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

[finity]

These "No guns allowed" signs, wouldn't they also apply to law enforcement officers?
They don't say "except for LEO", do they?

I'm not sure where you're going with this....

Care to expound?

 

[MinuteMan47]

I just realized this is the BW3's right across the road from my in-laws house. They might be getting a visit from the Minute Man!

 

[bglaze]

your "right" to make your statement ends where the Rights of others begin.

I couldn't agree more. But he doesn't have the right to ask me to do ANYTHING he wants while I am on his property. My body is my own. However, he does have the right to ask me to leave. That's where it ends. If he isn't willing to do that, because he wants my money, then that is HIS choice.

People keep saying that the "right" thing to do would be to leave on my own. However, if he isn't willing to ask me to leave then he either A. knows his owners wouldn't agree with his decision, and he might be penalized for ejecting a paying customer. Or B. he wants my business more than he wants me to cover up. Either way, I prefer to leave the decision in his hands. I want to spend my money there, if he will allow me to.

On the other hand, I would never Open Carry into a place where there are Posted "No Guns" signs. At these places I know their wishes before I even enter the establishment, and I will honor them by not flaunting my firearm (and likely not shopping there).

However, in the case of the OP, he had already been seated and served before he was ever approached about his gun. This is only enough notice for me to know not to OC there for future visits. But I would not cover up at this point. I would be happy to leave if asked. But, I was not acting in an illegal or inappropriate manner. I was not causing a scene or acting suspicious. I am the one being inconvenienced. I will leave peaceably, but I almost certainly (exact situation pending) would not pay, whether the cops are present or not.

bglaze, you should take your own advice lest you drive any fence sitters to our side.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[finity]

I couldn't agree more. But he doesn't have the right to ask me to do ANYTHING he wants while I am on his property. My body is my own. However, he does have the right to ask me to leave. That's where it ends. If he isn't willing to do that, because he wants my money, then that is HIS choice.

People keep saying that the "right" thing to do would be to leave on my own. However, if he isn't willing to ask me to leave then he either A. knows his owners wouldn't agree with his decision, and he might be penalized for ejecting a paying customer. Or B. he wants my business more than he wants me to cover up.

or C. He was thinking along the lines of one of my previous posts that he might be dealing with an unstable person because of the persons continuing to "just say no" & threatening "I'm not paying if I leave" in the face of a very reasonable request. Maybe he just decided to take our advice & not continue a confrontation with an obviously armed, potentially unreasonable individual since it looked like he was almost done with his meal anyway.

If the manager would have called the cops I'm sure the posters here who are saying the manager had no right to tell him to cover it up would then be complaing about the MWAG call. I'm a gun-owner, carry & I would have probably called the cops at that point rather than risk continuing to a guy I thought was unreasonable & I knew had a gun.

Could you please elaborate?

You chastise us for "riduculous opposition posts" then turn right around & post an even more "ridiculous opposition post" that would likely never even happen.

If a manager of a restaurant came to you and said, "Sir, we have a requirement that all men between ages 35 and 37 place a square piece of duct tape over each of their nipples and sit in their seat backwards while eating at our establishment. If you refuse, I am not going to ask you to leave, but I implore you to comply with my request. It is our policy after all."

At least our hypothetical situations are plausible & realistic.

 

[snowman46919]

or C. He was thinking along the lines of one of my previous posts that he might be dealing with an unstable person because of the persons continuing to "just say no" & threatening "I'm not paying if I leave" in the face of a very reasonable request. Maybe he just decided to take our advice & not continue a confrontation with an obviously armed, potentially unreasonable individual since it looked like he was almost done with his meal anyway.

If the manager would have called the cops I'm sure the posters here who are saying the manager had no right to tell him to cover it up would then be complaing about the MWAG call. I'm a gun-owner, carry & I would have probably called the cops at that point rather than risk continuing to a guy I thought was unreasonable & I knew had a gun.



You chastise us for "riduculous opposition posts" then turn right around & post an even more "ridiculous opposition post" that would likely never even happen.



At least our hypothetical situations are plausible & realistic.

