Previous Post
Next Post

53a34ea85995a.preview-620

Reader MAC writes:

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

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

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

 

Previous Post
Next Post

201 COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          First, why do you feel entitled to know that?

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

        • ” What exactly did Panera accomplish by doing this?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • In that case they would be dead to me too.

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

        • @XDs 45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Wow, Straw Man much?

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

        A private business is private property.

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

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

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

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

        Their coffee sucks. Why would I go there?

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

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

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

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

        • I like parsing posts!

          Wow, Straw Man much?

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Their coffee sucks. Why would I go there?

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

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

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

            My RBKA remains free from infringement by government or individual.

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

        • Matt Richardson,

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

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

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

        • Matt Richardson,

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

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

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

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

              This has been your pedantic science moment.

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

        • Matt Richardson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          You missed the point I was making entirely…

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

        • Paul,

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

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

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

        • Matt Richardson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  18. “Open carry demonstrations are about politics first …”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Spot on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Exactly this. +1

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

          Wow. Again, a complete and total fail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          That’s property rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Castle Doctrine.

          Wow.

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

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

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

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

          Just. Wow.

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

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

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

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

        • @Paul G:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              Armed trespass. Remember? Read my original post.

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

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

              • @Paul G:

                You are wrong. No use arguing further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • @Paul G:

          Oh, I see:

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

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

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

          Castle Doctrine does not apply to mere trespass.

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

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

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

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

          The anti’s are loving you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Now, what does that page offer about deadly force?

          There are a couple of paragraphs on that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          “What About People Who are Only Trespassers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Okay, so your premise is argumentative armed trespasser.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    No – the emphasis is on their customers being ignorant.

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

    Man oh man, ignorance is bliss….

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

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

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

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

    • Maybe.

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

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

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

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

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

      The unraveling of your statement is IN your statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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