Big Dogs restaurant is an anti-firearm establishment

On March 29th I had an incident with the management of Big Dogs on Rancho, so I wrote a complaint and emailed it to the corporate office the following day. Here is what I sent:

Dear Sir or Ma'am,
Last night I went to your restaurant on Rancho for a beer with an old friend. As per my usual, I was openly carrying my firearm. After having been at the bar for well over an hour (and having ordered one beer) my friend and I changed seats. At this point David comes up to me and apologetically informs me that the manager on shift that night (Tyrone I think was his name) instructed him to have me disarmed. David gave me three options: the first was to leave, the second was to place my firearm in my car, and the third was to surrender my firearm to David. I was honestly shocked. I have been a regular at Big Dogs on Nellis as well as the one on Rancho for over 4 years, and I've been openly carrying there for over 2. I find it hard to believe that this is a corporate policy because I have open carried at all 3 of the Big Dog's locations in the past without incident, and there are no signs at any locations stating that legal carry of firearms is against company policy. Now, while I know David in a professional manner and he seems like a very nice guy, Tyrone telling him to ask me to surrender my weapon has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone ask me. Un-holstering a weapon in public is a VERY serious crime, also known as brandishing. If David has any sort of criminal past, then he and I would BOTH be committing a felony if I were to surrender my firearm to him. Nevada is what's known as an "Open Carry" state, in that anyone who can legally own a firearm can carry it in a fashion that is discernible to anyone. I was not breaking any laws, yet I was asked to leave or disarm.
If you could please clarify what the policy is I would greatly appreciate it. While I enjoy Big Dog's I have no problem taking my money elsewhere (the innzone on Nellis has told me that they PREFER when I carry there), and letting the firearm community of nvshooters.com and opencarry.org know of your policy. I look forward to hearing from you.
V/R
Derek Lacy

Click to expand...

I went the whole month of April without hearing back from anyone, so I began calling their corporate office. I never got a call back until I called and left a second message with the receptionist today. The gentleman that called me back (Rich, director of operations) informed me that I was indeed not breaking any laws, and that the bartender asking me to surrender my weapon was "a lapse in good judgement". Apparently this complaint went all the way to the owner of the business and his policy is no legal carry of firearms on the premises. He also informed me that they were working on putting up signage.


It's a damn shame. I REALLY loved going to this restaurant because their food (and beer as well) is out of this world and the staff was always awesome.

Welcome to the Forum. If you post an address and contact I will be glad to write them too.

TBG

First, it's a shame that we have to add another business to our not friendly list.

Second, you handled it well. Thanks for following up with the business.

FYI, unholstering a weapon, in public, is not a crime, and it certainly is not brandishing. Nevada does have a law against "Drawing deadly weapon in threatening manner." I hear the "brandishing thing" occassionally from people you would think/should know better. I was actually told by a guy that shoots trap, while in my own travel trailer, on a camping trip, that I was brandishing, when I pulled my firearm out my holster. I had pulled it, ejected the magazine, and cleared the chamber and was comparing magazine shapes/sizes with a buddy who also owns a .40, but made by another manufacturer.

Just to be clear, here is the NRS.

NRS 202.320 - Drawing deadly weapon in threatening manner

1. Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person having, carrying or procuring from another person any dirk, dirk-knife, sword, sword cane, pistol, gun or other deadly weapon, who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits any of such deadly weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self-defense, or who in any manner unlawfully uses that weapon in any fight or quarrel, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

2. A sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, constable or other peace officer shall not be held to answer, under the provisions of subsection 1, for drawing or exhibiting any of the weapons mentioned therein while in the lawful discharge of his or her duties.

[1911 C&P § 174; RL § 6439; NCL § 10121]—(NRS A 1967, 486; 1989, 1240)

Please don't give bad information to "anti's", that could be given back to another legally carrying citizen. If I wanted to unholster my .40, and place it on a table in front of me, or show it to a friend, unless I do it "in a rude, angry or threatening manner", it's legal.