If a person is thought to be that unstable then the fork on the table would be just as much of a weapon as a gun, and at that close of range serve just as much purpose if not more than drawing? Maybe its just situational awareness kicking in but honestly if I wanted to go after a person I could find/make/institute a weapon out of just about anything that is just as readily available.

 

[finity]

If a person is thought to be that unstable then the fork on the table would be just as much of a weapon as a gun, and at that close of range serve just as much purpose if not more than drawing? Maybe its just situational awareness kicking in but honestly if I wanted to go after a person I could find/make/institute a weapon out of just about anything that is just as readily available.

True you can use anything as a weapon but people are more concerned with the presence of a gun for the same reason that we choose them to carry around as opposed to most other weapons. A fork can't inlict death on me from across the room or as quickly. As gun owners we must face the fact that the weapon we carry can be used to more easily kill others, again, which is why we carry it.

I'm not saying that we have to let those fears deter us from owning/carrying a gun in our homes or on public property but the owner of private property shouldn't be forced to be subjected to that fear in their "home" if they truly don't like guns. It may be an irrational fear but it is THEIR fear & THEIR property.

I'm not against OC. I think it does serve a good purpose. But if you only get idignant & adamantly stand your ground in the face of a private property owner's requests you will alienate the people who you are trying to reach - the fence sitters.

 

[finity]

I had one more thought on the supposed "rights" that people have while in another persons business that I forgot to inlclude before:

Let's just ask Fenway if he thinks that he can't ask someone to stop using foul language or tell us to not post any pornography or stop someone from merely coming here as an anti-gunner to troll & just cause trouble.

Does anybody here think those requests are unreasonable? We DO have 1A rights don't we? How dare Fenway take away our right to free speech. What if I thought that was worth fighting for? Would that make one smidgeon of difference about how you felt about me if I kept rebuffing Fenway's numerous attempts to get me to follow his rules? Nope. You'd still think I was an ass.

It's happened to people. We get warnings. We get infractions. We get . Then if all else fails we get banned. And then everybody cheers when some deserving douche gets a vacation from INGO.

Nobody comes to their defense with "but he was only standing up for what he truly believed in."

Even if Fenway decided to not ban someone after repeated warnings (which is his prerogative as the site owner) nobody complains that "Fenway had no legal right to ask them to stop". If someone had said that (& they have) we would point out to them in no uncertain terms that we are all here at Fenways pleasure & we have no "rights" here (& have).

Just more food for thought.

 

[bglaze]

I had one more thought on the supposed "rights" that people have while in another persons business that I forgot to inlclude before:

Let's just ask Fenway if he thinks that he can't ask someone to stop using foul language or tell us to not post any pornography or stop someone from merely coming here as an anti-gunner to troll & just cause trouble.

Does anybody here think those requests are unreasonable? We DO have 1A rights don't we? How dare Fenway take away our right to free speech. What if I thought that was worth fighting for? Would that make one smidgeon of difference about how you felt about me if I kept rebuffing Fenway's numerous attempts to get me to follow his rules? Nope. You'd still think I was an ass.

It's happened to people. We get warnings. We get infractions. We get . Then if all else fails we get banned. And then everybody cheers when some deserving douche gets a vacation from INGO.

Nobody comes to their defense with "but he was only standing up for what he truly believed in."

Even if Fenway decided to not ban someone after repeated warnings (which is his prerogative as the site owner) nobody complains that "Fenway had no legal right to ask them to stop". If someone had said that (& they have) we would point out to them in no uncertain terms that we are all here at Fenways pleasure & we have no "rights" here (& have).

Just more food for thought.

I've already eaten that food, and something tasted amiss, so I spit it out.

The owners of these forums can make any rules they want. If someone doesn't obey them, they will probably get banned. To ban is where their authority lies. However, they cannot sue them for using foul language here. They can only use the authority they have and that is to ban them.

The person doing the swearing has to weigh the benefits against the consequences of disobedience to the owners of this forum. If what they are saying is so important to them (morally, ethically, politically, etc...) that they will continue to say it whether or not they get banned, that is their right. They will get banned, neverthless. There will be mixed opinions amongst those here on the boards as to whether or not that person was an "ass." We will all have unique opinions about the matter. Regardless, they broke the rules and received consequences.

