I have an admission to make: I disarm to enter my local Whole Foods. Two words in my defense: yoga pants. I know that makes me seem crass, creepy and craven. But I didn’t start this website to promote an acceptable public persona. Truth be told, I’m willing to play by Whole Foods’ anti-gun rules to purchase their superb cheese and other fine comestibles and yes, eat my daily salad in a pleasant viewing environment (I’m old, not an eunuch). As for the other businesses banning or “discouraging” open carry listed in a recent huffingtonpost.com article . . .
Whataburger, Chipotle, Panera, Sonic, Chili’s, Starbucks, Target – I’m not going to boycott them when open carry comes to Texas. But I will favor business that welcome guns. Does that make me a weak-willed hypocrite? What’s your policy?
OUCH!!! My first image was of you wearing yoga pants. Yuck. Then I realized you meant the lady shoppers there. LOL.
My wife shops Whole Foods so I don’t have to disarm.
MY problem is in using the detestable tactics of the Left. The LEFT wants to shut down any discussion they don’t like in hopes of controlling the narrative. We have to be careful doing that while claiming to champion personal freedom.
So your wife is disarmed, then?
“OUCH!!! My first image was of you wearing yoga pants. Yuck.”
My first image was Ralph in yoga pants…
Yoga pants? Hand in yer man card…non-issue in Illinois(I don’t recall seeing anything in God’s country(Indiana)…
Pretty sure he’s talking about yoga pants on the women shoppers.
Other women shoppers?
I see what you did there……. 🙂
My state bans open carry. Kind of pointless and self defeating to take it out on the stores. I gotta eat after all.
And whole foods makes a killer cream puff. And yes, I’m a fat bastard. And my whole foods shares a parking lot with Boudins bakery. Nuff said.
aaaah, boudins makes the BEST sour dough EVER.
One could just claim illiteracy along with the Tourette’s….
eeeeeeeeeh. Sorta. I don’t really care about open carry. They can ban whatever manner of clothing, affectation, or decorum they wish. As a business owner, I support their right to refuse service to whomever they choose.
However, companies that phrase their ban by stating that they prefer not to have guns in their stores period, such as Chipotle and Buffalo Wild Wings, I refuse to go into at all.
So you support positions in favor of firearms, but if it’s a particular facet of firearms ownership or exercise that isn’t one you’re into yourself, then you’re OK with it being ridiculed, marginalized and banned? In principle, isn’t that what a FUDD is?
Now, let’s not turn this into a debate about the Second Amendment, or even of private property rights. Let’s just concede it’s a matter of personal opinion and picking one’s battles. Be that as it may, you better just hope that whatever flavor of the firearms experience you do prefer doesn’t ever become passé or otherwise unsupported by others in the movement, nor attacked by those outside of it.
When they come for the open carriers, it’ll be OK with you, because you’re not an open carrier? What happens and who will be around to support you when they finally come for whatever it is about firearms that you do care about? That sounds familiar, but I can’t quite place it….
Agreed. If we don’t hang together the Progressives will be only to delighted to hang us separately.
Agreed with you Jonathan (minor nit: it’s “Fudd” not “FUDD”).
There’s plenty of stuff talked about here that I don’t do or don’t care about (e.g., short barreled AR-15s with or without the stock always struck me as pointless), but I *do* *not* deny the right of others to do it or own them, and I recognize other peoples’ tastes and circumstances are different.
This is the essence of Fuddism: “This gun is OK, that other one, meh, who cares if they ban it? Can’t do X with it!”
Phucque the Fudds.
To be clear, there are good people out there who are genuinely into “Fudd guns” but that doesn’t make them Fudds, it’s the bad attitude towards OTHER guns and the people who like them, that does it.
You’re right, it isn’t an acronym. It’s a reference to the cartoon character, or at least that’s how I always interpreted it. I just capitalized for emphasis, because I didn’t know how on the phone to change fonts, underline, or bold print like others sometimes do.
Where I live there is only one store with a ‘No Weapons Allowed’. They are a chain store and it is corporate policy but in my state the sign has no force of law.
I ignore the sign and they ignore the bulge of a full size Beretta or Sig under my shirt. They also turn a blind eye to every other carrier (including open carriers) that walks past the meaningless sign which has been tucked into the bottom corner of a window furthest from the door and often blocked by pallets of produce.
When we got open carry several Gun Buster signs went up around town and they came back down over the twelve months afterwards.
yup. dont take it off for 30.06 signs, either. i just go elsewhere. only exception is when my wife drags me to a movie, and even then i lobby pretty hard that we go to a theater without a sign.
