Carrabba's Roanoke, VA

imported post

Tess wrote:

Of course I can't find it now, but I thought there was a fund-raiser, victory party, or some type of celebration for a pro-gun candidate during the last election cycle - at a Carrabbas.

Am I delusional? Anyone else remember it?

Click to expand...

No, you're not delusional. It was a fundraiser for Chris Yakabowski's in his 2007 race against state Sen. Houck. It was at the Fredericksburg, VA Carrabba's. I want to say it.

LINKY

imported post

ed wrote:

Looks like they need a postcard

Click to expand...

Here we go again Ed.
You wrote "As a Virginia Concealed permit Holder"

So only permit holders should be allowed to carry in restaurants. Good Idea! We can use as the permits as the new ID. It would give our drivers license a rest.:X

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Here we go again Ed.
You wrote "As a Virginia Concealed permit Holder"
So only permit holders should be allowed to carry in restaurants.

Click to expand...

Nope Nope Nope. you missed the point. I basically copied the VCDL wallet card and made it a post card that I can send to the owner/manager instead of hand to the 17 year old hostess at the podium.

I also have never seen a restaurant post "Guns only allowed in for CHP holders". So.. No guns allowed meansno guns to both CHP and Non-CHP holders. If I see the sign at a local restaurant I can send a post card wirh clear conscience. If they see the light and remove the sign it removes it for those with and without CHP.

Ed

imported post

ed wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Here we go again Ed.
You wrote "As a Virginia Concealed permit Holder"
So only permit holders should be allowed to carry in restaurants.

Click to expand...

Nope Nope Nope. you missed the point. I basically copied the VCDL wallet card and made it a post card that I can send to the owner/manager instead of hand to the 17 year old hostess at the podium.

I also have never seen a restaurant post "Guns only allowed in for CHP holders". So.. No guns allowed meansno guns to both CHP and Non-CHP holders. If I see the sign at a local restaurant I can send a post card wirh clear conscience. If they see the light and remove the sign it removes it for those with and without CHP.

Ed

Click to expand...

I may have missed the point Ed, but I didn't miss the wording. It is one of the very few areas that VCDL and I differ.

To someone reading that, who is not familier with Virginia law, people like myself that chose to not renew permits and people who choose to not get permits, are not allowed to carry firearms.

That's my big fear with shall issue permits. They will eventually become the database of gun owners the anti's haven't been able to push through the General Assembly.

Want to own a gun, get a permit first

When I first got my permit, the court required me to list all my firearms sith serial numbers, on the application. That could very easily become law again.

imported post

Peter.. we are on the same team.. I both OC and CC. You and I are still on the "US" team and we both have different ways and thoughs on what plays we call to deal with "them".

Similar to the Supreme Court ruling.. is a road to follow in the right direction (IMHO). It takes babke steps.

When I went to listen to Alan Gura speak the other day.. he talked about the heller Case... right away folks were wanting to know how soon DC could have machine guns for home defense. I just think that baby steps forward are better then no steps at all or god forbid, leaps backwards!

imported post

I also have never seen a restaurant post "Guns only allowed in for CHP holders". So.. No guns allowed means no guns to both CHP and Non-CHP holders. If I see the sign at a local restaurant I can send a post card wirh clear conscience. If they see the light and remove the sign it removes it for those with and without CHP.

Click to expand...

Just to address that point, within thr last few months, a member here offered a handgun for sale ....to permit holders ot law enforcement only.

imported post

Hey, Ed. I think it's great that you are a man, not just of words, but of action. I agree that you and Peter are on the same side of things. My suggestion to Peter... use Ed's vendor to create post cards with wording you prefer. Send them out to establishments that need a lesson in self-defense and "criminal safe zones". That way, both your message and that of VCDL is being spread.

imported post

imported post

DTag wrote:

Hey, Ed. I think it's great that you are a man, not just of words, but of action. I agree that you and Peter are on the same side of things. My suggestion to Peter... use Ed's vendor to create post cards with wording you prefer. Send them out to establishments that need a lesson in self-defense and "criminal safe zones". That way, both your message and that of VCDL is being spread.

Click to expand...

Did that the day this thread started Dtag. Added them to OVN unfriendly list also.
I'm not at odds with ED. I do try to point out that Open Carry people do not always have CHP's and placing permit holders in a special class is detrimental to ALL gun owners.

imported post

rlh2005 wrote:

Tess wrote:

Of course I can't find it now, but I thought there was a fund-raiser, victory party, or some type of celebration for a pro-gun candidate during the last election cycle - at a Carrabbas.

Am I delusional? Anyone else remember it?

Click to expand...

No, you're not delusional. It was a fundraiser for Chris Yakabowski's in his 2007 race against state Sen. Houck. It was at the Fredericksburg, VA Carrabba's. I want to say it.

LINKY

Click to expand...

I was there. Write-up in the Fredericksburg thread dated 30 Oct 07 at http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/79-12.html. It was packed so I found a seat at a table and pretty much stayed there. As far as I could tell, I was the only one OCing.

imported post

I'm just curious, who is David Hollander? Is he the district or regional manager?

