NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: aceflyer on September 08, 2014, 06:52:54 PM
-
http://journalstar.com/business/local/panera-asks-customers-to-leave-guns-at-home/article_179b4fc3-6fae-5260-8fb3-ab1b0c76c407.html (http://journalstar.com/business/local/panera-asks-customers-to-leave-guns-at-home/article_179b4fc3-6fae-5260-8fb3-ab1b0c76c407.html)
-
I don't like Panera Bread anyway. Over priced and pretentious.
-
From what I've read Panera is just formally asking customers not to bring guns into their stores. They or their employees won't be enforcing this as they will follow state and local laws.
I think avoiding them all together would be the best route or cover it up.
-
From what I've read Panera is just formally asking customers not to bring guns into their stores. They or their employees won't be enforcing this as they will follow state and local laws.
I think avoiding them all together would be the best route or cover it up.
Ah, sort of like Target. A little attempt to soothe both sides.
-
Did they put up a sign? If not, keep it concealed and carry anyway. These companies just want to do business. Getting involved in the gun control argument is a losing proposition for them. If we don't put them on the spot, they are likely to leave us alone.
-
I will continue to eat there and with my concealed carry just as before. When they post signs I will give them one of my "No guns = No Money" cards and that will be the last they see of me and my money.
-
It sounds like they will not post their stores.
Panera is doing this because of pressure from anti-gun groups in light of open carrying of long guns in stores. :(
CC I think will work as long as it stays concealed.
-
This is like Target, Starbucks and more that everyone keeps saying has gone anti gun. They are all following state and local laws, they just don't want to be involved in our political fight. So no open carry gatherings, no carrying your AR - just cause you can. Please show these businesses some respect and they will continue to respect your right to defend yourself, they just don't want to be in the fight.
-
they just don't want to be in the fight.
Then they shouldn't pick a side
-
Then they shouldn't pick a side
They didn't they just asked us to allow them to be neutral. They did not ban the carry of firearms, none of these places posted. What they did is request people to follow state and local laws and respect them enough not to use them for publicity.
-
What they did is request people to follow state and local laws
And open carry does not?
-
So, basically what you are saying is that your rights under the constitution and the law to openly carry an AR on your shoulder is more important than their rights under the same constitution and law to ask nicely that you don't in their place of business? Sounds hypocritical to me.
-
No sign at the 134th & Maple Panera. Based on what I saw in the press release, there won't be any signs and their employees have been instructed not to confront anyone with a gun.
I think these retail stores and restaurants are trying to placate the Mom's Demand Action crowd while allowing law-abiding gun owners to continue to carry in their stores and restaurants. It's a fence-riding approach. Anyone who grew up on a farm knows that riding a fence can be pretty uncomfortable. Eventually, you're going to land on one side or the other.
-
They can't have it both ways. Either they allow free American citizens with a Constitutional right to bear arms for their personal defense into their stores, or they assume ALL responsibility and liability for any customers injured during the commission of a crime while on their premises. Put their money where their mouth is.
-
They can't have it both ways. Either they allow free American citizens with a Constitutional right to bear arms for their personal defense into their stores, or they assume ALL responsibility and liability for any customers injured during the commission of a crime while on their premises. Put their money where their mouth is.
Read this, http://butlerpappas.com/1411. (http://butlerpappas.com/1411.)
Many court decisions have upheld that a business has "No Duty to Protect" it's patrons. I also would like to remind you that LE has no duty to protect you from crime either.
-
Read this, http://butlerpappas.com/1411. (http://butlerpappas.com/1411.)
Many court decisions have upheld that a business has "No Duty to Protect" it's patrons. I also would like to remind you that LE has no duty to protect you from crime either.
Since there is no requirement for you to go to that place, you can't really argue that you were forced to be disarmed and helpless.
A business can make that call. Up to them. Their private building, their choice.
Now, I must admit in cases where you HAVE to go there (for example, some state buildings such as the DMV) I think that if they make you go there but don't allow you to defend yourself, then indeed they SHOULD be forced to assume responsibility for your protection. After all, they are forcing you to be comparatively defenseless. Against, for example, our state constitution.
