The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
Do you know of any good restaurants in the Tucson area that are CCW-friendly?
I haven't noticed many that are CCW hostile, but I can't say I know of any that are friendly.
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.
Nice letter. Hope it gets a good response.
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.
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.
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.
will be interested to hear his response, if any.
How can I get some of those cards?
Sign up or just contact them. They'll send you 100 cards for $10, I think.
Here's the link to the cards:
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..."
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..."
Exactly the right reaction!
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.
"...Next, I'd like you to put yourself in my situation..."
That is all.
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.
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.
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?
"A dangerous situation arises and they feel that someone elses(sic) life is in danger so they draw there weapon."
missed one. there != their
Good catch! Fixed it.
I haven't been back, but I presume the Famous Sam's on Silverbell is still posted.
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.)
I guess the Brewery made it clear that they don't care for gun owners' business.
Maybe he should post an amended sign:
"No Guns Allowed
but for Lawfully Carried Weapons by Police and CCW Permit Holders."
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?
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!!
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.
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.
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,