosexual. Mr. Farago would have been served if he had not been openly carrying. That’s a 1:1 comparison because both made the choice to make their openly display their lifestyle.

        The point is that in one instance the government brings it’s weight to bear saying that you can’t be discriminated against for openly engaging in a behavior the owner of the establishment doesn’t like and in the other case they say you can be. IMHO the government cannot insist that one group of people live in the shadows (CCW) or face consequences from a business owner that are deemed legal and then say another group (homosexuals) can be open about their choices and discrimination against such a thing is a crime. That’s creating two classes of people and is therefore not equal protection under the law.

        Either you can discriminate against anyone you wish for whatever reason you wish (especially those polka dotters… fucking weirdos… JK!) or you can’t discriminate against anyone for any reason unless that person can be clearly demonstrated to be a threat to the safety of other patrons or be shown to be unduly disruptive to your business.

        • The homosexuals would have been served were they not openly homosexual.

          Sigh. The baker offered to serve them even though they were openly homosexual. He didn’t deny them buying a cake, he told them he would be happy to sell them anything except a specific product, a specific wedding cake decorated for a homosexual marriage. He never refused to sell them a cake or a cupcake or even a bear claw.

          Homosexual marriage was even against the law in Colorado when this happened! So a court states that homosexuals don’t have a right to get married, yet at the same time someone has to create a product celebrating something illegal and something artistic that violates their religion?

          What don’t people get about this?

        • I disagree. Even when Mr. Farago concealed his firearm, they *still* rejected his business. So it was a matter of him having a firearm, not his manner about which he carried it. In contrast, the Kleins just did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, they did not say that they would not serve homosexuals in any capacity and refuse all service when the patrons were ‘outed’ (so to say).

          As far as the PC concerned government creating two classes of citizens, you’re absolutely correct and it is a severe problem.

        • “Either you can discriminate against anyone you wish for whatever reason you wish … or you can’t discriminate against anyone for any reason unless that person can be clearly demonstrated to be a threat to the safety of other patrons or be shown to be unduly disruptive to your business.”

          +10,000

      • “He didn’t deny them buying a cake, he told them he would be happy to sell them anything except a specific product, a specific wedding cake decorated for a homosexual marriage.”

        Legally speaking this is a distinction without a difference. Any refusal to a “protected class” is unlawful.

        “Even when Mr. Farago concealed his firearm, they *still* rejected his business. So it was a matter of him having a firearm, not his manner about which he carried it.”

        Bullshit. You can no more go into a place open carrying and then toss your shirt over the gun and say “It’s not there anymore” than you can go in and say “We’re here, we’re queer… but oh wait we’re straight”. That cat is out of the fucking bag.

        You came in wearing it on your sleeve you can’t just turn the shirt inside out and act like it never happened unless you’re the type of fucktard to say that praising Jesus just right makes you a “born again virgin”. I mean, you can say it but it makes you a lying fuckstick and it doesn’t for even one moment change reality.

        • Legally speaking this is a distinction without a difference. Any refusal to a “protected class” is unlawful.

          Maybe, maybe not if it violated HIS freedom of religion which is also a protected class. This could still advance in the court system. The baker has refused to comply with the stupid “retraining” the court required. But that was not my point. My point was to point out that you were wrong saying that the baker refused to serve them because they were homosexual. He did not. He was willing to serve them. He was just unwilling to create a work of art that violated his religious principles. He would have sold them cakes all day long and he told them that.

          And as I said, don’t forget that what they wanted to do (homosexual marriage) was also illegal in the state at the time, anyway (not that that had anything to do with the case, just throwing that out there)

          You can no more go into a place open carrying and then toss your shirt over the gun and say “It’s not there anymore” than you can go in and say “We’re here, we’re queer… but oh wait we’re straight”. That cat is out of the fucking bag.

