Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

53 businesses who would prefer to keep you unarmed.


John Boy

Recommended Posts

Well darn. Chucky Cheese is on the list. There goes my next birthday party. 

 

:blink:

Link to comment

I moved this post to Team SASS as this is a more appropriate forum for this article.

This is really good info. Thank you John Boy.

 

It's interesting but I patronize several of these businesses. I guess I will be rethinking that. The one that gets me is Waffle House. They try to come off as a traditional Southern type restaurant. They are all over the southeast. 

I am not surprised that a lot of these businesses are on the list. The one that I will have a hard time not using is Google. All the others, not a problem. It kind of bums me out that Jack in the Box is on the list...I USED to like them. The other bummer is My mortgage is through US Bank.

 

The one thing I like about the concealed carry law in Oregon is a business can put up a sign saying "No Guns Allowed" but unless their signs reference the Oregon statute by name and number their sign can legally be ignored regarding concealed carry but not open carry, if I recall correctly from my CHL training. I am sure that will change eventually. Regardless, I do not patronize businesses that post a "no guns" sign even if they don't reference the law, much to my wife's chagrin sometimes.

Link to comment

I know it's not a logical analysis that leads to these kinds of restrictions, but I am still shaking my head.  Let's say you own a restaurant in a suburban, middle class area.  What would motivate you to post a "no guns on the premises" sign?  If you are afraid of armed bandits or gang shooters, do you honestly believe that the sign will turn them away?  If you are afraid of mentally disturbed mass shooters, do you have ANY basis in history to believe that they will turn away and go to the next store?  If you are afraid of angry-ex-employees, why would you think that they would go elsewhere?  The ONLY people that would honor such a sign are law-abiding armed citizens, and you might be damned glad to gave one of them on the premises when the crazed nut job with a gun comes through the front door.

 

So what does all of that mean?  It probably means that owners post such signs to appear politically correct to what they believe is a majority of suburban eaters; or they really haven't given it serious thought.  Either way, it's faulty analysis.

 

If I'm carrying concealed, I'm not taking it off for a restaurant sign.

 

LL

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

Old list...for some newer ones, see:

http://www.2acheck.com/

LL

Dontcha just love it? Take a look at the "celebrities" list and notice how many of them made/make a handsome living on movies where guns are central to the production. Stallone, Costner, Buschemi, Clooney, Connery, Damon just to name a few. And in these movies, guns are often what made the difference in victory over the bad guys.

 

And let's not forget many of them have armed body guards to protect them.

 

Nothing more than a political and publicity statement to make more $$$$$$ for them. Hypocrites.

Link to comment

The thing that bugs me is that some of these folks evidently believe that a licensed, lawful gun owner is likely to "snap" and become a killer.  

 

Reading some comments yesterday in a Fox? article - woman claimed that "the majority" of guns are purchased in the US WITHOUT a background check.  I find that hard to believe....certainly not the situation in my state.

 

LL

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Here in Arizona, most of the businesses listed DO NOT have any restrictions on customers carrying guns.

Same here in Nevada. In fact, we had an instance where a guy went to see his doctor about getting more narcotics and when they wouldn't give them to him, he opened fire. After that, a couple of the medical buildings that I have to go to actually took down their "no firearms" signs. 

Link to comment

Starting last month in Kansas, the no guns signs lost the force of law. That is, a CCW permit holder technically wasn't allowed to bring their gun inside before July. Many businesses still have those signs up, but legally, they're now just "suggestions". Municipalities tried to enact their own legislation to maintain the status quo, but have been struck down by the state.

 

The only place the sign now carries the force of law is when the building/facility has security measures in place such as metal detectors and a staff to monitor them, such as court houses, jails, hospitals et al.

 

Kansas has also become an open carry state where permits aren't required. Fortunately, I've yet to see anyone exercise that option.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

It's the lack of a permit that bothers me most. I think anyone who carries a gun should be educated about state law and the responsibilities of carrying a weapon, which is what the permit process is designed to do.

 

In other words,  place a "poll tax" on a civil right. 

 

Emotionally I agree with you that people should have training.  But, who decides what constitutes a valid amount of training?  Imagine Feinstein and de Leon setting the standards.  

 

I keep hearing concerns about people with no training carrying,  but have yet to see the predicted huge numbers of those people being involved in bad shoots.  

 

Emotional makes for bad law.

Link to comment
On 8/4/2017 at 10:02 AM, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I moved this post to Team SASS as this is a more appropriate forum for this article.

This is really good info. Thank you John Boy.

 

It's interesting but I patronize several of these businesses. I guess I will be rethinking that. The one that gets me is Waffle House. They try to come off as a traditional Southern type restaurant. They are all over the southeast. 

I am not surprised that a lot of these businesses are on the list. The one that I will have a hard time not using is Google. All the others, not a problem. It kind of bums me out that Jack in the Box is on the list...I USED to like them. The other bummer is My mortgage is through US Bank.

 

The one thing I like about the concealed carry law in Oregon is a business can put up a sign saying "No Guns Allowed" but unless their signs reference the Oregon statute by name and number their sign can legally be ignored regarding concealed carry but not open carry, if I recall correctly from my CHL training. I am sure that will change eventually. Regardless, I do not patronize businesses that post a "no guns" sign even if they don't reference the law, much to my wife's chagrin sometimes.

For a search engine that doesn't track you use DuckDuckGo.com.  Also, Dick's Sporting Goods while selling firearms has been on the 2A S*** List since Sandy Hook when they cancelled all customer back orders for the Evil Black Rifle that was on sale at a promotional price from a new MSR mfg.  A restaurant with a locations nationwide is Grimaldi's.  The Sparks NV location has a no guns sign at the entrance.