But again, for places like Panera---it is a private building, and you don't have to go there. If you choose to do so, it is no different than if the business says "no shoes, no shirt, no service," yes? You need to match their entrance requirements.
Which is why, I'll note, that I don't go to private businesses that don't allow concealed carry. As for Panera----they are making the smart business choice of keeping a vocal group happy while allowing everyone to do pretty much exactly what they were doing before. Am I thrilled about their choice? No, I'd rather have them vocally support legal gun owners. Am I surprised at their choice? Not at all.
After all, their business is food, not politics, and they want to sell lots of food to everyone.
I note: while I personally am not interested in open carry, and I think most of the attention-seeking open carry folks we've seen in the news lately are idiots, that doesn't change the fact that I'm not thrilled that businesses are now asking people who open carry to please not do so. (I'll note that "attention-seeking open carry folks we've seen in the news lately" is not a category that includes all open-carry folks.)
But private businesses have the right to make their own choices about what they allow in or not. Not going to go out of my way to give them money for their choice---but I certainly respect their right to MAKE that choice.
-
They can't have it both ways.
Have you ever dealt with someone who tells you what you want to hear but never takes action to implement what he said? I think Panera and others are doing that to the anti-gunners. If Panera hasn't posted signs, nothing has changed. You can still patronize them while armed. They don't plan to confront anyone which would only apply to open carriers. All they are asking for is wiggle room. In my opinion, a strategy of "If you're not for us, you're against us" would be disastrous. It would unnecessarily make enemies of those who have nothing against us and, unless pushed, would just as soon leave us alone.
-
No, you don't have to go to Panera. However, if you go there, you have a reasonable expectation of safety. Think of slipping on a wet floor in a super market as an example. I don't think there is any case law yet that specifically deals with "protecting" patrons from violence.
With that said, a federal judge just ruled that the Aurora, CO theater where the mass shooting took place "could have reasonably enough foreseen the danger of such an attack to be held liable for it".
Now, I'm no attorney but if you ask your customers to lower their ability to defend themselves it seems "legally foreseeable" that they are at greater risk to violent attacks.
-
I'm right there with jthhapkido on the open carry but when does this start to infringe on constitutional rights? If carrying a firearm and the right of self defense are basic civil rights then I believe these are rights we should have everywhere.
I personally can think of several individual rights businesses at one time didn't have to allow in their business. More recently a bakery had to make a cake for a gay wedding.
I guess if you are a gun owner no one cares if you are discriminated against.
-
As for Panera----they are making the smart business choice of keeping a vocal group happy while allowing everyone to do pretty much exactly what they were doing before. Am I thrilled about their choice? No, I'd rather have them vocally support legal gun owners. Am I surprised at their choice? Not at all.
After all, their business is food, not politics, and they want to sell lots of food to everyone.
This is the point, good note JTH.
But to add, they have not taken a position that you can not open carry, even an AR-15 if it is legal in that jurisdiction. They simply want us (those supportive of gun rights) to give them some room to be neutral. They do not want to be part of the show, why can't we respect that?
-
No, you don't have to go to Panera. However, if you go there, you have a reasonable expectation of safety. Think of slipping on a wet floor in a super market as an example. I don't think there is any case law yet that specifically deals with "protecting" patrons from violence.
With that said, a federal judge just ruled that the Aurora, CO theater where the mass shooting took place "could have reasonably enough foreseen the danger of such an attack to be held liable for it".
Now, I'm no attorney but if you ask your customers to lower their ability to defend themselves it seems "legally foreseeable" that they are at greater risk to violent attacks.
