Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 160

Thread: Chipotle caves...

  1. #1
    Regular Member SAvage410's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    176

    Chipotle caves...

    Another Starbucks move. Pity. I really liked Chipotle...

    http://news.yahoo.com/chipotle-dont-...pT6Q8AzivQtDMD

    Since this is not a Virginia-specific link, I expect it'll be moved to a more appropriate venue.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    Already sent an email saying that I hope they go out of business. They say it is up to the elected to decide laws then come up with a poor business choice after behaving like a rational company (following local laws). Said to say that I will miss them.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gallowmere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    220
    'Tis a pity, really. The wife and I ate there on a nearly daily basis. I too, sent them an email: "It is a shame that your company has decided to discourage the carry of lawfully owned firearms in your restaurants. Unfortunately, this means that my wife and I will be forced to find a new restaurant for our daily lunch meetings. Unless, and until this announcement is reversed, we will not be patronizing any of your locations. Where our sidearms are not welcome, our checkbook is not welcome."
    "Now, why believe in anything they praise,
    When one hand holds them the victor,
    While the other holds the shovel to their graves?"
    ~~~Claudio Sanchez

  4. #4
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    Never really like them anyway.

    μολών λαβέ
    Be active.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    A blogger once wrote about the difference between Open Carrying and Open Carrying At People.

    I understand that the only lawful OC in Texas (at the moment) is the carrying of rifles. But is there really a need to have your hands all over them? Are single-point slings the way to go if you are going to carry a rifle, as opposed to having a rifle at the ready to use?

    I would not be comfortable carrying a loaded rifle slung on my back, but I see no need to actually hold on to the thing while I am carrying it. I don't know (or really want to know) the Texas law regarding brandishing, but the way many of the Texas Carry folks go about it seem to be in ways that would get them busted and convicted of brandishing here in Virginia.

    Lots of folks in the blogosphere have gone on (and gone off) about how some of the Texas Carry folks are dressed. But I cannot recall anybody saying anything about the fact that they have their fingers all over the rifles they are open carrying.

    Anybody want to chime in about that?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    A blogger once wrote about the difference between Open Carrying and Open Carrying At People.

    I understand that the only lawful OC in Texas (at the moment) is the carrying of rifles. But is there really a need to have your hands all over them? Are single-point slings the way to go if you are going to carry a rifle, as opposed to having a rifle at the ready to use?

    I would not be comfortable carrying a loaded rifle slung on my back, but I see no need to actually hold on to the thing while I am carrying it. I don't know (or really want to know) the Texas law regarding brandishing, but the way many of the Texas Carry folks go about it seem to be in ways that would get them busted and convicted of brandishing here in Virginia.

    Lots of folks in the blogosphere have gone on (and gone off) about how some of the Texas Carry folks are dressed. But I cannot recall anybody saying anything about the fact that they have their fingers all over the rifles they are open carrying.

    Anybody want to chime in about that?

    stay safe.
    Agreed and well said. We don't walk around with our hand on our pistol grips....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Agreed and well said. We don't walk around with our hand on our pistol grips....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    That's because we are not cops.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    While I agree with not handling your firearm, I have read some of the hoplophobes comments on some sights. None of they mention the handling of firearms, just the fact that firearms are there, and they feel they will be shot by LAC.

    Purely hype they have bought into from the media and progressive politicians. It would be no different in Texas if the Open Carriers were OCing properly holstered handguns. Texas is an anti OC state, even some CC are anti OC there, as well as gun owners. They do not have the advantage of normalization that we have here. MDA takes advantage of that fear.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  9. #9
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    That's because we are not cops.

    stay safe.
    Lol I guess there is that.

    My elbow works just fine for me.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  10. #10
    Regular Member katenka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    13
    Well, when it comes to buying lunch near work it's either buttpiss fast food central orrrrr chipoltle. They don't care and have never said anything about my firearm, so I will continue to go there.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    ... I understand that the only lawful OC in Texas (at the moment) is the carrying of rifles. ....
    Pretty sure they also can openly carry handguns too, if made in 1899 or older.


