• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Catfish Cove Moore Ok --Gun Buster Sign--

arc37

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
11
Location
okc
Just drove of one of my favorite places to eat. Catfish Cove in Moore off of 19th. I have emailed and called this establishment and tactfully plead my case. She is supposed to email back with their descisions.
 

arc37

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
11
Location
okc
Catfish Cove Moore OK

These ladies was a real pleasure and enjoyable to talk to and their sign is coming down YAAHOO.
 

docachna

Newbie
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
58
Location
suburban Nashville TN
Gun Buster sign

Was this another Joe Lester CCSO sign ?

If so, just another reason to complain to the County Commissioners about his actions. His job is to enforce the law and apprehend violators, not to make a decision about where citizens should be PERMITTED to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, and Oklahoma Statutes. Personally, I think he's got a lot of nerve going out doing this....:mad:
 

RugerP95DC

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
154
Location
Board Of Directors OKOCA
Was this another Joe Lester CCSO sign ?

If so, just another reason to complain to the County Commissioners about his actions. His job is to enforce the law and apprehend violators, not to make a decision about where citizens should be PERMITTED to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, and Oklahoma Statutes. Personally, I think he's got a lot of nerve going out doing this....:mad:

I don't believe so, I ate lunch there today and thanked the management for taking down their sign and as always open carried, food was great as usual!:D
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Was this another Joe Lester CCSO sign ?

If so, just another reason to complain to the County Commissioners about his actions. His job is to enforce the law and apprehend violators, not to make a decision about where citizens should be PERMITTED to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, and Oklahoma Statutes. Personally, I think he's got a lot of nerve going out doing this....:mad:

Joe Lester CCSO?
 

hrdware

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
740
Location
Moore, OK
And given this hate for Joe, what stunt exactly did he try to pull?

Gunbuster signs started going up and they had his name on them as if he was endorsing them.

Allegedly, he was taking them around to businesses in smaller cities and getting businesses to post them due to "public safety". From what I hear, he told one manager it was to protect unarmed patrons of the store just in case an armed citizen came in, had a mental breakdown and started shooting at people. Must be an open carry thing because that scenario would never have been able to happen with a CCer. :banghead:

His job is to enforce the law, not push his own beliefs. To top it off, some of the stores he got to post, did so against corporate policy. Thanks to Dustin's efforts, his signs have been coming down.
 

docachna

Newbie
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
58
Location
suburban Nashville TN
And given this hate for Joe, what stunt exactly did he try to pull?

If you're talking to me, I don't hate Joe Lester. I don't even know him. What I hate is public officials acting as if they're protecting the public by limiting the rights of citizens to engage in perfectly lawful activities, under the cover of "promoting safety". Law enforcement is supposed to protect the rights of ALL citizens. Three kinds of hell would break out if a county sheriff were to encourage merchants to prohibit entry to those citizens who chose to exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech in their store (not in a disruptive manner, simply exercising their right). However, for some reason, many seem to think that selecting those who exercise THIS right, and working to encourage merchants to exclude them from their stores, is just fine.

Don't misunderstand - I support the right of a property owner (merchant) to do what he pleases with his store. If he chooses to ban CC , or OC, his store - his right - his bottom line. He can do as he pleases. What GALLS me is an elected official using tax dollars to simply publicize his name on a sign on the door, and get what he considers "good pub" by acting as if he's actually DOING something, when in reality, all he's doing is another libtard "feel-good" act. He knows good and well that CC and OC licensees are not the folks he really needs to worry about, but he's pandering to the left by acting as if barring them from CC or OC in stores is actually going to have one ounce of effect on public safety. Those of us on here know full well that actually, the very opposite may be true. Just look at the Aurora theater; Virginia Tech; Columbine; the list goes on and on. Banning guns from facilities merely gives free rein to the bad guy to come in and do as they please, knowing they are unopposed by anyone with the ability to do anything meaningful to stop them.
 

Robert318

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2012
Messages
158
Location
Choctaw, OK
They can do as they please

Don't misunderstand - I support the right of a property owner (merchant) to do what he pleases with his store. If he chooses to ban CC , or OC, his store - his right - his bottom line:banghead:. He can do as he pleases. What GALLS me is an elected official using tax dollars to simply publicize his name on a sign on the door, and get what he considers "good pub" by acting as if he's actually DOING something, when in reality, all he's doing is another libtard "feel-good" act. He knows good and well that CC and OC licensees are not the folks he really needs to worry about, but he's pandering to the left by acting as if barring them from CC or OC in stores is actually going to have one ounce of effect on public safety. Those of us on here know full well that actually, the very opposite may be true. Just look at the Aurora theater; Virginia Tech; Columbine; the list goes on and on. Banning guns from facilities merely gives free rein to the bad guy to come in and do as they please, knowing they are unopposed by anyone with the ability to do anything meaningful to stop them.