This isn't hard to understand. They are not wrong for coming on here and speaking the way they do. According to the mods, their speech simply isn't welcome here. Thus they get "asked to leave"...

 

[finity]

The owners of these forums can make any rules they want. If someone doesn't obey them, they will probably get banned. To ban is where their authority lies. However, they cannot sue them for using foul language here. They can only use the authority they have and that is to ban them.

You keep getting hung up on the word "authority".

authority - definition of authority by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

By virtue of him being the owner of this site:

Fenway has the "authority" to make rules. He has the "authority" to ask you to follow them. He has the "authority" to delegate that "authority" to other people, in this case, the "mods". He has several tools to enforce his "authority". He can cajole, coerce, threaten (to ban you), embarass, ridicule, etc. His ultimate tool to enforce his "authority" is to actually ban you which he also has the "authority" to do.

Also, I would bet that if Fenway, or any other business owner, could show that they suffered a loss due to anyone acting within the so-called "rights" that you say we have then they could sucessfully sue that person.

The opposite is not true.

Someone can't sue Fenway for a loss incurred due to the restriction of their "rights" on his private property, including this forum.

The person doing the swearing has to weigh the benefits against the consequences of disobedience to the owners of this forum. If what they are saying is so important to them (morally, ethically, politically, etc...) that they will continue to say it whether or not they get banned, that is their right.

I'm glad you used the "little r" right. The right to go onto someone elses property & say whatever you want in opposition to the owners wishes DOESN'T EXIST.

Please, show me ANYWHERE that right is listed or has ever been listed in any legal document in history.

I'm sure I could show you several cases where a person was convicted or successfully sued for doing the same.

Why do you think that protests are staged on public property OUTSIDE of the business? Because the right to enter the property & say whatever they want doesn't exist.

They will get banned, neverthless. There will be mixed opinions amongst those here on the boards as to whether or not that person was an "ass."

Out of all the people who have been banned can you show me any of the conversations that have been had that supported the person's "right" to say the things that got them banned? I can think of many that the general consensus was that the person was just being an "ass".

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I see what you're saying but that IS the way our government works.

It can be no other way & still provide for the best outcome for the largest number of people.

That is how our government works, I don't believe that is how it was set up to work though.

It's balancing the Rights of business owners against the Rights of others.

We have, as a society, decided that providing "rights" to certain minorities that have historically been discriminated against is good for our society (IOW, best for the greatest number of people) while minimizing the impact on the Rights of business owners. At worst the business owner is prevented from openly expressing his bigotry in his business dealings toward those he feels are "undersireable". He can still continue to be as big of a bigot as he wants in his private life (limited in scope & narrowly tailored).

As a hypothetical business owner, my customers have no rights in my business. Other than to decide to buy or not. They have no right to be there if I choose for them not to be.

I also disagree with passing laws for "the good of society" if they effect my private property, which is what a business is. I'm hoping to open up a small brewery/restaurant in a couple of years. I'm not going to discriminate against anyone there, because I will want as many customers as I can. More customers, more money.

I'm not going to discriminate in hiring either, I'll want the best person I can find for the job.

But then again I don't discriminate in my private life either so....

The next question will surely be "why can't the market decide?"

We tried that.

The "market" is one of THE MOST tyrannical concepts that has ever existed. Left unchecked, it allows the majority to run roughshod COMPLETELY over the Rights of the "undesireable" minority.

Blacks, women & other minorities have been systematically held at a economic disadvantage by the opposing majority's (whites, men, etc) control over the "market".

The civil rights laws didn't start predominantly being passed until the 60's. That means we had almost 100 years for the "market" to correct the injustice. It didn't work.

YouTube - ZoNation: Affirmative Action and Socializing the Big Three

Also long before the '60s, there was someone else you may have heard of, George Washington Carver.

I don't agree with racism, but if a private business owner chooses to ban some of his prospective customer base, well ......

Or if they choose not to hire the best person for the job.