Would I do this normally? No, but there is no law against it. We might scare the sheeple's, and I'm sensitive to that. This is how we get to look at various guns at a gun show, or at a gun store. There's no law, magic, force field, that changes the rules for displaying fireams in a store, or in a park, at the range, in your home, in a car, or even in a restaurant. We just have to use common sense, when we do these things. We don't want mass panic, and we certainly don't want to make our fellow OCers look bad.

*facepalm* I feel like such an idiot now. I knew that I had read about drawing a gun, but I didn't remember the caveat of "in a rude or threatening manner". I am correct though about handing a firearm to a criminal though right? Since technically it's a transfer, albeit temporary. @TBG, you can go to their website http://www.bigdogsbrews.com and they have all their info under the contact page. Thank you for the welcome, I've been lurking on this website for a few years now, I've just never really posted anything.

vegaspassat said:

*facepalm* I feel like such an idiot now. I knew that I had read about drawing a gun, but I didn't remember the caveat of "in a rude or threatening manner". I am correct though about handing a firearm to a criminal though right? Since technically it's a transfer, albeit temporary. @TBG, you can go to their website http://www.bigdogsbrews.com and they have all their info under the contact page. Thank you for the welcome, I've been lurking on this website for a few years now, I've just never really posted anything.

Click to expand...

LOL, yeah, you're right. I would not hand my firearm over to anybody, unless I knew them and they were legally able to carry a firearm, and was 100% sure what they would do with it.

vegaspassat said:

*facepalm* I feel like such an idiot now. I knew that I had read about drawing a gun, but I didn't remember the caveat of "in a rude or threatening manner". I am correct though about handing a firearm to a criminal though right? Since technically it's a transfer, albeit temporary.

Click to expand...

No, you were not entirely correct. Convicted felons (defined in federal law as those convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison, whether or not that was the sentence) are prohibited possessors. Those convicted of misdemeanors are generally not, with the exception of those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence (Lautenberg Amendment).

ETA: Of course, I am blown away that they would have asked you to surrender your weapon to an employee, or even accepted it if you had offered to do so (what is this, an 1880s saloon?!?). If I were a business owner, the last thing I would want, as far as liability goes, is my minimum-wage server personnel handling customers' firearms, with which they are likely to be wholly unfamiliar. It does not really surprise me that when confronted by the fact that his employees could have done something really, really stupid, the owner decided to hit the panic button and ban carry.

Unfortunate, but really nothing you could do. You handled the situation well, and good job on the follow-up.

ManInBlack said:

Convicted felons (defined in federal law as those convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison, whether or not that was the sentence) are prohibited possessors. Those convicted of misdemeanors are generally not, with the exception of those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence (Lautenberg Amendment).

Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at. I only know the bar tender in a professional manner and for all I know he very well could be an ex-felon. It wouldn't be the first time for me to be surprised to find out that a very nice guy serving drinks to me had a darker past.

He must have thought it was the old west, just give your gun to the bar keep. ;o)

I had an arrangement at a bar that I no longer frequent after moving away from it that I could open carry into the bar, the bartender would secure my firearm in a locked drawer so long as I kept the ammunition. I knew the bartender and trusted him, and he trusted me but the bar owner had the final say, and he said no firearms. Unfortunately, It was the only bar in walking distance and at the time I didn't have a car or driver's license so I had to compromise. I never handed the firearm to him directly, I would come in, he would let me go behind the bar where he unlocked the drawer where I placed it in and he closed and locked it. This bar had armed security as well. I understand this is a compromise most will not make, but I made the decision knowing that I could choose not to frequent their business.

FallonJeeper said:

.

