• 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.

Golden Corral changes policy to allow open carry!

O

OCforAll

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
68
Location
Ohio, ,
imported post

aadvark wrote:
Good, now there is one less Company who is not infringing on the Rights of its Customers!
Click to expand...


I'm obviously all for OC, but also believe it is important to be correct when making a point. We do not have a "RIGHT" to do anything on private property. The Constitution exists on the street, not inside a restaurant. We have no more "right" to carry a weapon inside a restaurant than we do to wear a t-shirt supporting a political party. While we're on their property and other than unlawful discrimination, the rights of the property owner take precedence over our own.
 
M

mark edward marchiafava

Banned
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

"That law" would be the supreme law of Alabama, the state constitution.

If someone can violate your right to be armed, can they also violate your right to life, too? After all, it IS private property !!!

Just how are you to enter armed if they don't want you there, armed? You can't have it both ways, pick one.

If anyone truly believes our rights are checked at the door, well, hope you upgrade one day.
 
Sonora Rebel

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

Hollowpoint38 wrote:
True. I think these larger companies, in the long run, will end up backing the 2ND Amendment. Some 75% of Americans back it and if large companies turn their backs, they could possibly go out of business. (or at least take a massive hit financially from loss of customers)
Click to expand...

Hechingers was a huge hardware outfit... like Home Depot and Lowes. They also were heavy (and vocal) contributors to the Brady's and anti-2A politicians. Hechinger filed for Chapter 11 in 1999. Reorganization failed and the outfit was liquidated. Now... their anti- 2A stance may have not been a prime factor, butI know many back in MD (including me) who boycotted Hechinger for that reason. People who are do-it-yourselfers are generally not liberal yuppie, metro-centric types. Note to retailers... don't politically alienate your customer base.

Remember the Dixie Chicks? :uhoh:
 
MamaLiberty

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
"That law" would be the supreme law of Alabama, the state constitution.

If someone can violate your right to be armed, can they also violate your right to life, too? After all, it IS private property !!!

Just how are you to enter armed if they don't want you there, armed? You can't have it both ways, pick one.

If anyone truly believes our rights are checked at the door, well, hope you upgrade one day.
Click to expand...
You just have it backwards. The "law" most certainly does not force private property owners to admit you - armed or otherwise.

You have no "right" to enter private property at all. You are perfectly free to go somewhere else if you believe your life would be in danger there.

Tell me, do the local bums and gang members have a "right" to come into YOUR HOME armed? Or do YOU decide who comes in?
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
"That law" would be the supreme law of Alabama, the state constitution.

If someone can violate your right to be armed, can they also violate your right to life, too? After all, it IS private property !!!

Just how are you to enter armed if they don't want you there, armed? You can't have it both ways, pick one.

If anyone truly believes our rights are checked at the door, well, hope you upgrade one day.
Click to expand...
Bind man's bluff.

Do you pick one right while ignoring the others?

Your new group is going to have some interesting philosophies.

Golden Corral has spoken for themselves.

Yata hey

Edit for spelling/correct verbiage
 
M

mark edward marchiafava

Banned
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Maybe I have a speech impediment or some people will never learn.

I clearly stated the supreme law of the state of Alabama guarantees the right to be armed. Furthermore, I stated I was glad the Golden Corral folks finally got around to recognizing and honoring that right.
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

MamaLiberty wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
eye95 wrote:
The handwriting is on the wall. These companies are realizing the The 2A is making a comeback, and they want to be on the right side of the issue.
Click to expand...
"These companies" have no idea what the 2nd amendment is all about, much like 99.999% of their customers.

Glad to hear Golden Corral has (finally) decided to obey the law nonetheless.
Click to expand...
What "law" would that be? I think you've got that backwards, Mark. These businesses are private property. Just as you can decide who will enter your front door, so can they. If they decid that they don't want armed customers, there is no "law" to force the business to admit them.

It is always a very bad idea to initiate force. Instead, we must demonstrate that those who enter armed are no threat to either the business or their paying customers - that we ARE paying customers. When they see that, only then do we become valued customers.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have finally "decided to follow the law..."

TFred
 
O

OCforAll

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
68
Location
Ohio, ,
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Maybe I have a speech impediment or some people will never learn.