I’m usually carrying concealed, and my enhanced permit means those “no firearms” signs don’t apply to me. But really, the only reason for me to go to Whole Foods is to get a growler of delicious Crooked Heffy. Hmmmm, beer….
I live in Florida where the right to bear arms is illegal. I can be permitted to hide the arms though. Soo i mostly ignore the signs. Only times i disarm are at sporting events and Disney. But i carry right up to the gate and just go to security to stowe it in a lock box.
It’s going to be interesting to see what Whatsburger does. They’ve already made it clear that;
A) Their no open carry policy is quite old,
B) They welcome and encourage concealed carry,
C) They don’t appreciate Shannon and Bloomie grouping them with the businesses they have bullied into a position.
I’d see it as a real possibility that if MDA pushes the issue and drags them into the politics they want to avoid, Whataburger will come down on the open carry side.
Not likely. They will probably abstain. I work for a company that is in the process of putting up 30.07 signs in Texas. The people leading the push all have carry permits, we talk about guns all the time. They just don’t want somebody deciding to make a statement on company property. Most businesses want to just make a profit without rocking the boat unless they know their clientele is overwhelmingly to one side or another. Concealed carry is no issue in company stores.
Sonic!? Just how in the hell can sonic ban open carry!? How the hell they going to see!?
I boycott Whole Foods because of their insane prices and the whole granola/sprouts atmosphere. Oh, and the plethora of Earth Nazis……;) I’m sure their politics are opposite to mine, but at the end of the day their prices are way to high for me.
Back to open carry boycott or not. As long as there are no signs banning concealed carry, I’ll probably buy there. YMMV
I’d say go there just as an excuse to wear your NRA cap.
Just gave me an idea. . . . I avoid whole foods b/c it is expensive and all of the damn hippies smell, but I may go just to wear my NRA hat. The signs have no force of law in MO.
Have some more fun.
Get a Polo-type collared shirt embroidered with something like “Certified Advanced Firearms Instructor”
Just for sh!ts-n-grins…
The CEO of whole foods is a libertarian. He is very live and let live, but as I said above, most companies just want to work hard and not rock the boat.
OC, while not illegal in MA, is a sure ticket to a Freddy Gray-style ride, so nobody does it except armed guards and cops. But yes, I do boycott anti-gun chains. And to be perfectly frank, even if it was pro-gun, I would boycott Starbucks because their coffee sucks.
Glad I’m not the only one who dislikes that overpriced burnt tasting crap have never understood the craze surrounding it.
Their newer “blonde” roasts aren’t bad. They’re still darker than they should be but it’s drinkable, IMHO.
On topic, Target and Starbucks are only anti-carry on the internet. I’ve never seen either one post signs. I open carry in Starbucks frequently and have never been challenged about it. I even once got something to drink at a Starbucks that was in a Target.
Robert, the downtown store on 6th st used to have non-3006 “no guns” lettering on the glass next to the entrance that I always ignored (before I moved a year ago), does your store have a 3006?
I can’t afford them, I like central market and HEB+. Almost on par with whole paycheck, with no restrictions.
This. Central Market is superior to Whole Foods in almost every way.
In any case, I do most of my shopping at crappy ol’ regular HEB, because I’d rather have money left over for things other than overpriced cheese and cruelty-free radishes.
Pretty much this. I prefer cruelty free radishes though.
Central Market has some of the best damn meat and seafood fresh I’ve ever bought and grilled. I’ve had withdrawal symptoms ever since I moved from Dallas cause I can’t get the pre-marinated southwest chicken breasts now.
(a) I have a compromised immune system.
(b) I risk contracting a life-threatening infection in public.
(c) I need to wear a surgical mask to mitigate my risk of dying from infection.
(d) People and businesses viscerally despise surgical masks.
(e) Businesses ban surgical masks to assuage people who despise masks.
(f) A transparent surgical mask is available that no one will notice.
Will I stay out of businesses who ban surgical masks? Or will I wear the transparent surgical mask and shop at the businesses anyway? Answer: I will shop anywhere I want with a transparent surgical mask. Why? Because it is morally wrong and unreasonable to demand that I give up shopping in public or risk my life to infection when wearing a transparent mask does not infringe on anyone’s rights and does not affect the business of the shops.
Similarly, I will carry concealed and shop at businesses that offer quality products and services. My concealed status in no way, shape, or form infringes on anyone’s rights and it has absolutely no negative impact on any business.
To the people who say that “property rights” means that property owners have absolute power and authority over their property, that position is absolutely untenable … if for no other fact that such a position therefore means that no one has any rights whatsoever unless they are standing on property that they themselves own. Of course property owners have EXTREMELY wide latitude to control their property. That latitude ends, however, at the point that it forbids guests from saving their own lives. In other words a human life supersedes a property owner’s “right” to cause the death of guests. Whether the property owner takes direct or indirect actions to cause the death of a guest is immaterial.