    μολών λαβέ
    Be active.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    While I agree with not handling your firearm, I have read some of the hoplophobes comments on some sights. None of they mention the handling of firearms, just the fact that firearms are there, and they feel they will be shot by LAC.

    Purely hype they have bought into from the media and progressive politicians. It would be no different in Texas if the Open Carriers were OCing properly holstered handguns. Texas is an anti OC state, even some CC are anti OC there, as well as gun owners. They do not have the advantage of normalization that we have here. MDA takes advantage of that fear.
    Agreed - they do not mention the handling of firearms. But ask yourself if there is a possibility that the PSH factor might be reduced if the manner in which the firearms were carried was changed. For example - at the hight of the Starbucks fiasco it was possible to counter the claim of "OMG GUNZ! Bad!!eleventy!!" by demonstrating that the pistols all remained safely in holsters as opposed to being finger-****ed*.

    stay safe.

    * - Thank you, Drill Instructor Thompson, for a most descriptive phrase. It may be the only thing taught at me in Boot Camp that I remember.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    I will reiterate that relying on the financial impact of a personal or organized boycott upon a company's choice to allow or prohibit firearms;
    and relying on the "democratic" process to keep gun grabbing laws off of the books so that we may bear arms

    is being very presumptive that things will turn out the way you want them to,
    instead of demanding that keeping and bearing not be infringed/discriminated against by public and private locations/entities.

    The US2A and VA 1:13 are written that way, with no qualifiers or stipulations on who its addressing or where it's meant to affect... it's just universal.
    There should be no leeway or need for discussion anywhere... keeping and bearing firearms cannot be prohibited or restricted, and there's no danger establishing such an environment.
    Brandishing, handling, and firing are all able to be regulated/prohibited, and are different from our protected right to keep and bear uninfringed.
    *I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    I will reiterate that relying on the financial impact of a personal or organized boycott upon a company's choice to allow or prohibit firearms;
    and relying on the "democratic" process to keep gun grabbing laws off of the books so that we may bear arms

    is being very presumptive that things will turn out the way you want them to,
    instead of demanding that keeping and bearing not be infringed/discriminated against by public and private locations/entities.

    The US2A and VA 1:13 are written that way, with no qualifiers or stipulations on who its addressing or where it's meant to affect... it's just universal.
    There should be no leeway or need for discussion anywhere... keeping and bearing firearms cannot be prohibited or restricted, and there's no danger establishing such an environment.
    Brandishing, handling, and firing are all able to be regulated/prohibited, and are different from our protected right to keep and bear uninfringed.
    We've been over this before, and you are still blatantly wrong.

    A constitution (whether for a state or nation) does not function to place restrictions on the actions of private individuals. It is merely a grant of powers to the government of that state or nation and a listing of restrictions on the exercise of those powers. As such, both the Federal Second Amendment as well as Virginia Article 1 Section 13 impose no restrictions upon private individuals or the control of private property.

    Put another way, their right to control their property is as absolute as your right to be armed for self-defense. They have no right to force you to disarm against your will, but you have no right to be on their property against their will. Chipotle asking people not to bring firearms into their restaurants is merely them making a conditional invitation you enter their property. It is no different than a private homeowner asking you to take off your shoes before you step into their home. You don't have to do it, but they don't have to let you in.

    A privately-owned business is still private property, and all principles of private property rights still apply.

    To take the position that you are arguing would be to infringe upon the rights of others in a far worse manner than you claim that they are infringing upon your rights.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    We've been over this before, and you are still blatantly wrong.

    A constitution (whether for a state or nation) does not function to place restrictions on the actions of private individuals.
    Because alcohol restrictions/restoration

    and slavery abolition

    only applied to government...

    the individual has been Constitutionally free to do or not do those all along on their own property...

    Keeping and bearing is a negative right... you don't have to do anything, just don't prohibit me from doing it.
    Last edited by ChristCrusader; 05-20-2014 at 08:44 AM.
    *I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    Because alcohol restrictions/restoration

    and slavery abolition

    only applied to government...

    the individual has been Constitutionally free to do or not do those all along on their own property...
    What about rape murder? Do you think you should be able to do that on private property too?

