Hassled by Buffalo Wild Wings for OC at Dupont, Fort Wayne

[mk2ja]

Apparently you did not see this posted by the door?

There are many threads where people have indicated that BWW is anti-gun. Letters and emails from their corporate office, which have also been posted many times, confirm they are an anti-gun business.

We should not be giving our hard earned cash to businesses that are openly hostile to law abiding citizens and the 2nd Amendment.


JMO

HOLY CRAP! No I never noticed that at any BW3 restaurant before! Is that at all of them? At which branch was that photo taken?

 

[mk2ja]

Agreed.

But what I don't understand is, after probably a dozen different threads detailing BWW as an anti-gun business, why do any INGO members still go to BWW and give them hard earned cash?

Seriously there have been numerous threads about BWW being an anti-gun business (along with other national chains like Chilis, Jared Jewlers) and there have been letters/emails from BWW management posted that detail their dislike of lawful gun carriers. Still despite all the evidence, there are INGO members who continue to frequent BWW.

Noted. I guess I had never seen any of those threads. That puts BWW on my no-go list now, though.

 

[ATM]

Actually they do have the ability to "ban" guns in their private property when a sign is posted. You can chuckle as you walk by but if someone did catch a climpse of your gun you in for some trouble. if the police are called I can pretty much guarantee it would result in the loss of your handgun license.

I think that if you read forum member Billb's ongoing thread about St. John you would see that you would easily loose your license.

When you carry into a restuarant that has posted a sign restricting guns then you are breaking the law and you will easily be labeled as not being a "proper person" by the state police.

While I do not like the policy I do have to comply with it. But I can also not go there and give them my money also. By your logic should also carry into a school, an airliner or a federal building.

Ridiculous comparison. Those last few are actual codified laws.

The sign is simply an establishment's rule. Very different.

 

[MinuteMan47]

Actually they do have the ability to "ban" guns in their private property when a sign is posted. You can chuckle as you walk by but if someone did catch a climpse of your gun you in for some trouble. if the police are called I can pretty much guarantee it would result in the loss of your handgun license.

I think that if you read forum member Billb's ongoing thread about St. John you would see that you would easily loose your license.

When you carry into a restuarant that has posted a sign restricting guns then you are breaking the law and you will easily be labeled as not being a "proper person" by the state police.

While I do not like the policy I do have to comply with it. But I can also not go there and give them my money also. By your logic should also carry into a school, an airliner or a federal building.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I know we're talking about Ft Wayne, but I find myself wondering if in fact the purported manager DID call the police and was asked if you were doing anything threatening. Once told that you were not, a pro-2a dispatcher might well have continued, "Sir, he's not breaking any laws simply by being armed. Do you want him removed from the restaurant?" and when he answered that he did not, the dispatcher may have seen no reason to take a cop away from actually doing their job to go play babysitter to him.

Yeah, I know it's not likely, but it's a nice thought!

Reps inbound to the OP. (edit: when I have some to give. )

Blessings,
Bill

 

[mk2ja]

I know we're talking about Ft Wayne, but I find myself wondering if in fact the purported manager DID call the police and was asked if you were doing anything threatening. Once told that you were not, a pro-2a dispatcher might well have continued, "Sir, he's not breaking any laws simply by being armed. Do you want him removed from the restaurant?" and when he answered that he did not, the dispatcher may have seen no reason to take a cop away from actually doing their job to go play babysitter to him.

Yeah, I know it's not likely, but it's a nice thought!

Reps inbound to the OP. (edit: when I have some to give. )

Blessings,
Bill

HA! That'd be great! I have no idea. I did kinda wonder that, though. I mean, the guy said the cops would be there in a minute, but 5-10 minutes later (not sure exactly) there was no sign of them. I didn't even pass any cops on my way out of the parking lot, and I saw no cops in the area on their way to the restaurant.

 

[finity]

While I agree with the several posters who have stated that they have the ABILITY to ignore the "no guns" signs (I do it, too) I disagree completely that they have the RIGHT to ignore them.

While most signs in IN carry no legal authority to prevent you from entering the place with a gun (or a banana ) the owner/manager of the place still has his personal authority to say what (mostly) takes place on his property.


I think that by being "disinclined to acquiesce to his request" YOU were the one violating the owners "rights" in the control of his property. He may not have specifically asked you to leave but he did ask you (nicely it seems) to just "cover it up". I don't see the problem. You should have complied.