The case law on this is very murky, as you have said there is the recent Aurora ruling, but there are also rulings against laws that require businesses to allow carry (removing their property rights) that are related, the ones that come to mind are out of Oklahoma. This is a very new area of law, adding firearms to the public safety issues businesses must deal with and there needs to be scholarly research that is published on the issue before a case could be brought. This is much like getting the original Heller verdict, Alan Gotlieb had the idea that someday that case would happen when he formed the SAF back in the early 1970's. But he also knew that based upon how things were then the verdict would go against us. That is why the SAF, NRA etc. has spent so much money getting articles published in law reviews and funding research into crime statistics. Even though nobody thought that everything was in place for that verdict there was enough that it came out in our favor, a little luck was involved along with lots of work that Alan Gura (For those that do not know he got a flat $10,000 for that case and had to cover all expenses from that. The case took years before a verdict came out of the Supreme Court) did not get paid well enough for.
-
No, you don't have to go to Panera. However, if you go there, you have a reasonable expectation of safety. Think of slipping on a wet floor in a super market as an example. I don't think there is any case law yet that specifically deals with "protecting" patrons from violence.
Slipping on a non-marked wet floor has to do with the STORE causing the accident.
The discussion at hand, however, somehow makes the business responsible for other people's actions.
With that said, a federal judge just ruled that the Aurora, CO theater where the mass shooting took place "could have reasonably enough foreseen the danger of such an attack to be held liable for it".
Yep, I read that awhile back, and think it is a horrible idea---and one that will get overturned on appeal.
After all, it effectively means that any business you go into is now suddenly liable (and able to be sued) for pretty much any accidents, incidents, or altercations that occur in them, as the argument will be that someone should have foreseen such a thing and prepared for it. Which, of course, is nonsense.
You know, Kroger's should have foreseen that mob assault that occurred in their parking lot, and had security out there. Obviously, they should be sued.
Matter of fact, we know that LOTS of car break-ins, petty theft, and muggings happen in parking lots of malls. And malls have LOTS of money---they should be sued, because they KNOW things like that happen, and they don't have security in all lots at all times.
Now, I'm no attorney but if you ask your customers to lower their ability to defend themselves it seems "legally foreseeable" that they are at greater risk to violent attacks.
Again---the idea that private businesses are now responsible for the actions of outside individuals makes little sense to me. I'll note that my personal opinion is that people are responsible for themselves, and if they think there is an increased risk due to a particular business practice, they either need to accept that, or make a choice to go elsewhere---as opposed to saying "well, it is my choice to go there, but it is their responsibility to take care of me."
I'm right there with jthhapkido on the open carry but when does this start to infringe on constitutional rights? If carrying a firearm and the right of self defense are basic civil rights then I believe these are rights we should have everywhere.
So, property rights, private ownership, etc---all of these should be overridden by other rights?
Another way of putting it: Your rights should override other people's rights?
I own a business. I have the right to choose the circumstances under which I will allow people to enter my business. I have the right to deny people access to my building, based on my choices. If I say "no hats" then you can't come in my building wearing a hat. If you choose to come into my building, then you are choosing to not wear a hat. You don't have to come into my building.
If I say "no humans under the age of 12" then that's it. If I say "no guns" then that's the rule. (I note I'm fine with legally carried, responsibly handled firearms in my building. Open or concealed, don't care.)
If you don't like any of my business rules, you have the ability to not use my business (or enter the building) and also the ability to speak your piece to other people to convince them not to use my business.
The idea that one person's rights trump another's rights in this case makes little sense to me.
I personally can think of several individual rights businesses at one time didn't have to allow in their business. More recently a bakery had to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Due to a specific Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation". If we had a law prohibiting service or entrance based on equipment carry, we could argue the same thing. But we don't.
I guess if you are a gun owner no one cares if you are discriminated against.
No, most people don't seem to care that gun owners are discriminated against, even though we are some of the most stereotyped, villified-without-cause, and poorly treated groups out there.
-
These companies are in it for a profit, not to take sides on political issues, their hand was called by a few rudely carrying long guns. I think as a business they probably did what they had to do. I hope people respect that fact and not OC in their stores or no gun signs might be next. http://www.guns.com/2014/09/09/restaurant-cites-panera-warmth-as-reason-to-join-bloomberg-group-on-no-guns-policy/ (http://www.guns.com/2014/09/09/restaurant-cites-panera-warmth-as-reason-to-join-bloomberg-group-on-no-guns-policy/)
-
They do not want to be part of the show, why can't we respect that?