    If a law is passed it applies in public and private unless noted either way. Rape is still illegal whether its on private or public property. You don't have a property right to do illegal acts. (THATS A WHOLE DIFFERENT CAN OF WORMS SO CEASE FIRE GUYS ON THAT LAST LINE)

    You have property rights to dictate who's on your property.

    Your going down the rabbit hole.....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Primus; 05-20-2014 at 08:52 AM.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    Keeping and bearing is a negative right... you don't have to do anything, just don't prohibit me from doing it.
    You keep missing the point of their property rights.

    They aren't prohibiting you from doing anything except entering their property. That's it. The Second Amendment and Article 1 Section 13 don't give you the right to be on their property without their consent (armed or not). They are free to place almost any restrictions that they want on who enters their property, especially regarding what they may or may not bring with them. Prohibiting firearms is no different than requiring you to wear a shirt and shoes to enter their restaurant.
    Last edited by grylnsmn; 05-20-2014 at 09:02 AM.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    You keep missing the point of their property rights.

    They aren't prohibiting you from doing anything except entering their property. That's it. The Second Amendment and Article 1 Section 13 don't give you the right to be on their property without their consent (armed or not). They are free to place almost any restrictions that they want on who enters their property, especially regarding what they may or may not bring with them. Prohibiting firearms is no different than requiring you to wear a shirt and shoes to enter their restaurant.
    +1

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    You keep missing the point of their property rights.

    They aren't prohibiting you from doing anything except entering their property. That's it.
    The Second Amendment and Article 1 Section 13 don't give you the right to be on their property without their consent (armed or not).
    actually, they want me on their property, they're only prohibiting the firearm. It's only the act of bearing that they're prohibiting (infringing), which is unConstitutional.


    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    They are free to place almost any restrictions that they want on who enters their property, especially regarding what they may or may not bring with them. Prohibiting firearms is no different than requiring you to wear a shirt and shoes to enter their restaurant.
    except that wearing the shirt and shoes (or lack thereof) are neither protecting my life, nor are protected by the Constitution of the state and country I and the proprietor live in, whereas keeping and bearing is.
    *I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    Because alcohol restrictions/restoration

    and slavery abolition

    only applied to government...

    the individual has been Constitutionally free to do or not do those all along on their own property...
    I don't usually double post, but I wanted to make sure that these were handled separately.

    Go look at the text of the 18th Amendment, particularly Section 2:
    The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    Similarly, look at the text of the 13th Amendment, particularly Section 2:
    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    Both of those restrictions were enacted by granting Congress (and, in the case of alcohol, the several states) the authority to enforce it. Without those sections, the amendments would have had no force or effect.

    That's why there are similar clauses in Amendments numbered 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 26. Amendments 1-10 only deal with restrictions on the governments, and of the remaining Amendments (11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, and 27), they all deal with procedural issues (such as the election or term of the President, Vice President, or Senators), explicitly grant a specific power to the government (as in the income tax), repeal a previous amendment, or impose a new restriction on the government itself (as in the case of congressional compensation).
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    actually, they want me on their property, they're only prohibiting the firearm. It's only the act of bearing that they're prohibiting (infringing), which is unConstitutional.

    except that wearing the shirt and shoes (or lack thereof) are neither protecting my life, nor are protected by the Constitution of the state and country I and the proprietor live in, whereas keeping and bearing is.
    Where do you get the idea that they want you on their property? They have explicitly said that they don't want you on their property if you are carrying a gun.

    If you want to go the "infringing" route, what gives you the right to infringe their property rights, which are explicitly protected by both the 5th and 14th Amendments? They cannot be denied control of their property except through due process, and by entering their property against their states wishes you are denying them control of their property.

    Your right to bear arms is not stronger than their right to control their property. You have no right to be in one of their restaurants. Period. You only gain the privilege of being on their property when you abide by their rules, and that includes their request not to bring guns on their property.