Would the people here who are giving you atta-boys for standing your ground be giving you the same if you stood up in similar fashion to the owner of a private residence? While I agree that the dynamics are a little different between what the owner of a business that is open to the public should have to tolerate compared to a private residence owner, I still think that once he's made a reasonable personal request to you, you should comply - or leave.

IMHO, you just made other gun-owners look worse by "militantly" refusing to comply with someone who really did have the authority to ask you to "cover it up". Just because it didn't get to the point of the manager calling the cops it doesn't somehow show that you were being reasonable. In fact, I think it was the manager who was the truly level-headed one by not escalating the situation further by not calling the police. I seriously doubt that the managers view of gun owners (or the views of those around him witnessing the event) was bettered by your interaction with him, though. I'm a gun owner & ignore those signs too but I'm irritated that when you got "busted" you had to be an ass about it.

Let me say it again to be perfectly clear:

YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN ON ANOTHER'S PROPERTY.

Like I said, I ignore "no guns" signs, too, mostly for expediency & logistics sake. But I am also under no assumption that I have the RIGHT to carry there. If asked to cover it up, I will. If asked to take it to my car, I will. Or I may just decide to leave (without having to be asked) & solve the situation in a mature fashion.

BTW, if you would have had the same interaction in public with a cop then I'd be giving you a . That is a completely different scenario.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

I don't think it's true at all that I would lose my LTCH, much less a guarantee. I have read the thread about St. John. Very, very different scenario. The OP there was charged with breaking and entering and intimidation (wrongly accused, but still accused). That's why his LTCH was revoked. It will also be reinstated imho ("in my hopeful opinion).

The sign on the door is BW3 policy, not law. I'm not breaking any laws if I go there while cc. If they notice, they can ask me leave and I should. If I refuse, than I'm breaking a law, but it has nothing to do with my gun law. I would then be trespassing.

 

[ljadayton]

Actually they do have the ability to "ban" guns in their private property when a sign is posted. You can chuckle as you walk by but if someone did catch a climpse of your gun you in for some trouble. if the police are called I can pretty much guarantee it would result in the loss of your handgun license.

I think that if you read forum member Billb's ongoing thread about St. John you would see that you would easily loose your license.

When you carry into a restuarant that has posted a sign restricting guns then you are breaking the law and you will easily be labeled as not being a "proper person" by the state police.

While I do not like the policy I do have to comply with it. But I can also not go there and give them my money also. By your logic should also carry into a school, an airliner or a federal building.

IF they don't want guns in their business, that's their right. That building is private property. However, IF they ask him to leave and he refuses, resulting in the police being called, the gun means nothing for the charge. The charge would be trespassing. IF it's against the law to carry into a BBW's just because they put up a sign, cite the law? It's not illegal to carry into my store but I can get fired for it....BIG difference

 

[ljadayton]

I don't think it's true at all that I would lose my LTCH, much less a guarantee. I have read the thread about St. John. Very, very different scenario. The OP there was charged with breaking and entering and intimidation (wrongly accused, but still accused). That's why his LTCH was revoked. It will also be reinstated imho ("in my hopeful opinion).

The sign on the door is BW3 policy, not law. I'm not breaking any laws if I go there while cc. If they notice, they can ask me leave and I should. If I refuse, than I'm breaking a law, but it has nothing to do with my gun law. I would then be trespassing.

THIS ^^^exactly..very different situations

 

[finity]

if the police are called I can pretty much guarantee it would result in the loss of your handgun license.


When you carry into a restuarant that has posted a sign restricting guns then you are breaking the law

I'm not sure that those two statements above are a foregone conclusion.

The LEGALITY of carrying a gun into a business with a sign prohibiting it has been debated here (& I'm sure many other places) many times before. The general concensus seems to be, even among our lawyer friends, is that GENERALLY, "no [insert banned item here]" signs (which is different than the standard "no trespassing" or "do not enter" sign) do not carry any legal authority to deny you entry IAW the trespassing law. There MAY be some wording on a sign that COULD rise to that level of legal authority, but typically not.

As to no longer being a "proper person", billb's situation was a little different. He entered a private residence. He was arrested & charged. The cops abused their athority in a punitive fashion.

