Any interest in staging a Pro-Carry protest against a restaurant that bans?

[JayC]

Here here.... Completely agree.

Just forget it. I'm pretty discouraged that we have even a fraction of people here who feel like the path of least resistance is the way to go. :-\

The rules of engagement have changed over the past 20 or so years and the Leftist anti-Liberty, anti-Personal Responsibility crowd have been fighting us using completely different, radical tactics. Yet for some reason we seem damned and determined to keep fighting the way we always have.

I bet there had to have been a British commander or two during the Revolutionary War who was a bit pissed at his superiors for insisting that the Red Coats keep lining up in tight, nice, clean formations on the battlefield while the colonists were fighting using guerrilla tactics and handing them their butts. If there was, I'm starting to know how they must have felt.

<-- apparently the new flag of the American gun owner.

[JayC]

I'm sorry but the lawsuit/insurance line of thinking is a red herring... Businesses already have insurance that covers these types of lawsuits, and unless there is a rash of HCP carriers shooting people (which we all agree is very unlikely if not impossible) insurance companies won't be able to raise rates over this issue (trust me I see insurance guys coming into our business monthly begging us to switch to their carrier - none of them have an anti-firearm customer clause in them).

I do not believe protesting in front of businesses that post signs banning firearms at their establishments will be received by the public in a positive manner.

First reason is that the business owners have the right to post banning firearms on their property or in their establishment. That is the law.

Second reason is the owner will resent the protest, no matter how peaceful the protest, as hassling their paying patrons and their business. This will make the restaurant/bar owners resentful of HCP holders and will probably lead to them digging in deeper to fight against HCP carrying in their establishments. HCP holders are in the minority when it comes to their paying customers. Remember, it easier to get something you want by using honey than vinegar.

Third, this may be about the liability. To restaurant/bar owners, if someone with a HCP brandishes their gun or uses their gun in a shooting, there is a very high possibility that a lawsuit will be filed against the restaurant (deeper pockets). Therefore, we should be willing to helping them by getting the TN legislator to pass a bill removing the liability.

At least this will take away the liability as an excuse for preventing HCP carrying in their restaurants/bars.

We need the media to help send a positive message to the public and consequently restaurant/bar owners that only the HCP holders will be allowed to carry legally and that the HCP holder must not drink. As of last year, 34 states, including five adjacent to Tennessee, allow handgun carry permit holders to take their guns into establishments that serve alcohol.

I believe education is the key to winning the public opinion.

Maybe stage a rally of education at the legislation plaza in Nashville with Q&A flyers to dispel the media myths.

For those with connections, perhaps we should try to open a dialogue with restaurant/bar owners to see what their concern is. Is it personal bias, the threat of future lawsuits or something else?

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[TGO David]

As long as the anti-gun press and other liberal hand-wringers have significant influence over those who are in the middle, on the fence, or otherwise don't have a dog in the hunt, I don't think we should stop caring. I'm not worried about anti-2A people saying anti-2A things; I'm worried about those anti-2A things making sense to the sheeple. Some think we should open carry into bars with IPSC race guns and 28 rounds magazines on our belts. Do it, and see where that gets us. I think we should fight, but we should choose our battles wisely. A lot of right-leaning but non-gunowner types are freaked out at the prospect of people being able to legally carry into clubs. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense. It matters that our imprudent actions and arrogant demands for the absolute right to carry anywhere, any time may only turn off those who would be otherwise disinterested, and ultimately cost us ground that took a long time and a lot of effort to gain.

I understand where you're coming from and have considered that aspect as well. But I'm convinced that now is not the time to sit back and hope that someone else fights the battle for us. If we do, we risk seeing the rights we've labored to keep fade into the annals of history.

I firmly believe that the vast majority (90% or greater?) of firearms owners are content to let organizations such as the NRA fight for their right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps a lesser percentage support the NRA and vote into office those who will protect their rights and vote out of office those who threaten them.

Perhaps I'm being disingenuous to gun owners in general, but I see apathy everywhere I look. And if not apathy, I see laziness or fear of doing something that might rock the boat.

A lot of gun owners are simply sportsmen who only care about their sporting rifles. They don't fear the government banning their Browning duck gun or their Remington deer rifle, but could care less about you or I owning a Glock to carry for protection or an AR15 to enjoy at the range. Hell, I think every American home ought to have a copy of our nation's main battle rifle and believe that our founding fathers did too. It's just that when they penned the 2nd Amendment, our main battle rifle was a flintlock.