Note: A “direct” action would be physically bludgeoning a guest. An “indirect” action would be restraining a guest so that someone or something else kills the guests. Whether the restraints are physical (e.g. handcuffs), facility (e.g. chained and locked exit doors), or a rule (e.g. no self-defense firearms) is also immaterial.
Your “preemptive strike” was a misfire. Your elegant little “argument” only works as long as you rely on your opponent to be stupid enough to accept your mis-characterization of the situation.
He doesn’t have the right to deny you your rights. But he isn’t denying you a right, because you don’t have the “right” to be on his property at all. And he’s refusing to grant you permission to do so, as his his actual, not fictitious, right.
You correctly identified yourself in this situation as a “guest,” guests are there by invitation, either implicit or implied, and such, in a properly run society, can be revoked at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all.
Guess what? You both get to exercise your rights. The answer ends up being, you don’t go to places that don’t want you to carry your gun. It does not end up being you get to go where you’re not welcome, simply because the not-welcome status has something to do with guns. Thinking you can go wherever you want against the property owner’s wishes is the thought process of a two year old.
Man up and respect other peoples’ rights. That’s part of the price you pay, for expecting them to respect yours.
I totally understand where you are coming from and I honestly appreciate your thought and how well you stated it. I will even say that it makes a lot of sense. The thing is, a property owner who says guests cannot have self-defense firearms is a property owner who says guests cannot defend their lives. If you cannot defend your life, then you have no right to life. And that is where your argument, in my opinion, falls apart. It is perverted and obscene for a property owner to demand that guests give up their right to life as a condition of entering the property.
Consider this from an additional perspective. An armed guest (especially a guest with a concealed firearm) in no way, shape, or form harms the property, the owner’s control of the property, or the owner’s enjoyment of the property. If a guest’s concealed firearm does not harm the property owner in any way, and forbidding guests from being armed harms their right to life, why would anyone side with the property owner’s “right” to forbid firearms and therefore harm a person’s right to life?
Your position doesn’t make any sense to me. Is not human life more important than property?
What you are telling me, is that the property owner is, in present-day parlance, a douchebag, and if adamant about it, and in-your-face about it, a douchebag of high order. I agree that my carrying a gun onto his property makes no true impact on him, and could in actual fact have a positive impact in that he’s safer with an armed, benevolent presence on his property than he is without one.
But none of that is a valid test for whether it’s OK to abrogate a property right. “I don’t believe I should have to endure the risk I’d be taking stepping onto your property unarmed” simply doesn’t justify your stepping onto his property armed against his wishes. If you won’t tolerate the risk, then don’t tolerate the risk–and stay off Mr. Douchebag’s property. More generally, “I don’t like your rules” however much your dislike is justified does not justify breaking them.
Your sole option to remain armed is to patronize the douchebag’s competition. Optionally, and most effectively from an activist point of view, explaining to Mr. Douchebag why he is losing your business. (We aren’t all activists, though which is why I’ll say once again, explaining is optional!)
(FWIW I don’t think many of the reasons that are allowed under current law, e.g., protected classes, and so on, are legitimate exceptions either. I mention this because someone will surely bring it up eventually, as if doing so will somehow prove me inconsistent when I don’t take that position anyway.)
You guys are approaching the issue from an unsympathetic angle.
So, OFWG is strolling down the avenue and pauses at the window of – let’s say a nick-knak shop. The shop’s proprietor asserts his right to discriminate against gun-buyers. The OFWG is bound and determined to defend himself against anyone who might dare to strike-up a ruckus in the nick-knak shop. And, you imagine that your pitiful case is going to draw hearts and minds into the discussion.
A woman, named Carol Browne, was murdered in her driveway in June, 2015. She had been contacted by a violent ex-boyfriend. She got an order-of-protection against him, installed video and alarms on her house. And, applied for a NJ Pistol Purchase Permit that is supposed to be issued by NJ law in 30 days. She checked back with the PD 42 days later; they told her to wait. Two days later she was knifed to death. Did she have a right to the means of an effective self-defense?
From whom does that right run? That is to say, to whom could she appeal for a disparagement of her right? Can you answer this question? How about:
– Governor Christie?
– NJ Legislature?
– NJ Supreme Court?
– US Supreme Court?
– the sovereignty?
And, who – exactly – are the sovereignty of her State, her country? Is it not we the People? Are we not collectively the guardians of her Civil Rights (if not also her natural rights)?