Why did they not just stand silent...or say that they won't be swayed by any group? They could have just stated that they will abide by the law currently in place at their stores locations, but what they did was appease an anti gun, anti liberty group by furthering the public perception that guns are bad and so are the people that own them.
A public statement of a nation wide policy like that is not neutral, despite the actions they take afterward to try and play both ends against the middle.
-
Slipping on a non-marked wet floor has to do with the STORE causing the accident.
Not if a customer spilled the liquid.
Thomas, what your post, as a whole, demonstrates is a failure to understand society's current bent to always hold someone else accountable (never the individual) - preferably someone else with deep pockets. Society has made the rules. We can either ignore them or we can use them to our advantage.
As a business owner, you no longer have the right in this country to refuse service to someone if that someone is a protected minority. Refusing service has simply been labeled as a form of discrimination and numerous court cases have held this to be "true" in contemporary society.
-
Why did they not just stand silent...or say that they won't be swayed by any group? They could have just stated that they will abide by the law currently in place at their stores locations, but what they did was appease an anti gun, anti liberty group by furthering the public perception that guns are bad and so are the people that own them.
A public statement of a nation wide policy like that is not neutral, despite the actions they take afterward to try and play both ends against the middle.
Sir, Respect goes both ways.
You give me a little respect, I give you some respect.
In your face don't ever work.
-
Why did they not just stand silent...or say that they won't be swayed by any group? They could have just stated that they will abide by the law currently in place at their stores locations, but what they did was appease an anti gun, anti liberty group by furthering the public perception that guns are bad and so are the people that own them.
A public statement of a nation wide policy like that is not neutral, despite the actions they take afterward to try and play both ends against the middle.
The logical thing is if their statement said, NO OC of firearms in their stores. After all that is the what they are having a problem with.
-
In your face don't ever work.
I am not in their face... don't open carry at all, but I do have a right to not spend my money there, and I can ask my fellow gunowners to do the same
-
This discussion is the kind of things Nuts Demand Action wants. Splinter the gun owners and organizations.
Really, it is just being respectful.
Respectful of their rights.
They are being respectful of ours.
Read and understand what they have said.
I don't frequent Panera bread anyway but the way they are handling this is to diffuse the Nuts.
Regardless we don't want this to split us up into competing opinions.
We got to all stick together.
-
Really, it is just being respectful.Respectful of their rights.
Who is the their you refer to?
-
Not if a customer spilled the liquid.
If a customer spilled a liquid, and someone slipped in it, no court would say it was the business's fault. Now, if a customer spilled a liquid, and the store left it there, made no attempt to clean it in a timely fashion, and then someone slipped in it, there would be (and has been) a court case in which the store would lose.
The issue would be the store not removing an obvious actual hazard, which of course, is separate from the previous issue about stores being responsible for other people's behavior.
Thomas, what your post, as a whole, demonstrates is a failure to understand society's current bent to always hold someone else accountable (never the individual) - preferably someone else with deep pockets.
Interesting choice of strong phrasing. And an incorrect statement about my level of understanding.
I'll note that never here have I mentioned what society believes. I talked about legal issues and rights. I think it is obvious that much of society wants to blame everyone else for their issues, wants to have everything handed to them, and wants to get as much as possible from other people without having to do anything for it.
That is completely separate from what the current law states, and is also separate from any understanding of civil rights.
Society has made the rules. We can either ignore them or we can use them to our advantage.
Or even better, we can actually use current law to useful effect. And in addition, make certain that future laws do not make individuals responsible for the actions of OTHER people.
After all, societal wishes for free bread and circuses have not yet been turned into force of law. So why don't we make sure it doesn't, instead of simply saying "Society has made the rules" and so we should just accept "society's current bent to always hold someone else accountable".