          Way to change the goalpost. The restaurant didn’t have any signage prohibiting the concealed carry of firearms. In fact, they stated that they were okay with it. So RF concealed. The prohibition was against OC, not CC. The manager was a total moron. “We’re okay with anyone CCing as long as we don’t know about it.” That’s idiocy. There can be a logical argument made for banning OC if the owner thinks it will hurt business. Thus the “No OC” sign. But to be hypocritical about it like that just shows he’s an unthinking douchebag.

        • Um, concealed means concealed, not nonexistent. In fact you can literally remove a garment or don one and legally go from one to the other (or illegally in some states/locals). So again, the issue was that Mr. Farago *had* a firearm and they knew it. The results of the encounter would have likely been the same had he been carrying concealed and been printing for someone at the restaurant to notice. Still legally concealed, and they still would have complained, simply for the fact he had a gun.

          A prime example is McCarren airport in LV. Concealed carry is illegal, but open carry is legal (all of this in the non-secure). You can literally tuck your shirt in and become a legal carrier. Whether people know about it or not is entirely irrelevant to the method or the legality.

  14. I wonder what would have happened if RF walked out the door and out of sight, waited 2 minutes and reentered, gun concealed? Would that have been the end of it? Or would Mr. Manager have insisted on a pat down. Just post the standard State signs, and stop wasting your customers time. Tiresome idiots.

  15. I suggest a party!

    Get a group of 10-15 gun owners together. Go eat at Lambert’s with concealed guns. Then as you’re finishing dessert, remove your coats, so you’re all open carrying. Make sure to walk to and from the bathroom, so it is obvious you’re carrying. When the manager asks you to leave, get up and leave. Free meal!

    I unintentionally got a free meal that way in Seattle once.

    • +10,000

      The SJW assholes have been working hard getting good people fired from their jobs, falsely accused of crimes and all kinds of evilness.

      Put them out of business. Let them walk the walk of their decisions. Every gun blog / site and every list of “posted places” should have Lambert’s on it.

      And…here’s the actual hard part: every POTG that actually cares about fighting back against ‘infringement’ has to have the moral courage to not go there no matter how “good” it is or how “trendy” it is.

      Here’s the thing…”they” have gotten around the First Amendment by social shaming. Some have have argued this was intentional and by design; they could not ‘control the narrative’ through legal means, so they made up social rules (and change them all the time) and thus Political Correctness was born.

      It has been quite effective.

      Now, they are applying that same tactic to the Second Amendment. They can’t ramrod anti-gun legislation through and some states, like Texas, have been seeing gains in firearms rights.

      So, what do they do?

      They ‘bypass the law’ and fight guns “socially.” Cinema chains put out edicts to post their theaters, for example…not leaving it up to theater owners in their own localities.

      Restaurants are similar…the only power they wield is in fueling the desire to eat there. So…choke ’em (figuratively…in a business sense).

      There simply is no rational basis for them to ‘ban firearms.’ But they don’t care. It’s about the feels, and it’s about “shaming” gun owners…not letting us in their exclusive ‘club.’ It’s a different kind of elitism where the message is they are elite because they are “anti.”

      If the country truly wants “gun free zones,” it will settle it with the free market. BUT, I’m guessing there’s a reason Lambert’s does not have a big old legal sign…they want to walk both sides of the coin and that makes them, to my mind, a special kind of despicable….too cowardly to take a PROPER stand – just like most Proggies.

      • …”they” have gotten around the First Amendment by social shaming. Some have have argued this was intentional and by design; they could not ‘control the narrative’ through legal means, so they made up social rules

        In 1995, future U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that we must “brainwash” people (his word) against guns, that the media need to change the way that people think about guns. He said that we must indoctrinate people into thinking that guns aren’t cool, that they’re not acceptable, and that we need to make guns evil in the minds of Americans like we have tobacco. Holder asked the creative community to come up with solutions to demonize guns in the popular culture, in advertising, and the media. He petitioned TV and radio to follow his script.