The General Manager / Proprietor of the Roanoke Carrabba's is Jason Kroeger as I've indicated various times and the sign over the door of the restaurant indicates as well. Jason is the only one that I have spoken with.

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

I'm just curious, who is David Hollander? Is he the district or regional manager?

The General Manager / Proprietor of the Roanoke Carrabba's is Jason Kroeger as I've indicated various times and the sign over the door of the restaurant indicates as well. Jason is the only one that I have spoken with.

Click to expand...

I dunno who he is.. Regional maybe? I found this on the web site:

imported post

A little off topic, but this got me fired up to send the following letter to my Sentaor, Samuel Nixon, my Representative, Stephen Martin, and Governor Kaine:

Gun Free Zone Liability Act

Dear Sir,

I am an ordinary citizen concerned with the ability to protect my family, my fellow citizens, and myself from violence perpetrated by those who disregard the law.

Our state grants the right of businesses to restrict my right to bear arms by posting their establishments as “Gun Free Zones”. I respect the right of these businesses to restrict the law abiding citizenry from carrying guns on their property, but I do not feel it is right that they should be free from liability in the event a patron is harmed, or worse, killed, due to having been stripped of their legal means of self defense.

One only needs to look at the recent shootings that have taken place in so called “safe areas” to see the ineffectiveness of these restrictions.

I am not asking that the right to place these restrictions be taken away from the businesses, but rather I ask that a bill be introduced and passed into legislation that explicitly holds these business owners liable for any harm that befalls their patrons as a direct result of their desire to create what I would rather term a “Defense Free Crime Zone”. This bill would cost the state nothing, but would give the ordinary law-abiding citizen legal recourse if the unthinkable were to happen.

I do have my Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit and as such, the following statements are known about me:

· I have no felony or domestic violence convictions

· I have no mental defects or disabilities

· I have passed a criminal background check including fingerprinting

· I have been trained in the safe and proper use of guns

I have also extensively researched the laws and statutes pertaining to Open or Concealed carry of a gun.

The people who will abide by the No Guns postings are the law abiding constituents of this great Commonwealth. I strongly urge you to give this matter your full attention and send a clear message to those businesses who wish to place their patrons in harm’s way that they will be held financially liable for their actions.

Thank you for your time,

imported post

While I don't care at all for places banning firearms on their premises, and use my wallet to back that up, I don't think you really have any grounds to sue a restaurant or mall for banning them if you're hurt there.

They have every right to ban guns there, and you have every right to not set foot on their private property if you don't feel that it's safe to do so.

imported post

I can understand your position, at least in part. I agree that you certainly have the right to not patronize the establishment, but if we changed the scenario a bit and you got hurt due to slipping in water on the floor, or perhaps part of the roof collapsed and seriously injured you or someone you care about, would you believe the business had some liability? Or would that just be luck of the draw?

I think a good number of us would simply either not patronize (vote with the wallet), or abide by the law and leave the gun in the car. But if I did so, and due to my decsion to abide by their posting, I was unable to protect myself or my loved ones if the unthinkable occurred, it would be difficult to bear that they would have ZERO liability and or responsibility for their choice to restrict law-abiding citizens.

I guess the other choice is to go the concealed route and take your chances if you have to defend yourself.

imported post

vtme_grad98 wrote:

I don't think you really have any grounds to sue a restaurant or mall for banning them if you're hurt there.

Click to expand...

Why not? Other states have enacted such legislation.

If you won't let me protect myself then you must reasonably do so while I am at your place of business.

imported post

ThunderRanch wrote:

I can understand your position, at least in part. I agree that you certainly have the right to not patronize the establishment, but if we changed the scenario a bit and you got hurt due to slipping in water on the floor, or perhaps part of the roof collapsed and seriously injured you or someone you care about, would you believe the business had some liability? Or would that just be luck of the draw?

I think a good number of us would simply either not patronize (vote with the wallet), or abide by the law and leave the gun in the car. But if I did so, and due to my decsion to abide by their posting, I was unable to protect myself or my loved ones if the unthinkable occurred, it would be difficult to bear that they would have ZERO liability and or responsibility for their choice to restrict law-abiding citizens.

I guess the other choice is to go the concealed route and take your chances if you have to defend yourself.

Click to expand...

If an accident occurs that is a direct result of the businesses negligence, then yes, they have some responsibility. But, if someone goes into the business and starts shooting, that's hardly a result of their negligence. The only person with any responsibility for what happened was the psycho who started shooting people. The business may have chosen to disarm those who enter, but you still chose to enter. You took a gamble; you made a choice between eating there unarmed versus eating somewhere else armed. You would share just as much responsibility as the business does for being unable to protect yourself.

imported post

WhatTimeIsIt? wrote:

If an accident occurs that is a direct result of the businesses negligence, then yes, they have some responsibility. But, if someone goes into the business and starts shooting, that's hardly a result of their negligence. The only person with any responsibility for what happened was the psycho who started shooting people. The business may have chosen to disarm those who enter, but you still chose to enter. You took a gamble; you made a choice between eating there unarmed versus eating somewhere else armed. You would share just as much responsibility as the business does for being unable to protect yourself.