Now, we have a more sympathetic subject to study. Ms. Browne needed – during her final 44 days on this earth, among us her neighbors, a means to an effective self-defense. She needed to defend herself in her home, garage, driveway and . . . in public places. In the contest between her right to means to self-defense whose rights are we concerned with?
– Her green-grocer! His patrons are all pearl-clutching Moms-who-DEMAND! DEMAND I tell you!! ACTION!!
– Her gas-station attendant
– Her parking garage valet
They are all Jersey hoplophobes who worry about breaking their own pearls if forced to clutch themselves too tightly. They are worried about the patronage of their hoplophobe customers. They are worried about their PROPRIETARY RIGHTS! RIGHTS to PROPERTY that trump ALL OTHER RIGHTS including the right to anyone’s life.
Let’s suppose the green-grocer is a sole-proprietor. The gas station is an international conglomerate with millions of shareholders. The parking garage is owned by a close corporation with a dozen shareholders. Only the green-grocer is around if any gun-fire should break-out. The shareholders are all at a safe distance. So, what are we really talking about here?
Does anyone really care about the green-grocer’s life? Is it more or less important than that of Ms. Browne? Probably not. No, what we are really concerned here is with the SHAREHOLDERs’ PROPRIETARY RIGHTS to maximize profits by excluding anyone – anyone at all – whose presence might reduce their bottom line.
I agree. The rights of shareholders are sacred. Shareholders ought to have a right to decide to exclude anyone or any member of any class whose presence might – in their exclusive opinion – risk a penny of profit. Be they Black, Asian, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Irish . . . Any must be excludable for any reason – or no reason at all. Because PROFITS always trump life.
What right could Ms. Brown possibly raise to pursue as normal a life as might have been possible under her circumstances? Why, she could have cloistered herself in her castle and remained there. (If some dying relative had the kindness to bequeath her a gun she might even have armed herself without waiting for NJ to certify her good behavior.) She could have had her hair-styling clients come to her house to earn her living. She could have had groceries delivered. As long as she remained inside her house she would have been FREE to exercise her rights to the means of an effective self-defense. What greater liberty could any citizen expect than a gun, the castle doctrine, and a life confined to the one place she is allowed an effective defense.
My appeal, here, is not to the green-grocer; nor to the oil company or parking garage valet. My appeal is to the ultimate sovereignty of NJ and these United States. We the People must choose. Does a woman in Ms. Browne’s situation have a right to keep a handgun in her home? Is that the limit of the 2A? If so, they have the full support of the inferior courts of this nation.
The rights of shareholders must be held to trump the rights of arms bearers. Just as the rights of slave-holders must be held to trump the rights of their property to an effective self-defense. Like all rights ordained by God and secured by the Constitution, the rights of property are sacred and absolute.
I believe uncommon_sense has the better of the argument here.
I remember the era of the Civil Rights debate from the 1960s. I remember that I thought – at that time – that property rights and the right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason (or no reason at all) trumped the rights of a prospective patron. Not that I had any particular interest in excluding anyone for any reason – it’s just that is what I thought.
We’ve come a long way these pact 50 years; and, my attitude has changed. I have ceased to believe that it is proper to discriminate against someone because of who he is. Where and how exactly to draw the line I’m not certain. E.g., I would not be prepared to concede that everyone has a right to date my minor daughter.
The thing that strikes me most clearly lies within the background of Plessy vs. Ferguson. The railroad ran inter-State; i.e., it was engaged in inter-State commerce. At that time it was long and well established that inter-State railroads were squarely within inter-State commerce. One of the benefits the railroad enjoyed was the right of eminent domain so that it could acquire its rights-of-way.
Plessy – I will presume – was a citizen and paid his taxes. As a taxpaying citizen he was entitled to the social benefits that accrued from granting railroads the right of eminent domain. It is utterly unacceptable to me to say that he rightly held a share of the sovereignty of the People but no right to share in the blessings of liberty that came from establishing a government by the People and for the People. At least – by the rationale of eminent domain – he had a right to access the services of that railroad on non-discriminating terms.
Arriving at an overnight station stop in an inter-State journey, he would have a need for sustenance and shelter. The power of the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce to remove discrimination seems to run to a right to eat in a restaraunt and sleep in a hotel. No doubt, the restaraunt or hotel he might be discriminated by had enjoyed prosperity in part due to the railroads and highways paid-for out of tax dollars paid by all tax payers.
It seem to me that the Federal government is well within the scope of its power to prohibit discrimination in public accommodation.
Bearing arms is a somewhat distinct matter; it is not who someone is, but rather his behavior. While distinct, it is not fully resistant to reason by analogy.
We are very well aware that certain classes of people are at extraordinary jeopardy of violent attack. It suffices to recognize women who are stalked by ex-husbands/-boyfriends. In many cases, such women have secured orders-of-protection.