As a business owner, you no longer have the right in this country to refuse service to someone if that someone is a protected minority. Refusing service has simply been labeled as a form of discrimination and numerous court cases have held this to be "true" in contemporary society.
Yep. I believe that among other things, I specifically even referenced a Colorado law regarding that.
....which is a completely separate issue from what we are talking about.
I note also that you can't refuse service to a protected minority because they are a member of that minority. You can certainly refuse service to them if they don't meet other qualifications such as "no shirt, no shoes, no service."
Point being: making people or businesses responsible for the actions of outside parties is a bad idea, no matter how much greedy people want to make it so. As such, fighting against potential laws that would cause that to happen is a good idea.
Currently, I can (and have) told people to leave my martial arts classes because their attitude was such that I simply didn't want my name associated with any action of theirs that might have occurred. I have the right to do that. I can't tell someone to "get out" because they are a minority, or due to a number of other specific protected demographics---but I can tell idiots that I won't teach them how to hurt people.
In a similar fashion, business owners can tell people that they won't serve folks with mohawks. Or hair past their waist. Or nose rings. Or who don't have tattoos. They can do whatever they like in that respect, as long as it is not discrimination based on specified protected demographics.
You want to come in to my business? You have to meet my standards. If not, well then, you don't have to come into my business.
Here's a thought: When I teach a CQT class, no one is allowed a live weapon (of any type) in the classroom area. No ammunition, no guns without barrel blockers or practice barrels, no knives, OC, or batons. Nothing.
Does that mean that if someone comes in to rob us all, I'm in trouble for not defending everyone? Because I'm certainly telling everyone they aren't allowed live weapons in my classroom at that time.
Are we going to need new insurance from the NRA whenever we teach a basic pistol class? Because we force people to be unarmed there! No ammunition! Can't have a live gun! Just like the movie theater in Colorado!
Or maybe, just maybe, making business owners liable in this case is a bad idea. And saying that society makes the rules, we need to accept that and fix our "failure to understand" is not only a bad idea---but it rather completely misses the point.
-
Who is the their you refer to?
Both sides. Panera has the right to ask not to be blatant and we should be respectful of that right.
On the same hand they are being respectful by not posting but merely asking politely to not be "in your face" about it.
I don't agree with them and they are only trying to placate the Nuts Demand Stupidity while not pissing off the gun owners that spend their money there.
But we just need to let the dust settle on this and see it for what it is rather than biting each other in the butts.
-
Watch this. It will take your mind off the heavy stuff... :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze40YhfoxoY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze40YhfoxoY)
-
That is one of the dumbest requests I have read, asking millions of legal gun owners to leave guns at home.
Personaly I am in favor of concealed carry over walking around with an AR over a shoulder. However, it is the foolish in everyone's face teens with ARs that brought this to my table. Thanks a whole bunch.
-
However, it is the foolish in everyone's face teens with ARs that brought this to my table. Thanks a whole bunch.
At what age does one qualify for their Rights in America?
Most states don't issue CCW to those under 21. An under 21 can't legally buy a handgun from a licensed dealer. A 19 year old soldier can not buy a handgun or get a CCW even though they sleep with an M-4 every night.
Brought to your table? How presumptuous of you to be the final arbiter of who gets this part of a Right or that part of a Right.
When people in other states exercise the Right to keep and bear arms in the only legal manner in which they can a real gun Rights advocate would support that Right down the line.
When you decide that you don't need or agree with this part or that part of a Right you are taking that Right from me as well.
So how many supposed Pro-gun people are willing to answer these two questions; Why are you supporting the opposition in the effort to restrict MY Right to bear arms?
At what age does a natural born citizen attain his or her Rights not granted by the Constitution but AFFIRMED by it?
If we as gun owners had been more forceful and in your face beginning in the 60's when all of this started we would not even be having this discussion today.
We have given up so much in the go along to get along game and not only have we gotten nothing for it we have lost EVERYTIME.
Even though it may be too much for some thumb sucking bed wetters it is time to stop losing and stand up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and take it back.
