• 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.

Chipotle caves...

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
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.
 

Gallowmere

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
210
Location
Richmond, VA
'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."
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

katenka

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
12
Location
Richmond
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

ChristCrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
199
Location
Virginia, US
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.
 

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
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.
 

ChristCrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
199
Location
Virginia, US
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:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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:

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
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:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

ChristCrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
199
Location
Virginia, US
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.


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.
 

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
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).
 
Top