Sonic & Chili's: Leave your guns at home

[jmra]

Both.

Source?

? what do you mean?

I was asking for a source to support her claim that VA businesses invite OC of both long guns and handguns in their establishments.

Her quote, "One Denny's in the west end likes having between 10-30 OCers every Saturday to count on for breakfast". I found this odd as Denny's has a corporate "no guns" policy.

Walmart has a corporate no guns policy, but for customers it's State law.

Denny's corporate policy is not to allow customers to carry fire arms, much the same as Buffalo Wild Wings.

[mamabearCali]

Both.

Source?

Me. I was there. The long guns were at a barbecue place. Unless you want to say that I am a liar. I don't remember the long guns at Denny's. The fellow that carried the rifle was not there when I went.

[mamabearCali]

I have thought Mr. Cotton to be very reasonable and main stream even on this divisive issue. If he is the one reaching out...then perhaps with persistence there can be progress. Of course if they read here, some if the good he could do with his diplomacy might not be as easy to accomplish.

[mamabearCali]

Both.

Source?

? what do you mean?

I was asking for a source to support her claim that VA businesses invite OC of both long guns and handguns in their establishments.

Her quote, "One Denny's in the west end likes having between 10-30 OCers every Saturday to count on for breakfast". I found this odd as Denny's has a corporate "no guns" policy.

Walmart has a corporate no guns policy, but for customers it's State law.

Denny's corporate policy is not to allow customers to carry fire arms, much the same as Buffalo Wild Wings.

This one overlooks it for $$.

Additionally the BWW has no signs on the one by my house. Sometimes individual franchisers overlook policies they find distasteful.

[jmra]

Both.

Source?

Me. I was there. The long guns were at a barbecue place. Unless you want to say that I am a liar. I don't remember the long guns at Denny's. The fellow that carried the rifle was not there when I went.

That is not what your original post stated as you stated OC at Denny's and I asked if they were OCing long guns or handguns. You replied both. Glad you corrected the misinformation.

[Keith B]

This one overlooks it for $$.

Additionally the BWW has no signs on the one by my house. Sometimes individual franchisers overlook policies they find distasteful.

I think that is the key reason. They ask themselves 'Do I turn away a group of 20-30 who happen to be open carrying in a state where it has always been legal?' and decide the $$ wins out. I think you might possibly see the same thing in smaller towns in Missouri where it has always been legal and the manager knows the individuals. Take a larger city like St. Louis or Kansas City or their suburbs and you won't see it.

The interesting test will be if the Governor signs pending legislation which includes uniformed laws on licensed open carry forcing cities who have restrictions prohibiting open carry in their ordinances into allowing it. Will be interesting to see if new signs go up in those cities at businesses because of any in-your-face types of encounters.

[Bladed]

Off the top of my head, here are a few compromises that constituted huge gains for gun owners.

1. Texas's CHL law: Twenty years ago, one side wanted citizen to be able to carry handguns for personal protection, and the other side wanted to maintain the status quo in which only trained, vetted, commissioned peace officers could carry handguns. The two sides compromised.

2. The federal safe passage law: The Hughes amendment not withstanding, the Firearm Owners Protection Act was a compromise between states that wanted local control over their firearms laws and gun owners who wanted to be able to travel with their guns without risking jail time.

3. Virtually every gun rights bill that has ever passed in Texas or any other state: Whether we're talking about the passage of PC 30.06 (a compromise between gun rights and property rights), negotiations over the parking lot bill (certain influential groups were granted limited exceptions in order to ensure passage of the bill), or changing "fails to conceal" to "intentionally displays" in 46.035(a) (it's not open carry, but it does address the issue of unintentional display), most gun rights wins involve some form of compromise.

In my humble opinion, one of the more pervasive threats to the gun rights movement is the all-or-nothing mentality promoted by some of the more fanatical factions of the movement (e.g., the open carry advocates who, in complete disregard for the realities of Texas politics, are antagonistic toward efforts to pass anything less than unlicensed open carry). It's rare to see a controversial bill pass without at least a few concessions, and nothing is gained by watching a perfect bill die.

Those "compromises" were our taking back some of the rights that we had lost from either previous compromises or just leftovers from the Yankee Imperialistic Occupation after the War of Northern Aggression. Even with them, we're not back to where we were with what the Founding Fathers intended. We need to put the leftists on the defensive for a change instead of just slowly giving up more and more of our 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights.

"The secret to successful negotiation is to ask for the world, but settle for New Jersey."

In any true compromise, both sides give a little, and both sides get a little. Rather than eschewing the word "compromise" altogether, we need to focus on ensuring that our get outweighs our give.

[SewTexas]

the problem is the OC crowd doesn't want to compromise. interestingly, they are taking tactics of many liberal groups.