-
If a customer spilled a liquid, and someone slipped in it, no court would say it was the business's fault. Now, if a customer spilled a liquid, and the store left it there, made no attempt to clean it in a timely fashion, and then someone slipped in it, there would be (and has been) a court case in which the store would lose.
The issue would be the store not removing an obvious actual hazard, which of course, is separate from the previous issue about stores being responsible for other people's behavior.
Similar to a store not removing an actual hazard - a person intent on doing customers bodily harm.
Moreover, what society believes has been historically demonstrated to become legal precedent. You tried to wiggle out of the thorny dilemma of business owners not being allowed to refuse service to protected classes by suggesting that such legal decisions were limited to a specific Colorado court case. I assume that you're referring to the cake baker who was forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple against his wishes based on Colorado state law. This is only one of dozens of cases where business owners have been punished - either civilly or criminally - for refusing service to protected classes. This isn't even a recent phenomenon.
And that's what we're talking about here. Refusing to do business with people (or asking people not to do business with you) based upon a belief. Unfortunately, because we have fought amongst ourselves and have waited around for scholarly papers to be written and otherwise hemmed and hawed and sat at home on our couches, it has become acceptable to discriminate against our belief that the Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
We can use current law to useful effect. We can also work to plow new legal ground to our advantage.
-
All right I'll try to answer Gunscribe's questions even though no one told me there was going to be a quiz.
1. I don't believe I'm backing the opposition to restrict your rights. I do believe the in your face long gun folks are putting limitations on mine. You may be right we may make gains from their actions.
One way to look at it is, we all had the right to go naked over time society deemed it necessary we had to cover it up. Groups have over time tried to bring it back in the norm with nothing to show for it but being arrested and shamed. (I realize the Constitution doesn't cover going naked)
2. I don't think anyone would condone giving a toddler a loaded handgun..so there must be a age limit. I think kids should learn how to safely use firearms with adult supervision.
Society has set these standards, not me, I guess we will have to live with them. I've been around kids like my own that are very responsible around guns, I would trust at a younger age, yet there are others I wouldn't trust with a gun at 40.
I think education is the key and as long schools remain liberal institutions they won't be getting at school. Can you imagine if we treated cars like guns and just hope kids would never come in contact with a car in the future.
I guess your question when do you get your right. I say at birth.
When can you exercise that right. Not my decision but I think we decided 2 was to young. With adult supervision until such time right can safely be exercised. Every thing else is a legal matter.
-
This is a good place to point out (and we are having a respectful discussion, even though some of us disagree on specifics) that we are hitting the area of what rights are more important or over rule what rights or when or if there could even be a conflict.
Point 1 - The Second Amendment does not grant a right, it only secures a right from Government intervention. My rights come from God and are my birthright, they are also yours and everyone else's. Though I occasionally fail I try to respect others rights and hope they do mine, thereby avoiding conflicts but they do happen.
Point 2 - Property rights come from the ownership of property and are tied to the property, not a person. A person gets to exercise property rights with the ownership and in some cases through contractual agreements.
There are a few times that even though you may have property rights they may be overridden, example property rights are over ruled by a treaty, another is for laws and ordinances (such as building codes) that are enacted for public safety. They may also be overridden if there is a conflict with a natural or FUNDAMENTAL right. I capitalized that on purpose because that is what the US Supreme Court has ruled our Second Amendment rights are, Fundamental rights; or as I said in point 1 rights given us by God.
As I said earlier this is a fairly new area of judicial work, and the current case law is all over the place. But if backed by competent scholarly works being published that would support that position, and proper ground work being done a case for your right to over ride property rights can and could be won. Do I think it could be won right now as things stand, I'm not a lawyer just a judicial junky but I don't think that there is a court that would lean that far right nor is there enough published works supporting the position. But there are some historic pieces that do and they would be a starting place to build that scholarly work.
-
Society has set these standards, not me, I guess we will have to live with them.
No we do Not!