The problem that I see is that people want to leave the fight to the NRA or to their elected politicians. The NRA is great at fighting on a national level, but they are limited in what they can do locally. Politicians come in two flavors it seems (Good or Bad) and sadly we don't always end up getting what we voted for. Yet some gun owners take on the mentality that supporting the cause only means getting off their butt every two or four years to go vote, or writing a check so that the NRA has funding to do the dirty work for them.

Pffffft!!!!!

It's high time that gun owners take on the burden themselves and become active supporters and protectors of our Liberties. I'm not saying we need to take up arms and stage a revolution. I'm saying that we need to stage a different kind of revolution and we need to do it by hitting those who fight against us where it hurts the most. When it comes to politicians who threaten our liberties, we need to hit them hard at the polls. When it comes to business people who will take a public, activist stance against our liberties, we need to hit them hard in the wallet.

Is it a punitive action? You better damn well believe it. But don't fool yourself and think that politicians and business people aren't already motivated out of fear. They are! The other side already manipulates them out of the implied threat of taking away their jobs, money, support, voting base, etc. if they don't cater to their agenda.

Again I say it's time for us to fight this war using the rules that have been set by the other party. We're not winning much ground fighting it the way we have been through either gentlemanly conduct or back-alley deals brokered to gain legislative concessions. Those tactics are losing tactics. Like one of the signatures here on TGO says, If you find yourself in a fair fight your tactics SUCK. The other side knows this already. It's high time we come to terms with it ourselves and start fighting fire with fire.

Edited June 2, 2009 by TGO David

[JayC]

Thanks, I guess I wasn’t paying attention. Well I guess now I see why the media is calling it “Guns in Barsâ€; because that is exactly what it is.

There are no bars as defined under TN state law, all businesses issued a restaurant liquor license must primarily be established to serve food. Including these so called "bars". The problem here is not that we'd be allowed to carry in bars, it's that the state ABC does not enforce the law and revoke the liquor license of "bars" since they are operating illegally under state law.

If they're not operating illegally then their not bars.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Guest 3pugguy]

Thanks Dave and again I do appreciate and greatly respect both your opinion, your service to our country and society, and your reasonable posts/ideas. And those who I allude to as fearing the boogey man was not aimed at you - I thought after the fact I did not phrase that very well; that was aimed at the type of folks who drive SUVs to earth day rallies, drink their designer water from plastic bottles, and don't want the police anywhere near them, until they are in peril.

You mentioned elsewhere you are a realist. So am I and my intent would not be to bully anyone into going against their legal right - only to highlight the ridiculous statements made by many on the proposed bill. But I concede your point that TV news would latch onto someone who couldn't say s--t with a mouthful (funny, the wife beater shirt; so on the mark), thus furthering the agenda/reinforcing sterotypes held by the the "anti-any/everything" crowd. Thanks again for your reasonable replies and I hope your summer gets off to a great start.

Barry

[Guest KevinM]

Perhaps I'm being disingenuous to gun owners in general, but I see apathy everywhere I look. And if not apathy, I see laziness or fear of doing something that might rock the boat.

"A lot of this sounds like people having problems with authority more so than people up in arms about their liberties..."

Property owners are the authority of their own property. They have every right to set conditions in regards to the public setting foot on their property. If you want to organize a protest of anyone...protest Metro Nashville Police Chief/Tennessee Public Safety Coalition Lobbyist Ronal Serpas. The man is a disgrace to LE and The Great State on Tennessee.

[Glenn]

Just think how sad and backward this country would be if people had not been willing to stand up and protest for their rights even when it was unpopular or even illegal for them to do so. What if Rosa Parks had thought I better not sit in the front of this bus because the white run newspapers will make me look bad. Or MLK had said we can't eat here because people will get mad. Or the colonists had not had that little tea party because the people in charge aren't going to like it.

Count me in

Glenn

[Guest KevinM]

Just think how sad and backward this country would be if people had not been willing to stand up and protest for their rights even when it was unpopular or even illegal for them to do so. What if Rosa Parks had thought I better not sit in the front of this bus because the white run newspapers will make me look bad. Or MLK had said we can't eat here because people will get mad. Or the colonists had not had that little tea party because the people in charge aren't going to like it.

Count me in

Glenn

The difference is, these people were protesting something that was wrong. And in the case of the Boston Tea Party, they were "protesting" a tyrannical government, not someone who owns private property that wishes to run his business how he sees fit.

Again:

Property owners are the authority of their own property. They have every right to set conditions in regards to the public setting foot on their property. If you want to organize a protest of anyone...protest Metro Nashville Police Chief/Tennessee Public Safety Coalition Lobbyist Ronal Serpas. The man is a disgrace to LE and The Great State on Tennessee.