You are – of course – free to shun such persons as guests in your home. And yet, if you hang out a shingle offering to sell goods or provide services to all comers, you hold that you may exclude this woman because she bears arms for a real sense of jeopardy for her safety.
Is your business one of public accommodation? Do you sell staples? Lodging? Medical services? Interstate transportation? If so, it seems to me that your interests are intertwined with the prosperity made possible in great part by government services (rights of way, highways, etc.) which were paid-for in part by this woman’s taxes. These government-mediated contributions to your prosperity were granted by the sovereignty of the People; of whom, this woman is a member. I’m not ready to concede that you are at liberty – because of your proprietary rights in your business – to exclude this woman on the grounds that she is exercising one of her civil rights.
Does this women exhibit holster discipline? (If so, it implies loading, muzzle, finger and target acquisition discipline). If not, I’d readily concede that you have a right to exclude her from your premises for failure to adhere to holster discipline. Does she brandish – say, by verbally alluding to her gun or by pointing at her gun? If so, I’d concede on grounds of behavior. But, for simply exercising her right to carry in a way that is not threatening – I’m not ready to concede this.
Let’s recall voter discrimination against Blacks prior to the Civil Rights era. Blacks were threatened by violence if – having registered – they dared to appear at the polls on election day. Blacks were also threatened by violence if they dared to apply to register to vote. Let’s imagine that these measures failed to serve their intended purpose. What might Southern whites have done to discourage Blacks from exercising their suffrage rights?
How about if the Registrar of Voters complied a list of registered voters to the proprietors of public accommodations in the precinct. The Klan might publish a rule governing such proprietors. You may NOT discriminate against Blacks; EXCEPTING those who dared to register to vote. The good Knights will be alert for your accepting the patronage of any Black whose name appears on the registry of voters.
Certainly – here – there is no discrimination against customers based on race alone; no, it’s based on behavior. If a Black patron has exhibited the behavior of registering to vote, well then he is fair-game to be discriminated against – because of his behavior.
Let’s take race out of the equation. Suppose the Klan publishes a rule that proprietors are not to sell or service those – regardless of color – who are registered to vote under Republican party affiliation. Or, better still, you can’t sell or service any registered voter whose name on the voter roles has been red-lined by the Democrat precinct captain. Shall we stand for the proprietor’s rights to refuse to sell or service patrons who are the “wrong people” to be registered to vote?
Discrimination based on no-shirt-no-shoes does not offend me. Discrimination based on the exercise of a civil right seems to me intrinsically offensive. I’m inclined to take discrimination based on exercise of civil rights more seriously where the business is a public accommodation as contrasted with businesses that can’t reasonably be so characterized.
In my view, stock bread and pastries are public accommodation. A custom-decorated cake is not.
We probably need a strategy for dealing with situations as you describe.
I’m not sure a flaming boycott really would net-positive serve our interests. Maybe something more subtle.
For example, my wife is a CostCo member. I accompany her to CostCo but I didn’t sign the membership agreement. So, every time I go to CostCo I’m carrying concealed.
As the numbers of concealed carriers grows, we CostCo carriers could print up a few thousand business-card sized messages that read:
I just carried a concealed gun in your store. Nobody got shot. I spent $______.
After dropping such a card in the suggestion box every week for a few years CostCo management would be forced to confront how belligerent they want to be about enforcing their policy. They might prefer to just make it an open secret that their policy is for consumption by the hoplophobes; they are grateful for the patronage of their gun-carrying members. Not a perfect solution; but, possibly a subterfuge that will get us from where we are to where we want to be.
As for Robert; well, my first recommendation is to man-up to some seriously manly trousers. Something that will conceal an IWB or pocket-holster. And, he has to break some eggs if he wants to make omelets. Depending on the laws of his jurisdiction I’d advocate carrying in defiance of the proprietor’s policy; provided that the consequences of getting caught are not serious.
Eventually, I can foresee the day, when we have to take the cry “I will not comply!” to the degree that Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks took it. Non-violent disobedience, spoken softly while carrying a big wooden stock. We must first lay a lot of groundwork within the limits of the law.
TX OC of long-guns was groundwork within the limits of TX law.
FL OC of hand-guns while fishing is laying groundwork within the limits of FL law.
Gently yet flamboyantly introducing OC in jurisdictions where it has long been legal – but unpracticed – is also obviously within the limits of the law yet unsettling to the traditional mores of the community.
I like your card idea.
One caveat: Do not specify the exact amount, but say “over $___”, and use the appropriate $10. Also, perhaps add “I’ve been a member for over ___ (round use the appropriate 1/5/10) years now., and continue to have no intention of complying with your pro-criminal anti-citizen firearms policy.”
