JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/activism.html (31 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1256687899-614321  Will at Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:58:19 +0000

Do you know of any good restaurants in the Tucson area that are CCW-friendly?

jsid-1256688721-614322  Kevin Baker at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:12:01 +0000

I haven't noticed many that are CCW hostile, but I can't say I know of any that are friendly.

jsid-1256689587-614324  Bilgeman at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:26:27 +0000


I've always found that this sign is not particularly welcomed by establishments, even though it assists them in informing the public of their "No Guns Allowed" policies.


jsid-1256691776-614327  Caolus at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:02:56 +0000

Well said.

jsid-1256694013-614329  pax at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:40:13 +0000

Nice letter. Hope it gets a good response.

jsid-1256700712-614337  gator at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:31:52 +0000

You'll want to avoid Famous Sam's, too.

I may go back there one last time just to let them know I won't be coming back.

Ditto for TCB.

jsid-1256702158-614340  Kevin Baker at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:55:58 +0000

The last Famous Sam's I went to wasn't posted, but I'll look closely next time.

UPDATE - 10/29: Just got back from the Famous Sam's on Ruthrauff, and it's not posted.

jsid-1256711463-614347  Doom at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:31:03 +0000

While I am still stuck in limbo regarding firearms, I believe thanks to the V.A., this is something I can still consider participating in.

Even though I don't have a ccw, I had simply been avoiding such places on principal, but quietly. There is no reason for me not to talk to the managers from now on, regardless. And passing your idea around as well.

It would be good to not feel like some kind of ugly unwanted minority and to exercise some of my other rights, in just as responsible of a way as I do handle my gun ownership at this time. Thanks for the idea.

jsid-1256723785-614351  julie at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:56:25 +0000

will be interested to hear his response, if any.

jsid-1256739841-614366  Brian at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:24:01 +0000

How can I get some of those cards?

jsid-1256741367-614371  Kevin Baker at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:49:27 +0000

Go here:


Sign up or just contact them. They'll send you 100 cards for $10, I think.

jsid-1256749507-614397  Matt at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:05:07 +0000

Here's the link to the cards:


jsid-1256752981-614402  SlashTwo at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:03:01 +0000

Did you check if TCB's sign was posted next to their liquor license?
From the NRA email regarding this law taking effect:
"A restaurant or bar can ban possession by posting a sign next to the liquor license. It is important to note that posting the sign at the entrance of an establishment is not sufficient and one is legally protected to enter the premises and see if the sign is posted in the proper place next to the liquor license. If it is not, the establishment is not in compliance with the law and you may remain inside even if a sign is posted at the entrance..."

jsid-1256755718-614408  perlhaqr at Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:48:38 +0000

Yeah, I recently happened upon a "we don't like guns" sign at my--up until recently--favored welding supply store.

I have to admit, I didn't do the "outreach" thing. I was simply so gobsmacked that I put all of my intended purchases down and left.

I suppose some day I'll go back and ask about the sign, which was new. "So, I've been doing business here for 10 years..."

jsid-1256791228-614432  Clayton E. Cramer at Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:40:28 +0000

Exactly the right reaction!

jsid-1256878356-614497  Hammer at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:52:36 +0000

I think this sort of outreach is essential. It is illogical to be fearful of the lawful CCW holder, the only persons impacted by these signs. I think it's important to point it out. This IS a civil rights issue, and civil rights advances weren't made by getting up and moving to the back of the bus when asked. Absolutely a private property owner has a right to say who does and does not carry on their property, but what about from the vehicle to their establishment and back? The business that prohibits people from carrying the means to self defense should be liable for the safety of every person in, and coming to and from their establishment.

jsid-1256921869-614530  theirritablearchitect at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:57:49 +0000

"...Next, I'd like you to put yourself in my situation..."


Flaming imbecile.

That is all.

jsid-1256923785-614533  perlhaqr at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:29:45 +0000

Hammer: I'm afraid I can't agree with your liability thought. It's the same as the general libertarian opposition to government mandated smoking bans. It's private property. If you don't like how things are done there, don't go there. If you choose to go there, you're accepting responsibility for what happens when you make that decision, whether that's breathing second hand smoke, or taking the chance on being shot up by a madman without your carry piece.

jsid-1256928637-614547  bud at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:50:37 +0000

I'll hate to see it, but I'm sort of hoping for your point ".5" to come true. A lost lawsuit for disallowing self-defense is what it's going to take to keep people with vaguely anti-gun sentiments to convince themselves (as your respondent obviously has) that there is a major legal liability in the opposite direction.

jsid-1256936891-614565  Will at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:08:11 +0000

There is no way that a "5." lawsuit would win. In court, the default position is that "civilians" should be unarmed. The restaurant would simply argue that they did everything they reasonably could to keep guns out of their establishment, and the judge would agree.

