B O Y C O T T!!! ALL restaurants that serve alcohol....

[Guest Jcochran88]

I understand the thought but a restaurant can be impacted 4% by a little rain. We will not make a difference doing this. Howerver we might just feel a little better for it.

[Guest bkelm18]

Meh. I'm not going to punish the restaurants that had nothing to do with this lawsuit. If they allowed carry before, I will continue to patronize them (disarmed), if they did not, I will continue not to patronize them. It's kind of silly to just put a blanket over the whole industry just because of a few bad, albeit influential, apples.

[Guest KarlS]

Forgive in advance as I'm not in TN but am enraged with you. Didn't I see in the ruling that restaurants could opt out? If that's the case couldn't you show your support in those restaurants? Good luck guys.

[Guest 70below]

Meh. I'm not going to punish the restaurants that had nothing to do with this lawsuit. If they allowed carry before, I will continue to patronize them (disarmed), if they did not, I will continue not to patronize them. It's kind of silly to just put a blanket over the whole industry just because of a few bad, albeit influential, apples.

A boycott may or may not have any effect, but I'd rather restaurants that I frequent and know me, know that if they aren't part of the solution, then they're part of the problem. Our whole society has become "I'm one person, I don't make a difference, I'm not going to do anything". Its no wonder our country has turned into a bunch of worthless sheeple.

[Guest benchpresspower]

Didn't someone come up with the idea of protesting in front of Bradburn's (I think that is his name) restaurant with empty holsters?

I'm with Hex on the boycott, 4% or not, its about the message that needs to be sent.

[dralarms]

Well I for one will boycott. Although I don't spend much I take my grand children out to Ruby Tuesdays every Friday Total= 70.00 (tip included), and my wife and I go to outbacks on sunday for a total of about 75.00.

That's 150.00 per week. You tell me we won't be missed?

Oh and I will be going to Outbacks on suday for 1 last visit. Just to let them know that is will be my last and why.

Now what we really need to do is get a petition started and once everyone has a chance to sign it send it to every resturant. Probally won't help but it would let them know how many people are not coming into their resturants.

Edited November 21, 2009 by dralarms
added info

[Guest HexHead]

They say that "perception is reality". Even if restaurant owners think that 250,000 HCP holders and their guests, family members and supporters won't support their business over this, it will at least make them lose sleep over it. We can't just sit back and hope everything is going to work out. That maybe the legislature will change to law in January. Look at how well hope and change has been working out for us so far.

How one liberal judge can overturn a state law claiming "it's vague", due to a definition used by the ABC to issue a permit, when the law itself offers it's own very specific definition of what a restaurant is, is beyond me.

[timcalhoun]

Not a problem.

[Motasyco]

I reached this conclusion when I initially read about the judges decision. Argue the numbers all you like, my conscience will not allow me to spend my money where alcohol is served. Whether or not it impacts their bottom line makes little difference. It impacts my bottom line. I must be true to myself first. I travel regularly for business and I'm forced to eat at restaurants if I want to eat. This will be a hardship for me but I will sleep at peace with myself. The question now is not if guns are allowed, the question will be "Do you serve alcohol?". If the answer is yes, then "Sorry, I'll take my business elsewhere".

[DaveTN]

This has been beat to death in other threads; I see some reposting their responses so I will add mine again.

I will not be a part of boycotting any innocent business owner. As has been stated; there is nothing they can do.

The state saw fit to trample the rights of the business owners with the smoking ban, even when it would cost some businesses a heck of a lot more than what you are suggesting. They could do nothing then and they can’t do anything now.

If you don’t want to sit on your hands and do nothing; then don’t. Get a law passed that gives absolute immunity to the business owner in the case of a shooting in their business. The state of Tennessee has seen fit to give the okay on carrying guns in bars; they should be prepared to step up if something goes wrong.

I must admit though the math part of this thread is pretty amusing.

[analog_kidd]

We eat out a lot, and when the law to allow carry passed, I decided I would not darken the door of any restaurant that posted. And with the exception of one time, I have held to that.

That said, I don't think any of the restaurants we stopped going to are hurting now. I don't think they even care.

I also agree with bkelm, the restaurants we have been going to, that did not post, have been faithful to me and respected my right to carry all along. Why should I turn my back on them now?

[Guest HexHead]

I will not be a part of boycotting any innocent business owner. As has been stated; there is nothing they can do.

Get a law passed that gives absolute immunity to the business owner in the case of a shooting in their business. The state of Tennessee has seen fit to give the okay on carrying guns in bars; they should be prepared to step up if something goes wrong.

There are no "innocents" any more. They can be sent a message that by their silence they are part of the problem. They need to let the TN Hospitality Assoc. know they don't support their positions and send a clear message to the plaintiffs that they don't speak for all the restaurant owners for the next battle. They're already saying they will respond to any efforts to overturn Bonneyman's ruling through the legislature.

And you're being foolish if you think this is about liability issues. It's about money, plain and simple. The "plaintiffs" want the state to do their dirty work so they don't have to put up a sign and risk alienating customers. We need to show them that "out" won't work.

[DaveTN]

There are no "innocents" any more. They can be sent a message that by their silence they are part of the problem. They need to let the TN Hospitality Assoc. know they don't support their positions and send a clear message to the plaintiffs that they don't speak for all the restaurant owners for the next battle. They're already saying they will respond to any efforts to overturn Bonneyman's ruling through the legislature.

And you're being foolish if you think this is about liability issues. It's about money, plain and simple. The "plaintiffs" want the state to do their dirty work so they don't have to put up a sign and risk alienating customers. We need to show them that "out" won't work.

There have been threads posted here of gun friendly restaurants, many have went out of their way to support them. Now you have decided to take it upon yourself to try to get everyone to turn on them. It’s wrong; it just doesn’t make good sense.

And you are foolish if you think pitting gun owners against innocent business owners will end well for us.

[Metalhead]

There have been threads posted here of gun friendly restaurants, many have went out of their way to support them. Now you have decided to take it upon yourself to try to get everyone to turn on them. It’s wrong; it just doesn’t make good sense.

And you are foolish if you think pitting gun owners against innocent business owners will end well for us.

+1

Emotional reactions aside, the only thing that is really going to change anything at all is during the next session in January. There is no need to punish restaurant owners that sided with us during this whole debacle and it'd be spitting in their face if you do. How do you think that would make them feel on the issue the next time around?

[Guest mikedwood]

I must admit though the math part of this thread is pretty amusing.

Yeah, I hope there aren't many reloaders among the boards mathematicians. Some of that math in reloading might = or serious injury.

I'll boycott though because I carry every day, doesn't matter if I "need" to or not. I have just gotten use to it and my G26 and wallet go with me where ever I may roam.

I do not feel comfortable leaving my firearm in the car, and I don't feel comfortable breaking the law. I will disarm if I need to go somewhere like a government building or school of course. Otherwise I just don't go.

Plus it's cheaper and the food is better eating at home.

[TGO David]

There have been threads posted here of gun friendly restaurants, many have went out of their way to support them. Now you have decided to take it upon yourself to try to get everyone to turn on them. It’s wrong; it just doesn’t make good sense.

And you are foolish if you think pitting gun owners against innocent business owners will end well for us.

Excellent post.

TGO does not support any such boycott of all restaurants that serve.

If you want to be specific and boycott only those restaurants owned by the parties who presented this silly case back to the court, by all means do so. I doubt many of us ate at any of Randy Rayburn's establishments in the first place, but whatever.

There is absolutely no sense or practicality in hurting every single restaurant that serves beer or alcohol because of some liberal activist judge's actions. It's pathetic and only serves to alienate those who have been on our side.

Case in point: Pie In The Sky (Coolsprings) welcomed us into their establishment to celebrate the law going into effect. The manager and owners knew who we were and why we were there. Do you propose that we turn now and stab them in the back because of what someone else did?

Poor form. Very poor form.

[robin48]

I have to agree with the two Daves on this one. Punish the guilty, not everyone. This will all get corrected at some point. We need to keep level heads and not go off on an ill advised boycott of all dining establishments that sell alcohol.

[JayC]

I think you'd be better to start with the restaurants who are members "hospitality association"... The fact is that only a small fraction of restaurants are, the vast majority didn't post, and don't belong to a group that caused this lawsuit.

Your best bet is to pressure the remaining member restaurants to quit or force a change in policy.

It's time we start fighting fire with fire. This restaurant decision today wasn't about constitutionality. It was about money. If we want to preserve our rights and punish those than want to take them away from us, we need to take action.

You may be thinking "why punish the places that didn't post or weren't behind this?" In these economic times, restaurants are a lot emptier than they were a year ago. We need to hit them all in the cash drawer to get the restaurant owners that didn't really care a reason to pressure the hospitality association and the plaintiff restauranteurs to back off on this stupidity.

This legal action was all about them not wanting to lose any money by making the state the "bad guy" so they could keep their hands clean by not posting. Let's show them that this is a losing proposition for them and that we have the money they need to keep the doors open and are willing to deny it to them.

This is going to call for sacrifice, giving up going to favorite places. You'll probably take a lot of heat from your wives and friends. But it's the only language these guys understand. And it's going to take more than just one or two of us. A lot more.

BTW...you'll probably save some money too.

[JayC]

Like 4% of the TN population, even IF every single one participated, would make a whisker of difference state wide to any given restaurant, or chain.

- OS

I think you're under estimating how bad the current economy is... 4% drop in sales would like put some restaurants out of business in short order.

You have to remember that most of these places have already seen a drop in sales from the smoking ban, a drop in sales from the economy, in some cases restaurants are off 20% already from 06 and 07 sales. Add another 4+% to the mix and it would cause some serious issues with their cash flow.

[JayC]

I'm sorry but a 4% drop in sales will be noticed on weekly reports in most chain restaurants and on monthly reports in even the smallest family restaurant.

There able to tell you exactly how much the smoking ban cost them in sales.

I'm in agreement that a general boycott of all restaurants won't work, just a targetted one will, focus on the hospitality association members, they funded this lawsuit, we should focus on putting pressure on those business.

The vast majority of restaurant owners don't belong to the hospitality association and have done nothing to offend the 2nd amendment crowd or HCP.

The data is too noisey for them to even remotely hear a 4% difference.

From one year to the next, their income fluctuates by several times that level. If you have 6ft waves slapping on the beach, you're never going to notice the short ripples from a rock thrown into the surf.

What's more, one good ad or coupon campain will boost their sales by far more than 4% and they run such routines regularly.

Finally, what makes you think that ALL 4% of us will mantain the boycott for any period of time? At best, half might do it for a month or so. Now we're down to 2% of their income and we are incapable of maintaining that for any real period of time.

It's silly to think that we are a large enough group to be a factor that gets noticed when we don't show up. Run an ad campain, picket, etc might work, but not boycotting.

[JayC]

There are no "innocents" any more. They can be sent a message that by their silence they are part of the problem. They need to let the TN Hospitality Assoc. know they don't support their positions and send a clear message to the plaintiffs that they don't speak for all the restaurant owners for the next battle. They're already saying they will respond to any efforts to overturn Bonneyman's ruling through the legislature.

And you're being foolish if you think this is about liability issues. It's about money, plain and simple. The "plaintiffs" want the state to do their dirty work so they don't have to put up a sign and risk alienating customers. We need to show them that "out" won't work.

Hex,

You and I are on the same page most of the time, but this isn't a good idea. I understand your frustration, and a plan of action does need to happen, but you need to refocus your anger on the people responsible for this.

Just because a business didn't go out of their way to file a friend of the court brief doesn't mean they're anti-2nd amendment, just as the vast majority of HCP holders didn't show up at the hearing yesterday.

There are business which funded this lawsuit, and business who are members of the hospitality association which through their inaction supported this nonsense, but it's a very small group of people. I think some where around 800-1000 restaurants, think about how many restaurants with liquor licenses are in TN and how small that number is.

There are things we can do to boycott the trouble makers and the people who through direction inaction support those trouble makers.

But the vast majority of restaurant owners don't have anything more to do with this than the population as a whole.

[Guest 70below]

I will not be a part of boycotting any innocent business owner. As has been stated; there is nothing they can do.

I couldn't disagree more. This large part of this mess is a few liberal restaurant/bar owners raising the issue, perhaps due to their relationship with a few liberal politicians. If the other restaurants did not join in, or strongly opposed those liberal owners instead of sitting by and saying "I don't care" "or not my problem" then this would be a non issue.

In my opinion the above statement is the exact same mentality representing the bulk of American people in this day and age, thats why we make no progress, and we fail to stand together to take action.

[Guest HexHead]

Hex,

You and I are on the same page most of the time, but this isn't a good idea. I understand your frustration, and a plan of action does need to happen, but you need to refocus your anger on the people responsible for this.

I guess we disagree on the tactics. My feeling on this is we need to take a "scorched earth" view. For the great majority of the restaurants that didn't post, it had nothing to do with supporting us, it was just the path of least resistance.

Just targeting the members of the TNHA will be ineffective, because if they are still members of the organization, they are already believers of their views. We need to make the other restaurant owners be pro-active against any further limitations that will continue to impact their business. We need them to band together against the plaintiffs and convince them they are hurting all their businesses with their stupidity. This can only be accomplished by targeting their bottom line. This truly needs to be "you're either with us or against us." Otherwise, we're just going to continue to lose this fight.

The plaintiff's attorneys have already stated that they intend to continue legal action on any attempts the legislature may make to circumvent the Chancellor's decision. They think the public is with them and are citing that stupid MTSU poll as "proof" they are on the right track. The only shot we have at stopping this is making the other restaurant owners pressure them to back off. Make them be vocal in their opposition so that the newspapers can't say things like "most restaurants support the ban". Show that it's only a handful of restaurant owners that are causing all the trouble.

No, it has to be everyone, or it won't work at all. Yeah, it'll be inconvenient for us. We'll have to give up some dining habits for a while. Maybe we're just of a generation that's not willing to sacrifice anything for principle any more. Even "Two for $20" at Applebee's?

[Guest HexHead]

Excellent post.

TGO does not support any such boycott of all restaurants that serve.

I'm sorry you're taking that position, but it was expected.

Case in point: Pie In The Sky (Coolsprings) welcomed us into their establishment to celebrate the law going into effect. The manager and owners knew who we were and why we were there. Do you propose that we turn now and stab them in the back because of what someone else did?

Poor form. Very poor form.

In any battle, there will be some collateral damage. It's unfortunate, but it comes with the territory.

Gee, I wonder if they fired off a letter to Rayburn or his attorneys saying they didn't support this lawsuit and that they didn't speak for them? Yes, I agree it was nice of them to let us meet there, but let's not forget they probably made an extra $500-600 that night they probably wouldn't have otherwise. And they certainly knew we weren't going to be rowdy or trouble makers.

[Good_Steward]

The data is too noisey for them to even remotely hear a 4% difference.

From one year to the next, their income fluctuates by several times that level. If you have 6ft waves slapping on the beach, you're never going to notice the short ripples from a rock thrown into the surf.

What's more, one good ad or coupon campain will boost their sales by far more than 4% and they run such routines regularly.

Finally, what makes you think that ALL 4% of us will mantain the boycott for any period of time? At best, half might do it for a month or so. Now we're down to 2% of their income and we are incapable of maintaining that for any real period of time.

It's silly to think that we are a large enough group to be a factor that gets noticed when we don't show up. Run an ad campain, picket, etc might work, but not boycotting.

Look, statistically, let's say that they have a normal fluctuation of +-4% in their regular income, based on 100% standard sales. Now, let's take 4% off of the top, to make it 96% standard amount of sales, and add that +-4%. Now you have a range of 92% to 100% of standard versus a range of 96% to 104% of standard. Statistically that is a pretty large variable, even if they overlap, and it will be noticed by the bean counters. I'm just saying that the "we aren't large enough to make a difference theory" is not a good one. Many of the vocal minorities set policy for the much larger majority. Don't believe me? Look at our laws.