When I go to Costco (member for almost 30 years), I don’t leave my firearm in the car. I suspect in our state that no one would say anything even with an open carry,.
Yes I do. I will not spend my cash in a place I am not accepted.
I also try not to send any money to states like New York, and California.
Wait… Target bans open carry? I’ve been openly carrying without an issue for some time.
As long as a store doesn’t outright bam guns, I’ll shop there.
I’ve been boycotting companies like Target, Levi’s, Hanes, etc for 15-20 years now, because they donated money in political opposition to shall issue CC laws. Same goes for most of the ‘big league’ pro sports teams.
How long do you hold onto that? There’s companies I buy from regularly that have done stuff I despise, but it’s all been a decade plus. Do you have a set amount of years, do you wait for a board/CEO change, or what? I mean, there’s gotta be some statute of limitations or I’d still boycott all Japanese and German goods
Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape.
Either you support gun rights or you do not.
If the company is banning people from carrying a firearm for self defense they should be boycotted.
Human life trumps business rights every time.
And for those of you who swore an oath,
Just remember, You Swore an Oath!
So you disarm in whole foods? Why? They have metal detectors and a guard doing patdowns at the door?
Concealed is concealed.
He’s following the law.
They started posting 30.06 signs last year (Which if you don’t know, are signs in Texas that forbid CHL carry and carry a criminal trespass Class A misdemeanor penalty if caught. Which will cost you your CHL).
There has been some debate about the legality of the signs (specific requirements including letter height which seems to be the point of contention for the WH signs) but some folks won’t risk carrying past them in order to be a test case.
This year the Texas Legislature passed a bill reducing the penalty for criminal trespass by a CHL to a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and no longer a CHL disqualification. Texas laws are funny in that most new laws take effect September 1st of the year they’re signed, but others (in this case, everything firearms related) don’t take effect until January 1st of the following year. I’ve never really understood the different treatment, unless it’s just losing sides pressing for as much postponement as possible before implementation.
Good to know! Wasn’t fully up to speed on all the new laws. With OC being the exception.
I stopped by Whole Foods for a juice on Gun Violence Awareness Day. My Beretta stayed in the truck, but I wore my (OC) holster into the store.
I just carry in those stores anyways…
I’m all for property rights but, if you allow the general public onto your property then I’m going to be ready to defend myself against them. You’re welcoming ANYTHING into your store except my rights…? NO
You invite me into your home; I’ll ask before I come in if you mind my gun. It’s reasonable to expect that you don’t let just anyone into your home to do anything they want.
I used to honor No Guns signs and my pistol was stolen out of my vehicle while eating in a restaurant. Because I obeyed the law there’s now another armed criminal in my area. Fuck that noise!
They make vehicle lock boxes for handguns-small items…
If I put enough of them under my shirt will they stop a bullet?
I have open carried at every one of those on your list, recently.
I go where Im welcome.
Michigan Open Carry has hosted OC luncheons at Panera Breads, even after the ban announcement last year.
The way I heard it, the downtown Grand Rapids store is a franchise and the management likes MOC.
The whole foods in Austin didn’t have the sign on both entrances. Carry on. Maybe it does now.
Whole Foods is “gun free?” Gee, nobody said nuttin’ to me when I took a two-hour trek to the nearest Whole Foods, with my wife, just to see what the hubbub was about concerning Whole Foods. OCed the whole time (which I usually do anyway when I’m out with my wife).
In my state, the first offense of a gun-free zone is a trespass violation, not a gun law violation. It is a fine and nothing more, no suspension of CHL. So I ignore the signs. If I am CC’ing well enough no one will know and so screw their pissant signs!
But I don’t care for any of that list anyway except for Panera. Thier policy is that they ask that guns not be brought in to their facilities, but they are not actually posted gun free. So I don’t boycott them, but I do carry there.
I havent’ shopped at WF in 15 years; the place creeps me out – it is too sterile. After it was confirmed recently that they were systematically overcharging everyone across the nation for weighed food items, I just had to smile knowing that all of those hipsters’ wallets were being drained more quickly that expected – a real self-satisfying smug grin knowing that I was right about them from the beginning.
There is NO cheese that tastes good enough to justify wearing “yoga pants”!
Huff Po has misrepresented Whataburger’s position! A read of their CEO’s website statement makes their position clear! As to the others……….we avoid them like the plague. There are two reasons: 1. I resent tyrants and all of their minions, 2. I’ve been shot at by an armed robber………and I’m too old to take that risk, again.