NRS 202.320 - Drawing deadly weapon in threatening manner

1. Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person having, carrying or procuring from another person any dirk, dirk-knife, sword, sword cane, pistol, gun or other deadly weapon, who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits any of such deadly weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self-defense, or who in any manner unlawfully uses that weapon in any fight or quarrel, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

2. A sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, constable or other peace officer shall not be held to answer, under the provisions of subsection 1, for drawing or exhibiting any of the weapons mentioned therein while in the lawful discharge of his or her duties.

[1911 C&P § 174; RL § 6439; NCL § 10121]—(NRS A 1967, 486; 1989, 1240)

Click to expand...

Hi FallonJeeper, I think the problem with the verbiage is that it is very subjective, consider this perfect storm of consequences

1) you unholster your firearm and place it on a table in the resturant/bar
2) The muzzle has to point somewhere, if it happens to point at a table with other patrons (anti patrons at that) now you've exhibited your firearm in what can be construed as a "threatening manner"
3) Law enforcement shows up sees your firearm unholstered on a table and the muzzle pointing the general direction of the complaintant
4) Now you can be charged with brandishing and it's a "tell it to the judge" scenario.

Is this likely to happen? I don't know
Can this happen? Absolutely!!!! I was told by a WCSO deputy (good friend and we were at Wednesday night dollar drinks at Cantina) who I asked what would he do if this was the call he got, and his answer was as follows if the locality is one where there is no need to unholster the firearm (such as a resturant) and the situation did not warrant you unholstering the firearm then he will ask you to please re-holster the firearm and not remove it from the holster unless it is needed for self defense and if you are being cooperative and respectful it ends, or he will cite/arrest the owner if he gets attitude as it is a subjective law.

ravir3511 said:

Hi FallonJeeper, I think the problem with the verbiage is that it is very subjective, consider this perfect storm of consequences

1) you unholster your firearm and place it on a table in the resturant/bar
2) The muzzle has to point somewhere, if it happens to point at a table with other patrons (anti patrons at that) now you've exhibited your firearm in what can be construed as a "threatening manner"
3) Law enforcement shows up sees your firearm unholstered on a table and the muzzle pointing the general direction of the complaintant
4) Now you can be charged with brandishing and it's a "tell it to the judge" scenario.

Click to expand...

A gun laying on a table, with no one touching it, simply cannot be threatening because it poses no actual threat.

Can this happen? Absolutely!!!! I was told by a WCSO deputy (good friend and we were at Wednesday night dollar drinks at Cantina) who I asked what would he do if this was the call he got, and his answer was as follows if the locality is one where there is no need to unholster the firearm (such as a resturant) and the situation did not warrant you unholstering the firearm then he will ask you to please re-holster the firearm and not remove it from the holster unless it is needed for self defense and if you are being cooperative and respectful it ends, or he will cite/arrest the owner if he gets attitude as it is a subjective law.

Click to expand...

So, in other words, it's just the type of law cops like him love because he can falsely arrest citizens who annoy him and make them "tell it to the judge," subjecting them to huge legal costs, potential job loss, community embarrassment, etc. Idiots like him ought to learn that contempt of cop is not a crime, and he is not judge, jury, and executioner.

Are all of your friends this disreputable?

Nevada carrier said:

I had an arrangement at a bar that I no longer frequent after moving away from it that I could open carry into the bar, the bartender would secure my firearm in a locked drawer so long as I kept the ammunition. I knew the bartender and trusted him, and he trusted me but the bar owner had the final say, and he said no firearms. Unfortunately, It was the only bar in walking distance and at the time I didn't have a car or driver's license so I had to compromise. I never handed the firearm to him directly, I would come in, he would let me go behind the bar where he unlocked the drawer where I placed it in and he closed and locked it. This bar had armed security as well. I understand this is a compromise most will not make, but I made the decision knowing that I could choose not to frequent their business.

Click to expand...

You love beer more than guns ! lol

:banghead:

ManInBlack said:

A gun laying on a table, with no one touching it, simply cannot be threatening because it poses no actual threat.