COULD it happen? Yes. Anything CAN happen. Is it likely? It doesn't seem so. You don't hear about a rash of OC'ers getting their LTCH's revoked.

 

[littletommy]

I do not go to BWW simply because of their stupid alcohol policy, (at the store in Clarksville anyway). We met some friends there once, and decided we would sit in the bar area, as we all planned to have a few drinks. I order a beer, the chick asks for my ID, which is a little silly, because I'm in my 40s with mostly gray hair, but no big deal. I order my next beer, same chick asks for ID again! I told her to forget it, and all seven in our party got up and left. (service was not good to begin with). This was before the Indiana ID law took effect, so it was BWW company policy. I emailed BWW and told them how dumb their policy was, and of course never got a response. I wouldn't even do an OC event there, I'd rather just never darken the door of the place again.

 

[mainjet]

Finity - good points and well thought out. Point taken.

My main point in comparing the St. John situation and a situation of a "no guns" sign is simply because of the "COULD" happen scenario. I may CC into a place with a sign but I would not OC. Only because it would only take a St. John style railroading to get you in some trouble.

Bill had to spend some thousands of dollars and a lot of heartache over a situation that I do not believe he did anything wrong in.

Anyway, I may be getting a little far off the topic as this situation did not include a "no guns" sign that we know of.

As far as how the OP handled the rest of the situation I have no problem. He did what he felt he needed to and that is his call.

Lastly, court does not always turn out the way we think it's going to and lawyers love to spend your money.

 

[jbombelli]

Actually they do have the ability to "ban" guns in their private property when a sign is posted. You can chuckle as you walk by but if someone did catch a climpse of your gun you in for some trouble. if the police are called I can pretty much guarantee it would result in the loss of your handgun license.

I think that if you read forum member Billb's ongoing thread about St. John you would see that you would easily loose your license.

When you carry into a restuarant that has posted a sign restricting guns then you are breaking the law and you will easily be labeled as not being a "proper person" by the state police.

While I do not like the policy I do have to comply with it. But I can also not go there and give them my money also. By your logic should also carry into a school, an airliner or a federal building.

We have had this discussion on here scores of times, if not hundreds. It is not illegal to carry into an establishment with a no-guns-allowed sign posted. If you're caught, you will be asked to leave (which they could do anyway if they want). If you refuse to leave when asked, then you're trespassing, and THAT is what you could be charged with. You won't lose your license, you won't lose your guns. You'll possibly be fined for trespassing, and banned from the premises, but that's about it.

"No Trespassing" = Denial of Entry.
"No Admittance" = Denial of Entry.
"Mainjet is barred from the premises" = Denial of Entry.

"No Guns Allowed" = Conditional Admittance. They're letting you in and establishing conduct rules. They could have a sign that says "no spitting on the floor" and violating that rule does not suddenly make you a trespasser. It means you're violating their rule about spitting on the floor. Violating their conduct rule is not illegal, and since they let you in you're not trespassing (again, until they ask you to leave and you refuse).


If the sign was worded something like "all people carrying firearms are hereby denied entry into this establishment" you might have a point. But nobody words their signs like that. NOBODY. A sign stating "no guns allowed" is not the same thing.

It is specifically written into the law that you cannot carry at a K-12 school, the sterile area of an airport, a casino, a federal building, etc. It is NOT written into law that you can't carry BW3, or wherever there's a no-guns-allowed sign.

 

[bassplayrguy]

Apparently you did not see this posted by the door?​

There are many threads where people have indicated that BWW is anti-gun. Letters and emails from their corporate office, which have also been posted many times, confirm they are an anti-gun business.

We should not be giving our hard earned cash to businesses that are openly hostile to law abiding citizens and the 2nd Amendment.


JMO

Not all Bdubs have this sign. I have been to the one on county line and stop 11 and they don't have it and I have not had an issue. I agree with a previous post that it was probably not bothering anyone but the anti manager. I would love to attend an OC event at this location. It would be worth the drive.

 

[bassplayrguy]

We have had this discussion on here scores of times, if not hundreds. It is not illegal to carry into an establishment with a no-guns-allowed sign posted. If you're caught, you will be asked to leave (which they could do anyway if they want). If you refuse to leave when asked, then you're trespassing, and THAT is what you could be charged with. You won't lose your license, you won't lose your guns. You'll possibly be fined for trespassing, and banned from the premises, but that's about it.