Click to expand...

Huge +1

We advocate personal responsibility for our protection and you're advocating throwing more liability on the businesses you're wanting to patronize? We're a sue happy culture enough as it is. If you go skiing and run into a tree and die, it's not the resort's fault. If you go somewhere unarmed and get shot and die it still isn't the businesses fault. Don't go there unarmed.

imported post

asforme wrote:

If you go somewhere unarmed and get shot and die it still isn't the businesses fault.

Click to expand...

http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

Originally introduced in Arizona as The Defenseless Victim Act of 2002, this bill recognizes that gun-free zones, recklessly made and typically with no alternative security provided, are known to be extremely dangerous.

We have seen this (when the bill was first introduced) in the Wakefield, Mass., slayings, the Luby's Massacre, and even the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, where pilots and passengers were defenseless, in the false name of security. Congress responded to that with the "Arm The Pilots" law.

The death toll from gun-free zones continues to mount. The 2007 Virginia Tech slaughter of helpless students and faculty was a tipping point, and the Christmastime massacre that year in an Omaha shopping mall was the final straw.

The mall had "no guns allowed" signs to keep out FBI-certified citizens with CCW permits. The murderer, as in all such cases, disobeyed the signs. The news media continues to suppress stories where armed individuals stop such mayhem. See for example, The Bias Against Guns, by John Lott, for numerous egregious examples. You can also read this eloquent gun-bias editorial online.

The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act basically says that, in public places, if you create a dangerous gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes. There is no cost or budget item associated with enacting this bill.

The idea that gun-free zones are safe is fraudulent.

It is a mythology perpetrated by anti-rights activists who can often be recognized by their beliefs that:


The anti-self-defense lobby would tell you to rely upon the police for your safety, but they always omit the inconvenient facts that:

1 - police have no legal duty to protect you;

2 - they routinely respond only after an event to pick up the pieces;

3 - when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

In the tragic homicides above
and countless others you see on TV,
the police don't draw their guns,
they draw chalk lines when you're gone.*

A person who would deny your right
or ability to self defense is as violent and
wrong as the person who assaults you.

Acting in self defense against a criminal assault is legally guaranteed in all 50 states and federally, as it should be. It is as old as the first written laws of civilization. Denying the fundamental right to self preservation is unjust, immoral, dangerous and should not be tolerated.

The notion that gun-free zones are safe is fraud perpetrated on the public:

a) Only innocent victims like you and me are affected. Armed criminals ignore no-guns signs and could care less -- they're laughing at you.

b) No alternate form of security is provided. You are knowingly and recklessly made vulnerable, while property management accepts no responsibility for your safety or their negligent behavior. The bill addresses only blatantly anti-gun-rights actions that would callously disarm you and ignore your plight.

c) Despite bias in news coverage and the fear-mongering left, privately held firearms have been repeatedly shown to deter and prevent crime in one scholarly study after another (detailed at great length in Armed, by Kleck and Kates). Since the nation's inception we have known and embraced the freedom-giving truth that guns protect the innocent, and that this is good.

d) Denial of your civil rights under color of law is a federal offense under 18 USC §241 and 18 USC § 242:


Initial reactions to the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act have been highly supportive by knowledgeable people in the gun-rights movement. It shows all the signs of becoming a major national rallying point. This could turn into one of the key gun issues of the decade (literally, the right to bear arms), especially if terrorist attacks continue and defenseless innocent victims are slaughtered.

The public-opinion value alone, forcing the opposition to support helplessness and victimization, are worth the effort. Now is a good time to bring this issue into the spotlight.

The bill was first introduced as HB2456, sponsored by a dozen representatives, in the 45th session in Arizona (2002). The legislators say it gives them something to sink their teeth into. Give your legislators something this good -- ask them to introduce the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act in your state, for all the right reasons.

Some additional observations appear following the bill text below.

This is good law, supportive of our fundamental rights,
a deterrent to criminals who would perpetrate attacks,
a winner in the publicity battle over gun rights,
and it places responsibility squarely on those
who would cause harm by their direct actions.

It deserves to be enacted.

Please give it your support.

Ask your representatives to introduce and vote for
the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act.

Sincerely,
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
Scottsdale, AZ
602-996-4020

imported post

If a gunman comes in and shoots up Carabba's, any gun carrier who chooses to willingly disarm for the privilege of eating some lasagna is just as responsible for his own death as the restaurant and gunman are. This isn't about ensuring your safety, you can ensure your safety by only going where you can carry, this is about forcing yourself into a business that doesn't want you.

If you want to look at statistics, there is way more danger of drowning in a public pool than there is of being shot in a gun free zone (or anywhere else). Should we close all public pools, or write a law leaving them specifically liable? No, people go to the pool to enjoy themselves and are willing to take the risk associated with swimming. People who choose to take the risk of dining in a gun free zone take the risk because they are hoplophobes and do not want to be around weapons. That is their risk, in the end it doesn't affect me, because unlike those who want to solve the problem with more unnecessary laws, I can just choose not to go there.