There is a local pizza place Joe Pizza that I will never enter they have a sign no firearms allowed… there are many other places to go and spend my $$
Having just moved to Wisconsin I am very careful to look for no weapons signage as there are substantial penalties for being caught so I will tend not to shop there unless I really need something. If a business bans open but not concealed carry I am ok with that. That’s a business decision not an anti-gun statement.
As an aside I hope Walker gets the nomination because he drive lefties bat $h!t ctazy. A former neighbor is a Wisconsinite who froths at the mouth whenever the subject comes up.
Just moved to Wisconsin?
Shouldn’t you be tdiinwi now?
If I find a business is a gun-free supporter I will not go there unless I have too due to availability of product. I would never enter a restaurant of this nature as these can be avoided 100%. No Whole Foods in my area and frankly I don’t trust them anyway.
I see non-open carry holds the same agenda as Gun-free zones, which are trouble waiting to happen. Gun-free zones support and send the wrong message to citizens, creating a sense of false security, in fact quite the opposite. For this reason I hold a strong opinion, they are liars, do not support a fundamental American Right, and ultimately endanger the lives of their customers.
I often open carry at Panera and Sonic (although at Sonic I rarely get out of my vehicle). I will continue to go until I have a manager ask me to leave. If that happens, i will notify the corporate office, and i will dedicate a couple of hours a month to picketing their business. Go 1st Amendment!
I wouldn’t say it’s a boycott of such businesses, because that implies an across the board severing of business ties. For me, it’s just more a matter of not putting myself in places of increased danger, when there’s a ready alternative.
For example, if a given restaurant bans all firearms, I would likely not eat there and instead would eat at the competing restaurant next door. However, I wouldn’t refuse on principle ever to eat the first restaurant’s product, if they delivered or catered or if someone from the office were going anyway and offered to bring something back. It’s their business, their private property after all, and I really don’t want to get into lifelong disputes and keep a lengthy list of untouchables. It strikes me as very elementary school-ish and a “Don’t sit by her!” or “Don’t be his friend!” mentality.
That said, I will say that I am very disappointed by Whataburger’s pronouncement on open carry. I don’t know whether they’ll post the 30.07, but I didn’t like them coming out with a public announcement that they’re against open carry because it might make some people nervous. Well.
Many of their customers have fled totalitarian regimes, where only the police and other agents of the state have guns, legally, and such armed agents routinely terrorize the populace. I would expect the sight of local traffic cops with sidearms holstered on their hips would nevertheless make some of the immigrants nervous, too. Will Whataburger extend their ban to the police? Hypocrites.
Moreover, Whataburger makes a fine burger, one of the best on the market today among major chains. However, part of the product’s appeal, like many businesses, is the overall ambiance and image associated with the product. That’s how business separate themselves from the pack, by offering not just the product, but the experience. In Whataburger’s case, that ambiance, image, experience package is good ol’ down home, plain speaking, simple living, goodness of regular people and traditional values. To me, that includes firearms ownership and exercise of carry rights. So in Whataburger’s case, I reluctantly will boycott the chain, because I just can’t stand their hypocrisy.
If a business does not bow to pressure from outside groups to ban Gun’s, does not actively use money to support anti gun rights, or bans Guns with no ill intent, such as being required
to for insurance reasons etc, I will still shop at their place of business. If they do so to use my money to fund anti gun agendas, they don’t get my business.
None of these places are posted “no weapons” in Virginia (and even if they were, the sign would have no legal teeth). I carry into all of them.
And I thought we had settled the Starbucks thing — they “suggest” we leave our guns in the car, not demand.
In Georgia, their preferences carry no weight of law unless someone directly asks me to leave.
So, I CC in several of those stores. Whole Foods is a big one because they actually tell you how ethically treated their meat was when it was still an animal…even the local farmer’s markets don’t do that all the time. And the ones that do mostly sell to specific restaurant buyers more than regular jojos.
So, for me, it’s either 5 or 5+ meat at whole foods and accept that I’m supporting a business that would hate me if they only knew…or go vegetarian.
For now, I choose the former. I suppose I could go hunt my own animals, but I’d really rather go veggie than hunt. Seriously. Plus, I have no idea when cow season is anyway. Or if there even are any wild cows left.
If there were an equal alternative, I would use it.
If they ever ask me to leave, I’ll go vegetarian. Really not kidding.
Someone saw too many Disney movies as a kid.
Well, I haven’t really done an outright boycott, but I do tend to avoid the places with signs up. I just have trouble giving them my hard earned greenbacks. Usually there is somewhere else I can go that I can get what I want. Or I can order online.
What I NEED to do is start giving out those cards that say I won’t shop there because of their sign/policy… At least then they would know someone cares. In my area, I just assume about 99% of people that are CCing are ignoring any and all signs, since the signs themselves do not carry the force of law.