Ok I will try to be as nice as I can about this but the fact is this subject really burns my a.s.s..:banghead:

So your not alone with that comment "a buisness owner/merchant has the right to do as they please" in a business thats open to the public. This has been an issue for many people in many ways for a very long time, too long.

Let me ask some basic questions on this topic. So with this supposed right what would happen in todays time if a merchant denied or banned someone from entering their semi-private (privately owned but open to the public) business because of the color of their skin or their religious affiliations (if obvious because of an article of clothing), or because of their sex, or because a disability? Oh did I forget to mention it might offend or scare one of the other patrons.:rolleyes: Would that not start a host of roars from all over the spectrum? Well then how is it ok for them to deny/ban someone because they chose to take their own safety in their own hands by exercising a right not only given by the creator but also in the law of the land(2nd Admendment)? The only way I see that a business owner, merchant, employer should have the right to deny someone from entering or remaining on their property that is open to the public at large is if the person(s) are committing some criminal offense or if they are considered a private club requiring a membership (therfore no longer semi-private). Let us remember that discrimination is not only a wrong and an injustice but is just as hurtful as words can be not only to people but to the "rights" of all people. No matter what you sugar coat it with or try to paint it with a t.u.r.d is still a t.u.r.d and as long as you are willing to buy it someone will try and sell it to you.

Private property on the other hand that is not open to the public at large is a different story and I do believe the right to ban or disallow someone on or in is essential in maintaining our liberties. But we still have laws that tell people what they cannot do. One example in recent history is an ordinance in Norman telling people they can have only four hens and no roosters and the coop has to be 25 feet from the property line. So what happened to owners doing as they please, right? So someone can say yes you can but wait no you cant. Is there something in the water or some one with a stupid stick going around hitting people, because that sure sounds like a big piece of stupid to me. Its ok for you but not ok for him or its ok for me but not for you. I can crap where and when I want to but you have to wait and I'll tell you when and where.

I do agree with the pledge of alliegance in the statement "one nation under God with Liberty and Justice for all". But if we are going to allow BS like this then something tells me we are in for a rude awakening. Where do we draw the line? So laws are no longer for telling us what we cant do but for telling us what we can.:question: If private land owners can be told they cant do something be it in city limits or in the country then business owners can be told they cant also. Oh wait they do get told they cant, they cant put up signs higher than x or closer to the street than x or they cant false advertise,etc., well that contradicts the do as they please part.:uhoh: But oh scary guns from scarry people who have a history of following the law, thats different it might scare off patrons. :rolleyes: Dont you know business and economics is far more important than civil liberties.:eek: Or the best one I think I have heard so far is its a liability issuse, someone might try and sue me if someone else uses their gun for self defense and I just dont want to take that chance ( screw your safety). If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck odds are its a duck.:shocker: I just try to call it like I see it and I am calling their right to ban the right of the people to protect themselves at all times as one big steaming pile of crap with nuts included!

God bless and help us all.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Robert, I both agree and disagree with what you're saying. I agree that if one were to discriminate based on those "protected" subjects that there would be a huge issue both legally and civilally. And as such I think that NO ONE should be able to be discriminated against (though don't confuse unqualified for the job as discrimination; talking about men that want to be hooters waitresses and similar situations). But I also don't agree with this (though it is the only fair way of doing things imo). If it is private property, even if it's open to the public, then they should be able to discriminate against people for whatever reason. That isn't to say that the people can't protest such actions, simply that the government shouldn't be able to dictate who they have to allow into their establishment.

So, imo, either they should be able to discriminate against all or none. Get rid of the "special" groups.
 

mohawk001

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
113
Location
Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
I'm going to go sleep in some store tonight. It's open to the public after all. The list goes on and on what a business can prevent people from doing, and unless you are going to go out and scream about how they can't do those things also then I think you're only being selective because you want special treatment. So much for wanting to be accepted if you want to be treated special.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
I'm going to go sleep in some store tonight. It's open to the public after all. The list goes on and on what a business can prevent people from doing, and unless you are going to go out and scream about how they can't do those things also then I think you're only being selective because you want special treatment. So much for wanting to be accepted if you want to be treated special.

His point is that they can't discriminate against various other rights, but yet we allow ourselves to be discriminated against for peacefully exercising our rights. Personally I think that they should be able to discriminate against anyone they choose for any reason they choose. Of course this wouldn't sit well with those that have gotten special treatment, but I feel that is the right of property owners.
 

okiebryan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
447
Location
Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
His point is that they can't discriminate against various other rights, but yet we allow ourselves to be discriminated against for peacefully exercising our rights. Personally I think that they should be able to discriminate against anyone they choose for any reason they choose. Of course this wouldn't sit well with those that have gotten special treatment, but I feel that is the right of property owners.