I know, it's wrong, but that's simply the way it is. Find the (very) few business owners out there who put the lives of their customers ahead of the risk of a lawsuit.

As an aside, does anyone know if an establishment could legally forbid law enforcement agents from entering the restaurant armed?

jsid-1256940596-614571  irish red at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:09:56 +0000

"A dangerous situation arises and they feel that someone elses(sic) life is in danger so they draw there weapon."

missed one. there != their

jsid-1256941891-614572  Kevin Baker at Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:31:31 +0000

Good catch! Fixed it.

jsid-1256955026-614581  gator at Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:10:26 +0000

I haven't been back, but I presume the Famous Sam's on Silverbell is still posted.

jsid-1256963126-614588  staghounds at Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:25:26 +0000

Seems like a reasonable response, though I disagree with it. No reason to be rude about it, given his courtesy in replying.

Reasonable people can differ on this one.

(Referring specifically to "Ah, yes. Somehow drawing a .gov paycheck imbues the recipient with magical powers far beyond those of mere mortals! (Actually, it does - it's called sovereign immunity.)". Let our enemies set up the straw men and imputed positions.)

jsid-1256964445-614590  Crotalus at Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:47:25 +0000

I guess the Brewery made it clear that they don't care for gun owners' business.

jsid-1256979467-614596  Bilgeman at Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:57:47 +0000


Maybe he should post an amended sign:

"No Guns Allowed
but for Lawfully Carried Weapons by Police and CCW Permit Holders."

jsid-1256992583-614599  George at Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:36:23 +0000

It is interesting to read the "no win" dilemma he finds himself in with regard to CCW.

He doesn't seem to mind the exposure that serving alcohol to motor vehicle operators, does he?

Hmmm, he serves drinks to a customer who leaves his restaurant and causes a head on collision resulting in the deaths of an entire family - no apparent consequences?

Not even the threat of a guilty conscience?

jsid-1256995371-614600  Kerry at Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:22:51 +0000

At a well known walleye restaurant here in St. Paul, just below there(their) "This establishment bans all guns" is a red vinyl sign with block letters, "NEED CASH? ATM INSIDE". I kid you not!!

jsid-1257106089-614665  distain at Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:08:09 +0000

Its a sign of distain for his fellow citizens. As you point out, the myth runs that you can magically trust a LEO with a firearm, but a commoner even with a state permit can not be trusted.

I seem to recall something in the legislation that indicated the establishment was immune from prosecution in the case of an incident? I can certify however that I would sue a place that prohibited my right to self defense if anything happened to me from the moment I locked my gun up, to the moment I put it back on to comply with their policy.

jsid-1257207225-614746  thebastidge at Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:13:45 +0000

Fair drips of unconscious condescension. Probly doesn't know much about the CCW community, nor hang out with people who carry (at least not that he knows iof.)

Even fairly devoted liberals get pretty blase after a while of being exposed to the fact that many of us carry concealed.

jsid-1257375417-614921  Ymal Brucker at Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:56:57 +0000

I sent the following "comment" to the restaurant:

--- begin quote
I read your comments to Kevin Baker in which you posited the following problem:
1. They shoot and kill the suspect.....they're a hero
2. They shoot and kill the suspect but the bullet exits the suspect and hits someone else (if we don't have a "No Firearms Sign" up, we get sued)
3. They miss the suspect and hit someone else (we get sued)
4. The suspect sees the CCW owner draw his weapon and begins shooting (we get sued)
This same possible scenario came up in 1995 when Texas activated its CCW law. The chief legal counsel for the Texas Restaurant Association advised his members to NOT erect a sign either way. His reasoning went as follows:

If you put up a sign welcoming CHL holders, and one goes a little funny in the head, you of course face some liability.

Conversely, if you put up a sign prohibiting CHL and a patron leaves his weapon in the car, you assume some liability for his safety inasmuch as you've deprived him of the ability to defend himself!

No, the best thing to do, according to the TRA's general counsel, is to do nothing and rely on state law to govern.

By the way, Texas CHL holders cannot only enter places alcohol is served, they may imbibe to their heart's (or common sense) content.

We've not had a single problem concerning intoxicated CHL holders since 1995. It may be that Texans are more responsible than the folks in Arizona, but I doubt it.

Best of luck in your endeavors,

Ymal Brucker,

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>