Whole Foods has a 30.06 sign in the store near me (Houston), so I don’t shop there period. Whataburger welcomes CC, and I do love their burgers (and onion rings and a lot of other stuff), so I will continue to patronize them. I don’t plan to OC when it’s allowed in Texas in January anyway, so it really doesn’t bother me too much.
Now, if WB banned CC, then I would no longer eat their delicious greasy burgers unless I was going through the drive-in 😉
I live in MA, so if I had to avoid all the places that disallowed guns, I’d never be able to leave my house.
Does someone here own a helicopter, that can airlift you out?
I see you’ve never priced a helicopter taxi…
“I have an admission to make: I disarm to enter my local Whole Foods. Two words in my defense: yoga pants. I know that makes me seem crass, creepy and craven. But I didn’t start this website to promote an acceptable public persona.”
Sorry to hear you broke up with your girlfriend…
(If I wrote something like that I’d be hearing *loudly* about it…)
I don’t open carry. Because of that, I carry everywhere. I tend not to spend my money with businesses that ignore the constitution that I have fought and bled for.
As for your admission to precursor junior sexual predator behavior, get some help man.
Looking a pretty girls is “precursor junior sexual predator behavior?” When did men become ashamed of being men?
Can’t afford whole foods, need more guns.
I don’t usually open carry, but I don’t go anywhere my gun is banned unless going there is mandatory. So, no Whole Foods or any other retail establishment that doesn’t support my right. In Ohio, open carry is legal and has been for a very long time (since before concealed carry was legal), but you never, ever see signs that specifically call out open carry. You just see (not often in my area) signs banning all guns. Because gun free zones are magic.
I want to render mixed praise here. You recognize and are respecting Whole Foods’ property rights.
That puts you miles ahead of some of the ethically-challenged spoiled brats I see on here, who think that just because the property owner’s reason for not welcoming you onto their property has to do with a gun, they can say “fvck you, I’ll come onto your property without your permission, or gain/retain your permission through deceit.”
You correctly recognized that you had a choice between disarming, and not entering. Bravo!
That having been said, I’d make the opposite choice in this circumstance; a hoplophobic business doesn’t deserve my patronage. But it’s your right, and your decision.
I readily admit I’m willing to compromise all my principles for yoga pants. I’m not a hypocrite if I admit it, right?
I try to avoid such establishments. Hate Whole Foods, HATE Starbucks (everytime I enter Starbucks, my nostrils are assaulted by the distinctive odor of liquor from a water reclamation facility. Even if they gave away Glocks with every drink sold, I’d still avoid them). But I must admit, sometimes I do shop at Target or Toys R Us. Do I carry?
Wouldn’t you like to know?!
I don’t boycotts are inherently bad or wrong, but I feel like a kill them with kindness approach would be better. Convert them to your side. I also wouldn’t want to be publicly humiliated or shunned by people that don’t agree with me. So why would I do it to them? I definitely try to give my money to people doing things I like, though.
I don’t know about any of the other businesses specifically, but Target’s stance is “While we ask that our customers do not bring firearms into our stores, we ultimately respect the local, state, and federal laws in place.” AKA you can concealed or open carry if you choose.
Last time I was at Whole Foods, the few ladies sporting Yoga pants actually wore them very, very well.
“Was that handgun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”
“Yes, yes it was.”
Here in Georgia, the ‘Gun/Circle/Slash’ signs have little weight, really. In essence, you can be asked to leave by a company rep. If you do so in a timely manner…no harm, no foul. If not, it’s a misdemeanor trespassing charge. But, that’s the case for being asked to leave for any reason, let alone carrying a firearm. With the ‘carry everywhere’ law from last year, there are few places that are a legal no-go in the state (hospitals being the trickiest to figure out). But, as most, I CC only, so I go about my day as usual. Stop at Starbucks, shop at Target, lunch at Chiptole is not a routine that is foreign to me.
I also live in Austin and have a Whole Foods near my house. My visits to Whole Foods have dropped ~90%, I just don’t want to go there anymore after they put up the 30-06 signs. The only exception is when I want an interesting beer on tap, this Whole Foods has the best beer tap selection around (sadly there’s little other competition) but I don’t feel so bad about this since I don’t carry when I drink anyhow.
There are some nice yoga pants at Whole Foods all hours of day. Some of those ladies have the camel toe thing down to a lovely science.
Check out this craigslist personal add from one guy’s experience at Whole Foods, man, it had me laughing: https://austin.craigslist.org/mis/5127642261.html
I don’t care where you people who want to show your guns go – I will go wherever you are not.