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
On 8/5/2017 at 11:39 AM, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

In other words,  place a "poll tax" on a civil right. 

 

Emotionally I agree with you that people should have training.  But, who decides what constitutes a valid amount of training?  Imagine Feinstein and de Leon setting the standards.  

 

I keep hearing concerns about people with no training carrying,  but have yet to see the predicted huge numbers of those people being involved in bad shoots.  

 

Emotional makes for bad law.

If it is in the State's interest to insure that those exercising their god given right are trained (educated) then the State should provide the training wo/fee.

Link to comment
Just now, J.D. Daily said:

If it is in the State's interest to insure that those exercising their god given right are trained (educated) then the State should provide the training wo/fee.

 

Nope.  It is in the State's interest to protect our civil rights,  not to decide who is "trained" well enough to exercise them.  

 

If we allow any of the several States to set any standard which must be met for exercising our rights who gets to set that standard and where does it stop?  

 

Look at California.   We are careening down that slippery slope of a power-hungrey State placing more and more roadblocks in front of gun owners "in the State's interest." 

 

We must fight tooth and nail against any attempt by the State to impose restrictive and onerous standards on us.

Link to comment

Joe,

I agree that the State may feel that it is in society's interest to determine who has enough knowledge to possess firearms.  However, that has to be weighed against the individual's 2A right to Keep & Bare Arms; using Strict Scrutiny.  This requires that the State when challenged in court has to articulate the reason (goal) for the restriction and that it is is the least restrictive means of achieving the stated goal.  See the majority opinions in Hobby Lobby & Little Sister of the Poor.  As far as restricting types of firearms the majority opinion in "Heller" written by Associate Justice Scalia stated bans of firearms in "Common Use" fail the test.  The problem is that many Federal district courts have ignored Heller.

P.S. I am a 2A absolutist who feels select fire firearms such aren't dangerous or unusual.  I.E any weapon (arm) that is carried by a grunt or a leatherneck and doesn't require a crew should not be banned or require a tax stamp for a civilian to possess.  Once there is a solid original intent majority SCOTUS and after SCOTUS rules on the carrying of arms outside one's castle and semi-auto/magazine capacity/unsafe guns bans are ruled on; a Miller II case should be pursued.  I hope I live long enough to see the day that civilians can own a machine gun registered before 1987 and not requiring a tax stamp.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, J.D. Daily said:

I.E any weapon (arm) that is carried by a grunt or a leatherneck and doesn't require a crew should not be banned or require a tax stamp for a civilian to possess.

 

 

I would say that at the very least any weapon found in a company, which could include crew-served weapons, is protected by the 2nd. That is pretty much in line with Miller (1939)

Look at the Powers of Congress - granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal.  That power presumes private ownership of guns (and howitzers and mortars). There is no provision for the federal government providing guns for those ships.  Then, if you look back to the War of 1861 you see some militia artillery units that had privately bought cannon being incorporated into both Union and Confederate armies.   


 

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

 

 

The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and the arbitrary powers of rulers, and will generally -- even if these are successful -- enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

STORY, CHIEF JUSTICE JOSEPH, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878)

 

"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be." (Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756)


 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

 

I would say that at the very least any weapon found in a company, which could include crew-served weapons, is protected by the 2nd. That is pretty much in line with Miller (1939)

Look at the Powers of Congress - granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal.  That power presumes private ownership of guns (and howitzers and mortars). There is no provision for the federal government providing guns for those ships.  Then, if you look back to the War of 1861 you see some militia artillery units that had privately bought cannon being incorporated into both Union and Confederate armies.   


 

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

 

 

The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and the arbitrary powers of rulers, and will generally -- even if these are successful -- enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

STORY, CHIEF JUSTICE JOSEPH, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878)

 

"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be." (Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756)


 

 

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Link to comment

I visited the local Outback steakhouse a week or so ago. There are several in my area. I only made it as far as the entrance when I found a sign disinviting me because of my choice to go armed. I had encountered this at another of their establishments several months before and had left after making my displeasure known to the person who greeted me at the door.

 

Schoolmarm checked and ,YES!!  This is their national policy!!  Sad!  I kinda' liked some of their products, but I won't go where my civil rights are not respected!!!

 

EDIT!  I DID send the CEO an E-mail, for all the good it'll do.

Link to comment

Very good discussion by all, so are these the final thoughts?  

 

Charlie

Link to comment

The final thought should be to move to action.  IF EVERY gun owner would actively boycott EVERY business that refused to honor our constitutional rights, this crap would quickly disappear!!

 

100,000,000 gun owners, UNITED, is a FORMIDABLE group!!

Link to comment

I agree Blackwater.  I have forwarded the list by email to a lot of people I know who are gun owners.  I have had a few replies that said they didn't know & were upset that some of the places they've done business with had those policies.  Our direction on this seems clear, we need to get this information out to every gun owner we know.  Remember, information is power.

 

Charlie

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

The final thought should be to move to action.  IF EVERY gun owner would actively boycott EVERY business that refused to honor our constitutional rights, this crap would quickly disappear!!

 

100,000,000 gun owners, UNITED, is a FORMIDABLE group!!

 

One thing that must go along with a boycott is a letter writing and telephone campaign.    Let the capons know we take notice.

Link to comment

As I said previously, I sent an E-mail to their CEO at Outback. I've done this with other businesses and with non business and even government establishments as well!

 

They know for sure I'm watching!!

Link to comment

All are great ideas to move forward with, including encouraging others to do the same.

 

Charlie

Link to comment

Back to the original topic...

 

What? 

 

Nevermind.

 

;)

 

 

Link to comment

FWIW, here is a more comprehensive list:  http://www.2acheck.com/the-boycott-list/nras-list-of-antis/

 

Charlie

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.