Are you saying that if a hotel refused to rent a room to someone because they are confined to a wheelchair, that's ok with you? Or if a restaurant refused to serve food to a family because they are Korean American? Would you support that? How about making black people ride in the back of a Greyhound bus? Denying a blind person the ability to fly on a commercial passenger airline because they use a service dog? Or how about an apartment manager refusing to show an apartment to someone because they attend a Catholic church? There is some discrimination that we as a society have decided is not acceptable. As I believe it should be.

Owning a gun is not a protected class. It's not going to be a protected class, because you can choose not to carry it into a business where you have been put on notice that it's not welcome. In most cases, you can also choose to do business somewhere else that is more in line with what you believe.

I don't think that we are harassing any businesses. That is not the intent of the OKOCA. What we are doing is to provide thoughtful and reasoned information on why we believe that limiting the self defense rights of their clientele is a bad idea. If they decide to see things our way, great. We reward them with our continued patronage. If they do not see things our way, and choose to continue with the victim disarmament zone nonsense, then we can choose to comply with their wishes, or to find someone else to spend our money with. Either way, we are honoring their private property rights as enumerated in Oklahoma state law.

That's it. That's all. No rights are being violated, no harassment is happening.

The issue with Cleveland County, is that we PERCEIVE that: 1) An official government agency is going around pressuring businesses to create fallacious victim disarmament zones, and 2)We believe that their signs are misquoting state law in order to create the illusion that their signs hold weight of law, when in fact, they may not.
 
Last edited:

Robert318

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2012
Messages
158
Location
Choctaw, OK
Are you saying that if a hotel refused to rent a room to someone because they are confined to a wheelchair, that's ok with you? Or if a restaurant refused to serve food to a family because they are Korean American? Would you support that? How about making black people ride in the back of a Greyhound bus? Denying a blind person the ability to fly on a commercial passenger airline because they use a service dog? Or how about an apartment manager refusing to show an apartment to someone because they attend a Catholic church? There is some discrimination that we as a society have decided is not acceptable. As I believe it should be.

Owning a gun is not a protected class. It's not going to be a protected class, because you can choose not to carry it into a business where you have been put on notice that it's not welcome. In most cases, you can also choose to do business somewhere else that is more in line with what you believe.

I don't think that we are harassing any businesses. That is not the intent of the OKOCA. What we are doing is to provide thoughtful and reasoned information on why we believe that limiting the self defense rights of their clientele is a bad idea. If they decide to see things our way, great. We reward them with our continued patronage. If they do not see things our way, and choose to continue with the victim disarmament zone nonsense, then we can choose to comply with their wishes, or to find someone else to spend our money with. Either way, we are honoring their private property rights as enumerated in Oklahoma state law.

That's it. That's all. No rights are being violated, no harassment is happening.

The issue with Cleveland County, is that we PERCEIVE that: 1) An official government agency is going around pressuring businesses to create fallacious victim disarmament zones, and 2)We believe that their signs are misquoting state law in order to create the illusion that their signs hold weight of law, when in fact, they may not.

Yes, I agree with that with one slight possible misunderstanding. Although gun ownership or the carry of a firearm is not a class, my understanding is like those various class of people being protected from discrimination under law the 2nd amendment under the bill of rights is also law. Therefore should also afford those that so chose to cc or oc should also be protected. However for whatever reasons it was specifically written that they can chose to ban lawful weapons in their buildings. And as I have said before though I may not agree with that right I do respect others and will respect their wishes and take my business elsewhere.

Stay safe and God bless.
 

okiebryan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
447
Location
Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
The bill of rights only restricts Government from doing certain things to "the people". The 1st amendment protects people from being arrested for saying unpopular things. It does not protect you from all consequences for your speech. For instance, if a business owner publicly stated that they think child molestation should be legalized, I'd fully expect they would lose most, if not all of their customers. But they could not be arrested by the government for that. The 1st also protects people's right to believe in and worship their creator (or to believe nothing) without GOVERNMENT sponsorship or interference. The 1st amendment DOES NOT prevent you from being asked to leave Walmart for going around their store telling other customers how much Walmart sucks, or even how prices are better at Target.

The 2nd amendment has not been forced on the states completely by the Supreme Court, like others have...that is hopefully happening now in regards to Chicago and Illinois. It does not guarantee you the right to go onto other people's private property while armed.

Another example is the 4th amendment. It protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures BY THE GOVERNMENT and IT'S AGENTS. It does not protect you from your employer, or protect kids from their parents.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that the bill of rights only limit the power of GOVERNMENT.
 
Last edited:
Top