-
Why did they not just stand silent...or say that they won't be swayed by any group? They could have just stated that they will abide by the law currently in place at their stores locations, but what they did was appease an anti gun, anti liberty group by furthering the public perception that guns are bad and so are the people that own them.
A public statement of a nation wide policy like that is not neutral, despite the actions they take afterward to try and play both ends against the middle.
Dan while I agree with you in spirit I take issue in practice. We brought a lot of this on ourselves by being over the top unnecessarily. I'm not talking about the rallies being held in Texas, nor some of the things done by organized prepared people that are making a point (though I look at what the open carry folks have had for an effect in California and wonder). What has cost us is the stupid kid that has decided to carry his loaded AR15 through town so he can record the interaction with police and say how bad they are. The groups who with no plan or knowledge of the ramifications decide to descend upon a business to take selfies of them with their Combat Patrol Special Tactical Shotgun and post on the internet, ignoring the fact that these businesses have other customers.
I have no problem with open carry, and the actions being taken in Texas are to highlight a problem in Texas law and force legislative action (that action could backfire but they are prepared for that). But as many people around here say take stupid actions expect returns that you are not happy with, and some folks have been doing some pretty stupid things trying to make themselves all superior with their ability to open carry.
Respect goes both ways, we want businesses to give us some we need to earn it and we have been feeding the anti's lots of ammo to use against us.
-
Given Panera's "proactive" statement to customers to leave their guns at home... will criminals now be less likely or more likely to choose Panera locations as robbery targets?
If responsible concealed carry is fundamentally about conflict avoidance, I've got better places to be. 8)
-
Given Panera's "proactive" statement to customers to leave their guns at home... will criminals now be less likely or more likely to choose Panera locations as robbery targets?
If responsible concealed carry is fundamentally about conflict avoidance, I've got better places to be. 8)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
http://www.examiner.com/article/panera-bread-armed-robberies-shows-futility-of-corporate-anti-gun-policies (http://www.examiner.com/article/panera-bread-armed-robberies-shows-futility-of-corporate-anti-gun-policies)
-
Read this, http://butlerpappas.com/1411. (http://butlerpappas.com/1411.)
Many court decisions have upheld that a business has "No Duty to Protect" it's patrons. I also would like to remind you that LE has no duty to protect you from crime either.
It is well documented that the SCOTUS ruled at least twice that the police have no obligation to protect any particular citizen even if they know that citizen is in imminent danger. That's why a CHP is so important, and becoming more so as this country continues to deteriorate.
-
Shots Fired During Panera Restaurant robbery
http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/shots-fired-during-panera-restaurant-robbery/vCHQm/ (http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/shots-fired-during-panera-restaurant-robbery/vCHQm/)
-
http://www.guns.com/2014/09/11/widespread-debate-over-paneras-new-gun-policy/ (http://www.guns.com/2014/09/11/widespread-debate-over-paneras-new-gun-policy/)
It looks like the tide is turning on the anti's.
-
I just emailed them and told them to cancel my account and remove my email address from their list because I won't be visiting them any more. My wife and I loved Panera Bread and visited several times each month, but they aren't the only game in town.
-
Two thumbs way up GreyGeek!!! :D
-
Here's their reply:
Panera Customer Care Notification on Inquiry #: 02578608
From: Customer Care <heat.CRG@panerabread.com>
To: "'greygeek77@gmail.com'" <greygeek77@gmail.com>
I’m very sorry to hear you disagree with our policy. Within our company, we strive to create Panera Warmth, which means, among other things, creating bakery-cafe environments where customers and associates feel comfortable. Panera Bread respects the rights of gun owners, but we do believe asking that customers not bring their firearms inside our bakery-cafes is consistent with the bakery-cafe environment we are attempting to create.
Thank you for taking the time to write to us and share your comments.
Sincerely,
Panera Bread
So, their "bakery-cafe environment" includes the risk of injury or death as the result of possible armed robberies, of which they are not immune. That response is, in effect, the middle finger.
-
Actions like this is how the silent majority becomes a force to be reckoned with.