So, in other words, it's just the type of law cops like him love because he can falsely arrest citizens who annoy him and make them "tell it to the judge," subjecting them to huge legal costs, potential job loss, community embarrassment, etc. Idiots like him ought to learn that contempt of cop is not a crime, and he is not judge, jury, and executioner.

Are all of your friends this disreputable?

Click to expand...

Maybe all my friends are this disreputable, and I am proud to call this deputy and all my friends my friends. He is making contact based on RAS, someone calling and saying someone is pointing a gun at them . Is this a false claim? The hypothetical situation is that someone UNHOLSTERED a firearm. POINTED That firearm at them and left them being muzzled by that firearm, and that can be construed as threatening especially if the person being muzzled is some uninformed anti.

If the person he makes contact with is respectful and polite and agrees to re-holster the firearm then the contact ends, if the person starts like you spouting contempt of cop and it is his right to unholster a loaded firearm and place it on a table with the muzzle facing other patrons then he will arrest you, and charge you with NRS 202.320.

So please explain it to me how it is a false arrest, you are in my opinion in violation of NRS 202.320, because brother if I saw you come into a place I was eating, take your firearm out of its holster, place it on the table with the muzzle pointing in my direction, I WOULD FEEL THREATENED, because I don't know you or your intentions and if you are deliberately muzzling me with a loaded firearm, or if you are just being careless and not obeying the first rule of firearm safety, either way you bet I would call 911 on you, because I don't know you and I don't know your reaction if I tell you (no I am not going to ask in that situation you just put my life in danger, there is no politeness in me for that) to point that f#$&*$g firearm away from me.

Therefore you feel my friend is a PoS because you violated firearm safety rule 1 and 4 and potentially put my life in danger and he is doing his job and enforcing the laws of Nevada and if you are respectful it ends, but if you cope attitude and want to argue the law with him at the resturant he will arrest you for violate of a valid NRS, and you have you defend your actions to the judge, who may or may not see it your way.

That wasn't the point of my example. You added the part about pointing my muzzle in people's general direction.

In my example, I wasn't pointing at anybody, and I wasn't threatening or seen as threatening. We have to use some common sense and abide by safety rules, always. If you infered from my example, that I would display my weapon in an unsafe manner then, you misunderstood me/my point. I'll admit my example was a stretch.

The original poster said that the mere fact of pulling his weapon out of its holster was considered brandishing. That is the issue I was addressing.

A weapon can not be threatening, it can be be scary to some, but it takes a person, making threats, to be threatening.

There is a difference between threatening somebody and making them feel uncomfortable.

We've seen the videos where citizens, legally carrying are stopped, detained and sometimes arrested, because somebody was uncomfortable and called the police.

They can charge me with brandishing if they can find a brandishing law. The term brandishing is only mentioned in one NRS and it has to do with being under the influence of alcohiol 0.10 or more in his or her blood or breath.

"NRS 202.257 Possession of firearm when under influence of alcohol, controlled substance or other intoxicating substance; administration of evidentiary test; penalty; forfeiture of firearm"

And... although I wouldn't do it. There is no law broken if you violate Safety rules 1 and 4. It's just not a good thing. Do we need to start the shoulder holster thread again? ;o)

ravir3511 said:

:banghead:

Click to expand...

Maybe all my friends are this disreputable, and I am proud to call this deputy and all my friends my friends. He is making contact based on RAS, someone calling and saying someone is pointing a gun at them . Is this a false claim? The hypothetical situation is that someone UNHOLSTERED a firearm. POINTED That firearm at them and left them being muzzled by that firearm, and that can be construed as threatening especially if the person being muzzled is some uninformed anti.

Click to expand...

draws or exhibits any of such deadly weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner

1) There is no law against merely unholstering, even in public.
2) There is a difference between pointing a weapon at someone as if to fire, and setting a pistol down with the muzzle facing toward a person. One is threatening, the other is not. "Threatening," in law, is not a synonym for unsafe. There must be a malicious intent manifested.
3) The standard that will be applied is not whether the person felt threatened, but whether a reasonable person would have felt threatened under those same circumstances. An inanimate object, not being controlled by a human being or moved by some other force, simply cannot hurt a person in its proximity, and is not threatening, by definition.

If the person he makes contact with is respectful and polite and agrees to re-holster the firearm then the contact ends, if the person starts like you spouting contempt of cop and it is his right to unholster a loaded firearm and place it on a table with the muzzle facing other patrons then he will arrest you, and charge you with NRS 202.320.

Click to expand...

1. There is no law against being disrespectful and impolite to law enforcement.
2. Since there is no law against setting a weapon down in public, I don't believe a command to reholster would be a lawful order.
3. Since he cannot make an arrest for violating an unlawful order, such an arrest would be false.

So please explain it to me how it is a false arrest, you are in my opinion in violation of NRS 202.320, because brother if I saw you come into a place I was eating, take your firearm out of its holster, place it on the table with the muzzle pointing in my direction, I WOULD FEEL THREATENED, because I don't know you or your intentions and if you are deliberately muzzling me with a loaded firearm, or if you are just being careless and not obeying the first rule of firearm safety, either way you bet I would call 911 on you, because I don't know you and I don't know your reaction if I tell you (no I am not going to ask in that situation you just put my life in danger, there is no politeness in me for that) to point that f#$&*$g firearm away from me.

Click to expand...

That's one hell of a run-on sentence. Well done, sir.

1) Your opinion does not matter; the court's determination of how a reasonable person would feel does.
2) A reasonable person does not feel threatened by the mere presence of an inanimate object. An irrational hoplophobe does.
3) People whose first impulse is to call armed strangers to the scene when a situation makes them vaguely uncomfortable are a big problem in this country.

Therefore you feel my friend is a PoS because you violated firearm safety rule 1 and 4 and potentially put my life in danger and he is doing his job and enforcing the laws of Nevada and if you are respectful it ends, but if you cope attitude and want to argue the law with him at the resturant he will arrest you for violate of a valid NRS, and you have you defend your actions to the judge, who may or may not see it your way.

Click to expand...

That's not a bad attempt, but c'mon, we both know you can make it run-on longer than that...

1) It is not necessarily a crime to violate safety rules 1 and 4.
2) His job is to enforce the laws. As you have been shown, none are broken in this hypothetical example.
3) If I cop an attitude that he can't cope with (), that's not my problem, and it's not his, either, because it's not against the law.
4) Arguing with him over a point of law on which he is incorrect is not a crime.
5) I do agree that your friend likely would make a false arrest and force me to see a judge.

*JUST SO IT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR AND NO ONE MISCONSTRUES WHAT I AM SAYING: This is a hypothetical example. I do not practice or advocate any of the activities described.

ManInBlack said:

View attachment 8409



draws or exhibits any of such deadly weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner

1) There is no law against merely unholstering, even in public.
2) There is a difference between pointing a weapon at someone as if to fire, and setting a pistol down with the muzzle facing toward a person. One is threatening, the other is not. "Threatening," in law, is not a synonym for unsafe. There must be a malicious intent manifested.
3) The standard that will be applied is not whether the person felt threatened, but whether a reasonable person would have felt threatened under those same circumstances. An inanimate object, not being controlled by a human being or moved by some other force, simply cannot hurt a person in its proximity, and is not threatening, by definition.



1. There is no law against being disrespectful and impolite to law enforcement.
2. Since there is no law against setting a weapon down in public, I don't believe a command to reholster would be a lawful order.
3. Since he cannot make an arrest for violating an unlawful order, such an arrest would be false.



That's one hell of a run-on sentence. Well done, sir.

1) Your opinion does not matter; the court's determination of how a reasonable person would feel does.
2) A reasonable person does not feel threatened by the mere presence of an inanimate object. An irrational hoplophobe does.
3) People whose first impulse is to call armed strangers to the scene when a situation makes them vaguely uncomfortable are a big problem in this country.



That's not a bad attempt, but c'mon, we both know you can make it run-on longer than that...

1) It is not necessarily a crime to violate safety rules 1 and 4.
2) His job is to enforce the laws. As you have been shown, none are broken in this hypothetical example.
3) If I cop an attitude that he can't cope with (), that's not my problem, and it's not his, either, because it's not against the law.
4) Arguing with him over a point of law on which he is incorrect is not a crime.
5) I do agree that your friend likely would make a false arrest and force me to see a judge.

*JUST SO IT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR AND NO ONE MISCONSTRUES WHAT I AM SAYING: This is a hypothetical example. I do not practice or advocate any of the activities described.

Click to expand...

Where's the like button?

ok so here's the thing. I also posted this on nvshooters.com and there are a few people on there saying that what happened was justified and the establishment is justified in implementing a no firearm stance because I had a beer while OC, and apparently alcohol and OC should never happen. EVER. I get the feeling that there are more "rights minded" people on here, so I would like to sincerely ask - what are your opinions on doing exactly what I did.....going to a bar and haveing one or two drinks while OC. (keeping in mind that the law is NO DIFFERENT if you are CC)

vegaspassat said:

ok so here's the thing. I also posted this on nvshooters.com and there are a few people on there saying that what happened was justified and the establishment is justified in implementing a no firearm stance because I had a beer while OC, and apparently alcohol and OC should never happen. EVER. I get the feeling that there are more "rights minded" people on here, so I would like to sincerely ask - what are your opinions on doing exactly what I did.....going to a bar and haveing one or two drinks while OC. (keeping in mind that the law is NO DIFFERENT if you are CC)

Click to expand...

Dont go to that forum and expect anyone to respect oc rights. The majority on that forum think you should have to have a permit to do anything. Just read a few of the threads.
My personal feeling on drinks and carry. I dont. Only because if I did have to use it I think that the defense would try to paint me as a drunk at the time. One just has to see current events in the news and how shootings are handled by the media etc. Yet like you said the law is clear. I have no issue if someone wants to have a drink. It is your choice.

Now the bar owner does have rights and can choose to ban us. Thats a choice they make. Is that choice good for biz? Maybe or not. I know some of us are writing to express our thoughts to the owner.

vegaspassat said:

apparently alcohol and OC should never happen. EVER. I get the feeling that there are more "rights minded" people on here, so I would like to sincerely ask - what are your opinions on doing exactly what I did.....going to a bar and haveing one or two drinks while OC. (keeping in mind that the law is NO DIFFERENT if you are CC)

Click to expand...

There are a lot of angles to this question. I personally don't drink in public while carrying. I am doing my best to project an image of OC that is favorable, and brings people to our side. I feel that drinking in public while OC will ultimately get laws passed against it, which I would rather not have.

When I am camping, I might have a drink, but still carry. But that is OUT of the sight of the general public.

There are laws regarding carrying and drinking, just as there are laws regarding driving and drinking.

0.10 BAC for carrying and 0.08 for driving. We have to be at least 18 to OC, 21 to CC. I'm guessing that makes us all adults. There are people out there that say ”do not even touch a drop alcohol and then drive”.

There have been times where I've been out to dinner and had a beer or mixed drink, and OC/CC'd. But that was one drink, with food, not inebriated, and I'm certainly not the center of attention. From across the room, you probably wouldn't even know I'm carrying, so I'm not portraying a poor image of open carriers.

There are times when I’ve gone out, with friends, to have a few drinks. I’m aware of the legal limit. I plan ahead. I don’t carry if I think there’s even the slightest chance I’m going to get close.

These are individual choices that we have to make. I appreciate and respect your decision to never drink and carry. Please respect my decision to be responsible and stay within the limits of the law.