    The right to bear arms isn't stronger than other rights simply because it is your pet hobby horse. It is one of many rights that we all have, but those rights end where the rights of others begin. Your right to bear arms is (or should be) absolute right up until you reach their property line, but once you cross that line, you cross from exercising your rights to violating their rights.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    My communications with Chipotle (2 e-mails) have both identified a common point, where I think we may find common ground. Their news releases indicate that Chipotle had no problem with open carry or concealed carry, but now something has happened in Texas to change their minds. Although they don't come out and explicitly state that the handling of guns is likely the big concern, my own inclinations lead me to that conclusion based on various pictures I've seen from some of the Texas long gun OC events. Chipotle states that they had no problem with OC or CC, and generally wanted to stay out of the fray, so it seems we must read between the lines to identify a potential problem. Given this I have suggested that they modify their request to simply ask that firearms brought in not be handled in their stores, much like gun shops where this request seems to work fine. It's a pretty simple request that attempts to solve the assumed new issue of firearms handling, allows for carry, and helps Chipotle avoid having people thinking its acceptable to walk in and handle their guns. Pistols can be carried in holsters and rifles in scabbards and both allow a person to avoid handling their gun while going about.

    Hopefully they'll see the sense in this request and make the change, then the sidearm OCers and longarm OCers both have a means of carry and the restaurant will have a policy to address those rare birds who think its acceptable to play with their guns in public. Granted it doesn't do much for the rabid anti gunners, but the safety issues associated with handling are mitigated. I hope that some of the various gun groups get behind this idea so we have a common rallying point for dealing with situations like this.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 05-20-2014 at 09:39 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    What about rape murder? Do you think you should be able to do that on private property too?

    If a law is passed it applies in public and private unless noted either way. Rape is still illegal whether its on private or public property. You don't have a property right to do illegal acts. (THATS A WHOLE DIFFERENT CAN OF WORMS SO CEASE FIRE GUYS ON THAT LAST LINE)

    You have property rights to dictate who's on your property.

    Your going down the rabbit hole.....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Talk about going down the rabbit hole. Another cop resorting to a non sequitur and hyperbole to make their point. No matter how you slice it this thread is not about rape/murder.

    Ask yourself this one simple little question: Why is rape/murder illegal?

    Hint: It's not cuz the government says so.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Talk about going down the rabbit hole. Another cop resorting to a non sequitur and hyperbole to make their point. No matter how you slice it this thread is not about rape/murder.

    Ask yourself this one simple little question: Why is rape/murder illegal?

    Hint: It's not cuz the government says so.
    Talk about non sequitur.... my job has nothing to do with this conversation or what I said.

    Actually smart guy murder is illegal because man passed laws saying so. Its IMMORAL because its wrong (natural law, god, etc.)

    Hint. When you murder someone your charged for breaking a state or federal law that was passed by man. You then get sentenced based on that. Hence it being "illegal".

    Can we climb out of the rabbit hole Alice?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    636
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    My communications with Chipotle (2 e-mails) have both identified a common point, where I think we may find common ground. Their news releases indicate that Chipotle had no problem with open carry or concealed carry, but now something has happened in Texas to change their minds. Although they don't come out and explicitly state that the handling of guns is likely the big concern, my own inclinations lead me to that conclusion based on various pictures I've seen from some of the Texas long gun OC events. Chipotle states that they had no problem with OC or CC, and generally wanted to stay out of the fray, so it seems we must read between the lines to identify a potential problem. Given this I have suggested that they modify their request to simply ask that firearms brought in not be handled in their stores, much like gun shops where this request seems to work fine. It's a pretty simple request that attempts to solve the assumed new issue of firearms handling, allows for carry, and helps Chipotle avoid having people thinking its acceptable to walk in and handle their guns. Pistols can be carried in holsters and rifles in scabbards and both allow a person to avoid handling their gun while going about.

    Hopefully they'll see the sense in this request and make the change, then the sidearm OCers and longarm OCers both have a means of carry and the restaurant will have a policy to address those rare birds who think its acceptable to play with their guns in public. Granted it doesn't do much for the rabid anti gunners, but the safety issues associated with handling are mitigated. I hope that some of the various gun groups get behind this idea so we have a common rallying point for dealing with situations like this.
    J,

    Someone carried a rifle into a restaurant, which was not the smartest move. I can understand why there were concerns with handling the same. Never ate there and don't plan to in the future. Hopefully some type of organized event will take place so we can all show our support.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •