Buffalo Wild Wings letter.

[G27]

What happens when we run out of "elsewheres" to take our business? What happens when all of the grocery stores in town post? Do I move to an Amish community and churn my own butter?

This problem runs deeper than just how I spend my recreational dollars. I can choose if I want to eat out or not but I still have to buy food, gas etc and would rather not have to disarm to do so.

I understand, but I'm not prepared to force business owners to run their businesses in a certain way. If they don't want my business, I'll take it elsewhere.

[Guest RevScottie]

I understand, but I'm not prepared to force business owners to run their businesses in a certain way. If they don't want my business, I'll take it elsewhere.

But we already force business owners to do certain things. A business owner can not refuse service to someone because of the color of their skin so if we indeed have the right to be armed why should they be able to opt out?

[Oh Shoot]

But we already force business owners to do certain things. A business owner can not refuse service to someone because of the color of their skin so if we indeed have the right to be armed why should they be able to opt out?

As has been said many times, you do NOT have the right to carry in TN. You pay for a limited privilege to do so.

- OS

[Gun Smith]

I believe one reason places post is because everyone is so sue happy....if you shoot someone in their store the store is going to be the "deep pockets" in any civil suit. And even though they more than likely have nothing to do with your actions or those of the person you shot they have now found themselves in the middle of it.

.

Bingo! I believe it's the main reason. It's all about liability. They are business and are protecting their assets. If that were not the case they could just ask that all patrons who carry must conceal to make their gunaphobe folks feel warm and fuzzy.

[Krull]

Hell, I have never even been to a BWW. I sent a email telling them I guess I never will.

[G27]

But we already force business owners to do certain things. A business owner can not refuse service to someone because of the color of their skin so if we indeed have the right to be armed why should they be able to opt out?

IMO, a private business owner should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason they choose, so realize your argument won't help you from my perspective.

[Fallguy]

So, if a place such as walmart is mopping the floor and I slip and fall even if they have a sign out that says wet floor or whatever do you really think I wouldnt be awarded any money if I sued?

You probably would, but not if I was on the jury.

As far as the current legal standard, a place of business does have to take reasonable steps to protect you from a know or should have reasonably know threat, but not a general threat. That is about the extent of their responsibly. If you do not think they have taken those steps, then it is your responsibility not to enter or do business with them, not enter and hope for an opportunity to sue.

There is a case where Wal-Mart was sued successfully for an incident that occurred in their parking lot. This was because there had been a rash of incidents that had occurred and nothing was done to try and prevent future occurrences or to protect the patrons. But within that ruling the court stated there was no duty to protect from a general threat.

Again, if carry is supposed to truly be a right (which it really isn't now) then I don't think a place should be able to stop you from it, next best thing, would be for it not to be a criminal offense, but again that just isn't the way things are now. So as long as there are people looking to sue at the drop of a hat, I imagine places will continue to post until they are given some type of protection under the law.

[Alpha13]

As has been said many times, you do NOT have the right to carry in TN. You pay for a limited privilege to do so.

- OS

and this is the problem!

though I do respect the individual businesses property rights, any government place shuld not have that ability.

[strickj]

But we already force business owners to do certain things. A business owner can not refuse service to someone because of the color of their skin so if we indeed have the right to be armed why should they be able to opt out?

Because a person can not remove their skin, creed, or disability in order to enter a business. You can remove your gun.

Being a gun owner does not put you in a protected class.

[Fallguy]

Because a person can not remove their skin, creed, or disability in order to enter a business.

True....and it may be the morally right thing to do business with anyone regardless of skin color, creed or disability, but it still doesn't really explain why the government should force a private property owner to do so.

[Guest RevScottie]

Because a person can not remove their skin, creed, or disability in order to enter a business. You can remove your gun.

Being a gun owner does not put you in a protected class.

It all depends on whether or not you truly beleive thet we have the RIGHT to bear arms, if so then that is indeed a protected class.

And to use the same argument that this thread has made over and over: if someone doesn't want your color in their store just go elsewhere. If people had this attitude during the civil rights movement we would still have segregated transportation, shops, etc.

[strickj]

True....and it may be the morally right thing to do business with anyone regardless of skin color, creed or disability, but it still doesn't really explain why the government should force a private property owner to do so.

Just one of those things that you have to experience to understand

It all depends on whether or not you truly beleive thet we have the RIGHT to bear arms, if so then that is indeed a protected class.

And to use the same argument that this thread has made over and over: if someone doesn't want your color in their store just go elsewhere. If people had this attitude during the civil rights movement we would still have segregated transportation, shops, etc.

Yes, I truly believe we have a second amendment ....which protects of from government infringement.....not from private property owners.

Ya know, I am not one of those types that are over sensitive about things, but it is a bit offensive to want to compare gun ownership to disability or race laws.

[Fallguy]

Just one of those things that you have to experience to understand

I agree...

Ya know, I am not one of those types that are over sensitive about things, but it is a bit offensive to want to compare gun ownership to disability or race laws.

I don''t think anyone means to be offensive, it's just if it is a right (which it truly isn't at the moment though) then if there is protection many think it ought to be included, regardless of whether it is a choice or not. One could argue religion is a choice, but it is still protected.

[Guest RevScottie]

I agree...

I don''t think anyone means to be offensive, it's just if it is a right (which it truly isn't at the moment though) then if there is protection many think it ought to be included, regardless of whether it is a choice or not. One could argue religion is a choice, but it is still protected.

That’s my point, it is either a right or not. If it is indeed a right a business should not be allowed to decide on their own if they want to honor that right or not. Please don’t find offense, I am simply using race as an example of the government forcing a business to do something that may be against their wishes in order to preserve the rights of others. If gun owners continue to allow politicians to trample our rights they will soon disappear altogether.

[Oh Shoot]

That’s my point, it is either a right or not. ..

Of course it is not a right, how can that not be obvious to you at this point?

It should be, but it's simply not, in the State of Tennessee.

- OS

[Guest archerdr1]

just a thought, If I read the 2A correctly, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", I do not see "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government" Again, just a thought.

[strickj]

just a thought, If I read the 2A correctly, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", I do not see "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government" Again, just a thought.

You should read it again

[Punisher84]

just a thought, If I read the 2A correctly, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", I do not see "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government" Again, just a thought.

You gotta read the whole thing there guy. Lol

[Fallguy]

just a thought, If I read the 2A correctly, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", I do not see "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government" Again, just a thought.

The constitution as a whole is a set of rules for the government, not private citizens.

[G27]

The constitution as a whole is a set of rules for the government, not private citizens.

Yah, I've never understood why the government can tell a private business owner who they have to serve. Makes zero sense to me. The next logical step is to invade our homes with their 'fairness rules', which of course they've been trying to do for some time now...

[Guest archerdr1]

I do not argue with a property owner's right to refuse service to anyone, and while I agree that the constitution relates to rules for our gov't, the bill of rights is just that, our rights and I did read it again, in my first post on it, yes i left out the first part about the well regulated militia, but that was b/c I was talking about the part of the right to keep and bear arms. I will repost the entire thing, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Still don't see the words, "By the government",which is the point I was making. But going to the point of criminal actions, could that not be considered an infringement by the gov't?

[Punisher84]

I do not argue with a property owner's right to refuse service to anyone, and while I agree that the constitution relates to rules for our gov't, the bill of rights is just that, our rights and I did read it again, in my first post on it, yes i left out the first part about the well regulated militia, but that was b/c I was talking about the part of the right to keep and bear arms. I will repost the entire thing, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Still don't see the words, "By the government",which is the point I was making. But going to the point of criminal actions, could that not be considered an infringement by the gov't?

It doesn't have to say "by the government" it's who the writers were addressing. The only people with real means to oppress us in our country is "the government", so I think it's fairly obvious if you read the Constitution and BoR who they were talking about.

Criminal actions are a bit different. While some "laws" do encroach on our rights, there has never been a mentality that we should have no laws. Criminal actions against the commonwealth by their nature infringe on our rights in a sense, so the guilty lose some of their rights when they violate the rights of others. As you will notice though, they still retain many.

[Guest x82para]

Honestly If you really want to make a point I know most kitchen staff,busser,dishwashers in resturants(im not sure about wild wings)are non american...I would venture to say a good percent of them are illegal. So Basically they are letting people who they have no idea about work in ther restuant but you having a complete backgound check cannot carry in there restuant. Seems kind of hipocritial to me...Maybe just one day early before they open sit accross in the parking lot and see for yourself...come to a conculsion then right a letter.

[Guest mds3d]

Honestly If you really want to make a point I know most kitchen staff,busser,dishwashers in resturants(im not sure about wild wings)are non american...I would venture to say a good percent of them are illegal. So Basically they are letting people who they have no idea about work in ther restuant but you having a complete backgound check cannot carry in there restuant. Seems kind of hipocritial to me...Maybe just one day early before they open sit accross in the parking lot and see for yourself...come to a conculsion then right a letter.

I am not quite sure where you get this... Observation? Are you sure that this isn't a positive result bias kind of thing?

Also, are you assuming that anyone who is not white or black (just latinos maybe) are not american? How are you sure they aren't an american born college student or a naturalized citizen?

Don't make arguements in the name of Gun ownership that make us look bad.

Edited November 16, 2010 by mds3d
hit post too soon

[Gun Smith]

Honestly If you really want to make a point I know most kitchen staff,busser,dishwashers in resturants(im not sure about wild wings)are non american...I would venture to say a good percent of them are illegal. So Basically they are letting people who they have no idea about work in ther restuant but you having a complete backgound check cannot carry in there restuant. Seems kind of hipocritial to me...Maybe just one day early before they open sit accross in the parking lot and see for yourself...come to a conculsion then right a letter.

As far as them being illegal aliens, you don't even have to go that far. It would be interesting to do random background checks on the staff at any eating establishment. I'd be willing to venture that you'd get the full array felons, perverts, etc. And to think people line up to eat their cooking. The more I learn about it, and think about it, I can hardly eat out anymore.