It's inevitable that sometimes Rights clash. At those times I have no problem deciding how as a society we are going to handle the clash AS LONG AS the impact on the Rights of the "loser" is maintained to the greatest extent possible.

No Right is absolute.

Generally, I think the SCOTUS agrees with me (OK, I agree with them )

Can you tell me why any person has a right to come into a business I own? It is my property, same as my home.

And yes unfortunately SCOTUS agrees with you, but here are a few other things they agree with, "reasonable firearm restrictions", that the government can tell a farmer how much grain he is allowed to grow on his own property. Oh and one more, that the government can take away a persons property and give it to another person "for the good of society"

I'm pretty sure I won't change your mind, and pretty dang positive you won't change mine on this subject. And this is one heck of a thread jack. So let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Hoosier9]

I was just reading the thread about the lack of looting in Japan, and how their society pulls together to help each other due to their long tradition of honor and concern for each other as a people. Even in the face of widespread disaster, you don't see rudeness or self-serving behavior.

And then I click on this thread, and see the typical selfish behavior of an American who can't be bothered to show some consideration for his fellow citizens by honoring a simple request that doesn't even affect his ability to defend himself. On someone else's property, no less.

I am thankful that I don't have any friends that feel that they need to shove a gun into every social interaction they make during while they are out and about in public. What a treat it must be to have something as simple as a meal turn into a political firestorm and multi-page internet thread. I suppose I live a boring life.

 

[snowman46919]

I was just reading the thread about the lack of looting in Japan, and how their society pulls together to help each other due to their long tradition of honor and concern for each other as a people. Even in the face of widespread disaster, you don't see rudeness or self-serving behavior.

And then I click on this thread, and see the typical selfish behavior of an American who can't be bothered to show some consideration for his fellow citizens by honoring a simple request that doesn't even affect his ability to defend himself. On someone else's property, no less.

I am thankful that I don't have any friends that feel that they need to shove a gun into every social interaction they make during while they are out and about in public. What a treat it must be to have something as simple as a meal turn into a political firestorm and multi-page internet thread. I suppose I live a boring life.

On that same line of thinking if we live with honor and respect to others why should the request even have been made in the first place?

 

[finity]

On that same line of thinking if we live with honor and respect to others why should the request even have been made in the first place?

Just because you respect others doesn't mean you have to be a door mat and accept every action they take, especially in your own home.

The respect goes "I'll respect your right to say what takes place in your home & you will respect the same in mine".

The manager wasn't showing direspect for asking politely that the gun be covered. mk2ja showed the manager disrespect by continuing to disregard the managers reasonable request.

 

[snowman46919]

Just because you respect others doesn't mean you have to be a door mat and accept every action they take, especially in your own home.

The respect goes "I'll respect your right to say what takes place in your home & you will respect the same in mine".

The manager wasn't showing direspect for asking politely that the gun be covered. mk2ja showed the manager disrespect by continuing to disregard the managers reasonable request.

If there is honor and respect between this two people I see OC as a non issue.

 

[wag1911]

Just because you respect others doesn't mean you have to be a door mat and accept every action they take, especially in your own home.

The respect goes "I'll respect your right to say what takes place in your home & you will respect the same in mine".

The manager wasn't showing direspect for asking politely that the gun be covered. mk2ja showed the manager disrespect by continuing to disregard the managers reasonable request.

Only 146 more posts to go.....have you not beat the dead horse enough?

 

[finity]

If there is honor and respect between this two people I see OC as a non issue.

The respect you speak of is earned through knowing someone well enough to know they deserve it.

The respect that I and Hoosier9 are talking about is as I said above that respect that you should show everyone just for them being alive. It is showing respect for the rights & beliefs of others while they show your rights & beliefs the same respect.

They are two different types of respect. The Japanese culture is filled with the second type while we pretty much suck at it.

Just because I respect your rights doesn't mean I have to let you rob me blind or rape my daughter to prove it - or allow you to take actions in my home with which I disagree.

Honor is fulfilling your social obligations without being told you "have to" by anyone else. Obligations such as showing proper respect to others, or being trustworthy in your dealings with others - or not going into someone elses home & acting against their wishes.