[Glenn]

Property owners are not really the authority over their property if their property is a business. In a business open to the public I can't exclude someone because of their race, gender, nationality, physical handicap or almost any other criteria. I don't think you can even exclude girls from the Boy Scouts.

Glenn

[Fallguy]

Property owners are not really the authority over their property if their property is a business. In a business open to the public I can't exclude someone because of their race, gender, nationality, physical handicap or almost any other criteria. I don't think you can even exclude girls from the Boy Scouts.

Glenn

You also can't allow smoking even if you wanted to....

So there is no doubt the state can impose thing upon private property ownwers whose property is open to the public if they choose to.

[Guest HexHead]

I fear no one; not the government and not the Police. I am a law abiding citizen that wants to be able to carry a gun. A business owner need not fear me. However if he feels it is in the best interest of his employees and his customers; it is not only his right it is his responsibility to act.

Thanks for your service Dave, and I agree with your points above. However, it is also my right and my responsibility not to support that establishment with my patronage as I disagree with their stand.

[Guest KevinM]

Property owners are not really the authority over their property if their property is a business. In a business open to the public I can't exclude someone because of their race, gender, nationality, physical handicap or almost any other criteria. I don't think you can even exclude girls from the Boy Scouts.

Glenn

Right, just like <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pIllinois </st1:State>has the "right" to completely ban handguns. Just because govt does something, does not make it right (or even legal for that matter). I would go on a rant about the misinterpretation of the commerce clause in the Constitution but <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pwill </st1:State>save that for a more appropriate thread. <O:p</O:p

In any case, your assertion regarding "almost any other criteria" is false. Businesses have every right to refuse your business and have every right to impose conditions on who enters their establishment and who doesn't.

Edited June 3, 2009 by KevinM

[Guest KevinM]

it is also my right and my responsibility not to support that establishment with my patronage as I disagree with their stand.

Definitely and I bet most here would agree. I personally will NEVER set foot in The Gold Rush EVER AGAIN due to the assertions put forth by the owner via The Tennessean.

But going and picketing retaurants is another matter altogether and not a strategy that I would endorse.

[Daniel]

I am against abortion,the death penalty, bailouts, national health care, NAFTA, and Social Security. Meat tastes good, abstinence only in schools and gun control don't work. Gay marriage should be legal and so should Marijuana. The embargo on Cuba should be lifted and the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan should be brought home. Homeland Security is a joke. Immigration is a problem. If the Constitution doesn't cover it, the federal government should stay out of it!

Who do I get to vote for?

awesome sig. I agree with all but two points. Ill leave them a secret though. ^___-

[Glenn]

Gender, age, marital status, race, religion, disability and sexual orientation can not be criteria for exclusion. That covers a lot of people and I imagine there are some other criteria I am not thinking of. Personally I think you should be able to exclude anyone you want to and then suffer the loss of business and public scorn if that is what you want to do. But since you can't I don't see any reason carry permit holders should not try to get admitted.

Peaceful protest (and sometimes not so peaceful) has been a common way to make your feelings known and often to expose wrongs that are being put upon people throughout the history of this country. From the Veterans march on Washington during the Great Depression, the women's right to vote march on the White House. the Civil Rights protests, the Vietnam War protests to the recent Tea Party protests, protesting is an common form of expression in the US. It works for others, why not us.

Glenn

[Glenn]

KevinM said:

Just because govt does something, does not make it right (or even legal for that matter). I would go on a rant about the misinterpretation of the commerce clause in the Constitution but will save that for a more appropriate thread.

I absolutely agree with that.

Glenn

[Guest KevinM]

Gender, age, marital status, race, religion, disability and sexual orientation can not be criteria for exclusion. That covers a lot of people

Right, and nowhere does it say "gun owners" or "people carrying guns".

and I imagine there are some other criteria I am not thinking of.

That is basically it.

Personally I think you should be able to exclude anyone you want to and then suffer the loss of business and public scorn if that is what you want to do.

Agreed. I think they call it "freedom".

But since you can't I don't see any reason carry permit holders should not try to get admitted.

They can exclude people from setting foot on their property for virtually ANY reason besides what you listed. This includes people carrying weapons.

Peaceful protest (and sometimes not so peaceful) has been a common way to make your feelings known and often to expose wrongs that are being put upon people throughout the history of this country. From the Veterans march on Washington during the Great Depression, the women's right to vote march on the White House. the Civil Rights protests, the Vietnam War protests to the recent Tea Party protests, protesting is an common form of expression in the US. It works for others, why not us.