[jmra]

the problem is the OC crowd doesn't want to compromise. interestingly, they are taking tactics of many liberal groups.

This is what people removed from the situation are not understanding. It is also difficult for people in states where handgun OC is legal to understand the issues caused by people trying to promote handgun OC by OCing long guns especially when uninvited in privately owned establishments. Long gun OC and handgun OC are two very different animals.

[mamabearCali]

the problem is the OC crowd doesn't want to compromise. interestingly, they are taking tactics of many liberal groups.

Perhaps there is a reason they do so. I don't really agree with that, but libs have been enormously effective in getting much of their agenda enshrined in law. As an example look at gay marriage it had been forcefully advanced. Those opposed have been successfully marginalized. Even in TX the buckle of the bibe belt it is making vast inroad.

I am not saying I agree with the way OC in TX is going about things. But maybe they are simply following a successful strategy in pushing an unpopular position forward.

[jmra]

the problem is the OC crowd doesn't want to compromise. interestingly, they are taking tactics of many liberal groups.

Perhaps there is a reason they do so. I don't really agree with that, but libs have been enormously effective in getting much of their agenda enshrined in law. As an example look at gay marriage it had been forcefully advanced. Those opposed have been successfully marginalized. Even in TX the buckle of the bibe belt it is making vast inroad.

I am not saying I agree with the way OC in TX is going about things. But maybe they are simply following a successful strategy in pushing an unpopular position forward.

Apples and oranges. Gay marriage has only advanced as far as it has because liberal judges have ignored the wishes of the people and the states and placed their own agenda above the law.
Other liberal agendas have advanced because they share that agenda with the liberal media. Anyone using these tactics without the support of the media or judges willing to put their own agenda above the law is doomed to failure.

If they wanted to follow a successful strategy all they need to do is what Alice and Chas and the pro gun legislators have asked them to do. No group has ever been more successful in passing pro gun legislation in the state of Texas.

[NavyVet1959]

In any true compromise, both sides give a little, and both sides get a little. Rather than eschewing the word "compromise" altogether, we need to focus on ensuring that our get outweighs our give.

Our ultimate goal should be the re-establishment of the intentions of the Founding Fathers with respect to the 2nd Amendment being the ONLY gun "law" out there. We should be actively attempting a full repeal of the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 -- not that I have any particular desire to own fully automatic weapons, but it is the principle of the thing. Of course, the leftists will balk at that and suggest something else, but the point is that we need to put *them* on the defensive for a change. Instead of us trying to minimize the damage that they can do to us, we need to put them in that position. Each year, we should attempt a full repeal of the NFA of 1934 and GCA of 1968 and use that as a starting point to get back our rights. Eventually, we will have dug ourselves out of this hole that the leftists have put us in.

[Bladed]

In any true compromise, both sides give a little, and both sides get a little. Rather than eschewing the word "compromise" altogether, we need to focus on ensuring that our get outweighs our give.

Our ultimate goal should be the re-establishment of the intentions of the Founding Fathers with respect to the 2nd Amendment being the ONLY gun "law" out there. We should be actively attempting a full repeal of the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 -- not that I have any particular desire to own fully automatic weapons, but it is the principle of the thing. Of course, the leftists will balk at that and suggest something else, but the point is that we need to put *them* on the defensive for a change. Instead of us trying to minimize the damage that they can do to us, we need to put them in that position. Each year, we should attempt a full repeal of the NFA of 1934 and GCA of 1968 and use that as a starting point to get back our rights. Eventually, we will have dug ourselves out of this hole that the leftists have put us in.

You can make the case that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be the only FEDERAL gun law, but they never intended for the Constitution to restrict state governments. I fully support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but we have to be careful about making inaccurate or misleading historical arguments.

[NavyVet1959]

You can make the case that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be the only FEDERAL gun law, but they never intended for the Constitution to restrict state governments. I fully support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but we have to be careful about making inaccurate or misleading historical arguments.

Do you believe that the Constitution as originally intended by the Founding Fathers gives states the right to mandate or prohibit a particular religion?

It was the 14th Amendment that expanded the power of the federals government to allow for federal rules to be propagated down to the state level. Personally, I think that it gave the federal government too much power and combined with the way that the Southern states were forced to ratify it, I don't particularly agree with it. I also don't like the fact that in a single amendment, they lump so many concepts together.

Personally, I believe that the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct since the Constitution would not have passed if those 10 Amendments had not been there.

[Bladed]

You can make the case that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be the only FEDERAL gun law, but they never intended for the Constitution to restrict state governments. I fully support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but we have to be careful about making inaccurate or misleading historical arguments.

Do you believe that the Constitution as originally intended by the Founding Fathers gives states the right to mandate or prohibit a particular religion?

Yes.