"No Trespassing" = Denial of Entry.
"No Admittance" = Denial of Entry.
"Mainjet is barred from the premises" = Denial of Entry.

"No Guns Allowed" = Conditional Admittance. They're letting you in and establishing conduct rules. They could have a sign that says "no spitting on the floor" and violating that rule does not suddenly make you a trespasser. It means you're violating their rule about spitting on the floor. Violating their conduct rule is not illegal, and since they let you in you're not trespassing (again, until they ask you to leave and you refuse).


If the sign was worded something like "all people carrying firearms are hereby denied entry into this establishment" you might have a point. But nobody words their signs like that. NOBODY. A sign stating "no guns allowed" is not the same thing.

It is specifically written into the law that you cannot carry at a K-12 school, the sterile area of an airport, a casino, a federal building, etc. It is NOT written into law that you can't carry BW3, or wherever there's a no-guns-allowed sign.

It is written in the law that you cannot carry into a casino? I didn't know that. There was a thread on here the other day about that. Noone mentioned it was against the law and apparently alot of us cc there all the time.

 

[Roadie]

Apparently you did not see this posted by the door?

There are many threads where people have indicated that BWW is anti-gun. Letters and emails from their corporate office, which have also been posted many times, confirm they are an anti-gun business.

We should not be giving our hard earned cash to businesses that are openly hostile to law abiding citizens and the 2nd Amendment.


JMO

Someone needs to slap an "Unarmed Victim Zone" sticker under that..

(this post in no way endorses vandalism, the author is merely making a tongue in cheek statement)

 

[Hammerhead]

Indiana Code says no carry in a riverboat casino. There is no legal restriction on those not classified under the old riverboat casino only laws.

 

[jbombelli]

It is written in the law that you cannot carry into a casino? I didn't know that. There was a thread on here the other day about that. Noone mentioned it was against the law and apparently alot of us cc there all the time.

Sorry.... Riverboat Casino is what is specified.

68 IAC 1-7-1:

Sec. 1. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this rule:
(1) "Federal enforcement officer" has the meaning set forth in 5 U.S.C. 8331 or IC 35-41-1-17, or both.
(2) "Law enforcement officer" has the meaning set forth in IC 35-41-1-17.
(3) "Security personnel" means an employee of the riverboat licensee or a supplier licensee who:
(A) holds the appropriate level of occupational license under IC 4-33-8 and 68 IAC 2-3; and
(B) is employed in the riverboat licensee's security department or by a supplier licensee that contractually provides
security services to a riverboat licensee.
(b) No individual other than an enforcement agent shall carry a weapon on board the riverboat. A law enforcement officer or
a federal enforcement officer:
(1) whose sole purpose for being on the riverboat is the performance of official duties; and
(2) who has advised the enforcement agent or the commission that the officer will be on board the riverboat;
shall be allowed to carry a weapon on board the riverboat.
(c) The riverboat licensee shall post a sign in a prominent place at the point of passenger ingress stating, "No weapons are
allowed beyond this point. Failure to comply with this rule may result in the immediate removal from the riverboat, immediate
detention by security personnel, the imposition of civil penalties, or exclusion under IC 4-33.".
(d) The riverboat licensee shall provide a secure place to which patrons do not have access to store weapons checked by:
(1) patrons;
(2) off duty law enforcement officers; or
(3) off duty federal enforcement officers.
(e) Security personnel may carry a weapon on board the riverboat during times that patrons are not present. (Indiana Gaming
Commission; 68 IAC 1-7-1; filed Jun 23, 1995, 2:30 p.m.: 18 IR 2649; readopted filed Oct 15, 2001, 4:34 p.m.: 25 IR 898; filed Dec

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'll throw in my quick opinion here.

I like how you handled it, and I imagine I would handle it similarly.

I very regularly visit the BW3 at County Line and Emerson in Greenwood. They have no signs or anything related to guns, and I OC there every time. I've done this for a couple of years now, quite a few times. I've never once had anyone approach me.

The bartenders often have good conversations with me about it. We chat about guns, and that's that. No managers have ever seemed to care, if they've noticed.

I'm happy that my BW3 seems to be pro-gun, or just not care about it... Sorry you had this sort of encounter. No one should have to be called out.