Glenn

I understand what protesting is.... but notice all the protests you mention are citizens protesting the actions of the govt and not citizens protesting the LEGAL actions of other citizens, as is what is being called for in this thread.

Edited June 3, 2009 by KevinM

[Guest KevinM]

I absolutely agree with that.

Glenn

Right on!

[Oh Shoot]

...Peaceful protest (and sometimes not so peaceful) has been a common way to make your feelings known and often to expose wrongs that are being put upon people throughout the history of this country. From the Veterans march on Washington during the Great Depression, the women's right to vote march on the White House. the Civil Rights protests, the Vietnam War protests to the recent Tea Party protests, protesting is an common form of expression in the US. It works for others, why not us....

It's one thing to petition the federal/state/local govt. by massing at one of its institutions for a "redress of grievances".

Quite another to mass at a private place of business, where the owner is doing nothing illegal.

Though you can legally do it, I'm agin' it myself -- whether at Associated Abortions, Sadie's Sex Shoppe, or Bill's Burger n' Beer.

- OS

[Glenn]

At least some of the civil rights protests were against businesses that were only doing what was legal. Excluding a certain class of people.

Nice discussion KevinM. In many ways I agree with you. I guess my thinking is if the Gov. is forcing us to accept whomever they consider a protected class, then why can't we who exercise our 2A rights be protected.

[Oh Shoot]

At least some of the civil rights protests were against businesses that were only doing what was legal. Excluding a certain class of people. ...

Yes, I know there were some, but all the most effective ones were against governmental agencies: Rosa, for example, that pretty much kick started it all, was regarding Montgomery (city run) buses. Voter registration rallies and protests, Memphis (city) garbage workers, many more. Most all of the big marches were to US or state capitols.

And I didn't say that public protest of a legit private business was illegal, just that it's not my libertarian cup o' tea.

And remember, most discrimination policies in the past were "unwritten". In the case at hand, the business owner has specific statutory right to bar us, whether we're black, white, female, gay, whatever.

- OS

Edited June 3, 2009 by OhShoot
oops, changed Birmingham to Montgomery

[threeshot]

I'm sorry but the lawsuit/insurance line of thinking is a red herring... Businesses already have insurance that covers these types of lawsuits, and unless there is a rash of HCP carriers shooting people (which we all agree is very unlikely if not impossible) insurance companies won't be able to raise rates over this issue (trust me I see insurance guys coming into our business monthly begging us to switch to their carrier - none of them have an anti-firearm customer clause in them).

I was unaware that businesses used their insurance company to fight civil lawsuits as the result of a gun being brandish or a shooting at their establishment.

Like all businesses, insurance companies are in business to make money. They will more than likely increase your insurance premiums for having to render services in defending your business.

Whether the restaurant/bar owners use their insurance (when applicable) or hire their own lawyers still results in paying more money (decrease in profits) to run their business.

Pretend I am the owner of a restaurant called Arnold’s and this establishment serves alcohol for consumption on site. The bulk of my paying customers are going to be non-HCP holders given the fact that HCP holders are a very small minority compared to the general populace. If my customers express concern about allowing people to “carry in bars†due to the spread of misinformation by the media outlets with their anti-gun bias, I would post my business to keep my paying patrons.

There is another consideration for posting a ban of firearms at my establishment; by posting the ban of firearms, in the rare event of an incident with a HCP holder and other patrons sue my business, it should be easier to get the lawsuits dismissed since firearms are banned at my establishment. This means less money will be spent on lawyers. Otherwise, unless there is a precedent set by another court case like mine, I will need to go through a more expensive defense that is costing me more money for allowing firearms for HCP holders at my establishment.

I wish David and all others that participate in the peaceful protest success in getting our message across in a positive manner. We are all on the same side. We just see different ways of solving the problem.

[dunndw]

Isn't it funny that the SOB that posted his no guns never sign is SOL as to the legallity of his signage. I won't spend money with people who sheep out that badly so it's a moot point, but I love the fact they're so quick to post they don't know WTF they're doing

Hey when you go back to work @ Arnolds Threeshot..tell the Fonz HEYYYYYY for me :-)

[Guest KevinM]

Its probably the most overrated eatery in the city If you love spending top dollar for sub par food, then by all means...but you'll find better food at many of the taco stands on Nolensville Road...

[Punisher84]

What I think is funny, and Dunndw alluded to this, is that the places that do post will probably post incorrectly and it won't do them any good.

I just hope there isn't a sudden push to change signage law or "substantially similar" becomes a little less strict in the courts.