 

[snowman46919]

The respect you speak of is earned through knowing someone well enough to know they deserve it.

The respect that I and Hoosier9 are talking about is as I said above that respect that you should show everyone just for them being alive. It is showing respect for the rights & beliefs of others while they show your rights & beliefs the same respect.

They are two different types of respect. The Japanese culture is filled with the second type while we pretty much suck at it.

Just because I respect your rights doesn't mean I have to let you rob me blind or rape my daughter to prove it - or allow you to take actions in my home with which I disagree.

Honor is fulfilling your social obligations without being told you "have to" by anyone else. Obligations such as showing proper respect to others, or being trustworthy in your dealings with others - or not going into someone elses home & acting against their wishes.

I am sorry but when did your house become a place of business? A business does not afford the same privileges that you do in your house. You open your business to the public, they are allowed to practice their human as well as Constitutional Rights as long as they do not infringe on yours. Since the manager did not request that he leave no ones rights were infringed. If you want to continue to argue that rights are the same as morals feel free to beat your head against the wall until your brain falls out the hole it forms because they are simply not the same thing. The question you seem to be arguing is whether or not he was Constitutionally within in his rights and he was as he did not infringe on anyone else's. Morals is a completely different question which we all have to deal with on our own.

 

[finity]

Only 146 more posts to go.....have you not beat the dead horse enough?

Oh so now I'm trying to just pad my post count?


Dude, I've been here for 3 years & I only have ~1850 posts. If I wanted to do that I would be like those that have been here for only a short time & already have thousands of posts.

Besides I'm only responding to others posts. Is there something wrong in that? I thought this was a forum & that's what people do on these things. Have I been wroing in that assumption all these years?

Sorry. I'll ask your permission before posting again to make sure you don't think I'm beating the dead horse (ha! not!)





There that should just about do it.

Oh, & only 145 more posts to go.

 

[T-rav]

Just because some of the BWW stores you see with signs doesnt mean the owner is anti-2A. Has anyone though about the fact that it may be a stipulation of the insurance policy for to help lessen the cost of the liability?

I dont see where dis-respect was shown to the manager? He made a request to a patron and the patron responded in a civil manner and obviously the manager respected his opinion enough to not ask him to leave and with any luck was educated a little bit and will use this experience to help the less informed about firearms more informed.

 

[finity]

You open your business to the public, they are allowed to practice their human as well as Constitutional Rights as long as they do not infringe on yours.

NO! NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!







YOU DON"T HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY!

The Constitution only protects you from your Rights being infringed by the GOVERNMENT not a private person.

The only rights you have on another persons property are the ones they give you or the ones the owner is forced to give you by law.

THAT'S IT!!

If you don't like the owners rules then you shouldn't enter onto the property. It doesn't matter if those rules are that you must believe in the religion he does, tape your mouth shut, leave your firearms at the gate, wear a pink tutu that says "I {heart} Obama", let his soldier son quarter with you in your room, not read a newspaper or book that he doesn't approve of or any number of other Rights infringements that the GOVERNMENT can't get away with.

A business is forced by law to not discriminate against the protected classes (race, creed, color, origin, religion, etc). Those classes are protected by law. Other than that they can discriminate against whoever else they want. Because those other classes AREN'T protected by law. It's not a matter of "morals". It's a matter of LAW! If it was morals I would be saying that a homeowner shouldn't disciminate, as well, because discrimination is wrong! BUT THAT'S NOT THE LAW!

Now, OTOH, If the GOVERNMENT tried to give the power to the business owner to infringe those rights with the backing of LAW & the power of the state then THAT would be an infringement of his Constitutional Rights. It still wouldn't be an infringement by the private party. It would be an infringement by the state using the private party as a tool of infringement.

You have Constitutional Rights in your home.

You have Constitutional Rights in on the street.

You have Constitutional Rights on someone elses property but those protections are from infringement by the GOVERNMENT not from infringement by the property owner.






Ok, I'm better now...

Hey only 143 more!

Umm...do I get a prize or something for reaching 2000 posts?