        So, yeah.

  16. So… what happens if you’re in there, eating a away, concealed. At some point you accidentally print or expose, say while going to go to the bathroom. When you get back you get told to GTFO. You comply immediately of course, but they haven’t presented a check to you for satisfaction. Can you then be charged with theft for failure to pay the bill? Are you supposed to wait outside the door for the check? What about off their property down the block or across the street?

    • Check is bye-bye. I have carried in many eating establishments where signs were posted, just waiting for the chance. I don’t have the stones, tho, to DELIBERATELY display. But if I am discovered and ordered to leave, as I understand the law I would be committing a crime to stop at the cashier and pay the bill. So I will leave immediately.

  17. austin: stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things winning stupid prizes.

    did i git that ’bout right?

  18. Perfect answer to their stupidity. Order a bunch of food, eat it, then afterwards, sit around chatting, take off your coat and openly carry your firearm. When they eject you, you got free food 😀

    • So that they can’t come back and accuse you of stiffing them on the check (it’d kinda suck if they sicced the cops on you), give them ONE chance. Ask, “Immediately?”

      If they say yes, then you’re good to go.

  19. Y’all need to get crackin’ in TX and remove the power of signage. And licensed OC? Yeesh..

    • He used the power to declare RF a trespasser if he didn’t leave immediately, NOT the 30.06 30.07 signs. The sign he had, had no legal power on its own.

      • He was being asked to leave on the grounds he lawfully possessed a firearm. Several states scoff at this notion. And he was ‘threatened’ with being treaspassed. You are tresspassed by an officer, not an individual. A minor quibble, but good to know when some shithead tries to play big shot like what happened here. Again, when you strip the power from signs jerks like to put up, life becomes simpler for everyone.

        And for some strange reason, the rivers don’t turn red with blood…

  20. Somehow, I do think it’s a good thing to see business that use 30.06 and 30.07 signs and have some stupid logic like here… It does help to clearly identify business I would not give my money.

    It’s their rights, as private company, to do whatever they want… even if it would be stupid reasons. OK
    Then, it’s our right as consumer to only support business we want.

    Business 101: It’s all about the money 😉

  21. THIS JUST IN: The lavish Mexican style stuffed quail at Lamberts far exceeds the psychological trauma of risking your own death and the imbued nostalgia of human connection that you feel with your server! In fact, my postmortem exam will surely be from over indulging at Lamberts and will show remnants of quail and the waitstaffs saliva. I would never refrain from such pleasure in life, and you shouldn’t either! #noregrets2016 #illuminaticonfirmed

  22. “Again, it’s Lamberts’ right as a private business”

    Here is where I disagree. This is not a private business. This is a place of public accommodation. As the liberal courts are so adept at pointing out, they may not discriminate on the basis of (add your special category here). Why do we accept this form of discrimination against us? Is this not just another form of “We don’t want your kind here”?

    • I’d rather accede to Lambert’s rights as a private property owner than open the door to government tyranny.

      • Fine.

        Then let businesses put up signs banning whomever they wish to ban from their own property.

        The problem that exists is the split standard.

        Property rights are a joke in this country. If you “own” a home/land in a subdivision, chances are you don’t even really “own” it but just the right to use the land. There’s a legal hook placed on the deeds and that’s what has allowed the courts to rule in favor of HOA’s for so long.

        So, either go full “property rights” (let businesses do business with whomever they please – no special classes and ban all HOA’s, etc), or go full “you must do x.” This middle ground where “property rights” sometimes applies is just plain nuts.

  23. Robby,
    Hypocrisy? From the boy who wrote on this site that he still goes to Whole Foods despite their liberal leanings and gun restrictions because they have good coffe, products and many nice looking moms? If I ever happen to be in Austin (the only slightly palatable place in Texas), the first place I would patronize would be Lamberts.

Leave a Reply

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