I clearly stated the supreme law of the state of Alabama guarantees the right to be armed.  Furthermore, I stated I was glad the Golden Corral folks finally got around to recognizing and honoring that right.
Click to expand...


This is not correct though. The state cannot force a property owner to allow anyone other than law enforcement to carry a weapon onto their property. This is protected under Federal law, which supersedes state law; PERIOD.
 
O

OCforAll

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
68
Location
Ohio, ,
imported post

TFred wrote:
MamaLiberty wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
eye95 wrote:
The handwriting is on the wall.  These companies are realizing the The 2A is making a comeback, and they want to be on the right side of the issue.
Click to expand...
"These companies" have no idea what the 2nd amendment is all about, much like 99.999% of their customers.

Glad to hear Golden Corral has (finally) decided to obey the law nonetheless.
Click to expand...
What "law" would that be? I think you've got that backwards, Mark. These businesses are private property. Just as you can decide who will enter your front door, so can they. If they decid that they don't want armed customers, there is no "law" to force the business to admit them.

It is always a very bad idea to initiate force. Instead, we must demonstrate that those who enter armed are no threat to either the business or their paying customers - that we ARE paying customers. When they see that, only then do we become valued customers.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have finally "decided to follow the law..."

TFred
Click to expand...


Actually no, the law has nothing to do with it. The accurate phrase would be that they now "allow" the public to OC on their property, which technically I'm not even sure the state could outlaw even if they wanted to. Private property is private property, right? The government can't take my right to allow you to OC while on my property, can they?
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Maybe I have a speech impediment or some people will never learn.

I clearly stated the supreme law of the state of Alabama guarantees the right to be armed. Furthermore, I stated I was glad the Golden Corral folks finally got around to recognizing and honoring that right.
Click to expand...
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Glad to hear Golden Corral has (finally) decided to obey the law nonetheless.
Click to expand...
No you misquoted yourself.

Suggest that it might be easier to admit that you misstated your case.

The central point is property rights, not 2nd Amendment rights.

In this case, we have gained permission to carry in a private business that previously did not allow it in some locations.

Yata hey
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

OCforAll wrote:
TFred wrote:
MamaLiberty wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
eye95 wrote:
The handwriting is on the wall. These companies are realizing the The 2A is making a comeback, and they want to be on the right side of the issue.
Click to expand...
"These companies" have no idea what the 2nd amendment is all about, much like 99.999% of their customers.

Glad to hear Golden Corral has (finally) decided to obey the law nonetheless.
Click to expand...
What "law" would that be? I think you've got that backwards, Mark. These businesses are private property. Just as you can decide who will enter your front door, so can they. If they decid that they don't want armed customers, there is no "law" to force the business to admit them.

It is always a very bad idea to initiate force. Instead, we must demonstrate that those who enter armed are no threat to either the business or their paying customers - that we ARE paying customers. When they see that, only then do we become valued customers.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have finally "decided to follow the law..."

TFred
Click to expand...
Actually no, the law has nothing to do with it. The accurate phrase would be that they now "allow" the public to OC on their property, which technically I'm not even sure the state could outlaw even if they wanted to. Private property is private property, right? The government can't take my right to allow you to OC while on my property, can they?
Click to expand...
Of course they can. If you are a prohibited person, you may not possess a firearm anywhere at any time, openly or concealed. There are some states that have arrested people for openly carrying on their own property. The one big case that made a lot of noise was in Racine, Wisconsin. I think that case was eventually tossed out, but it happens.

Virginia has a concealed handgun statute which is structured to provide that a permit acts as a specific exemption from a law generally prohibiting the carry of concealed weapons. The way it is written, you as a private property owner are not allowed to grant a non-permit holder permission to carry concealed, even on your own property. I'm sure there are similar examples like this from all over the country.

I'm sure you've been following the Starbucks story... they phrased it like this: "We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons."

Follow, comply, use as guidelines... what it boils down to in my view is the company is not imposing any additional restrictions on the carry of firearms beyond that which are already imposed by state law. You can't express that idea without somehow incorporating a reference to "state law".

TFred
 
O

OCforAll

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
68
Location
Ohio, ,
imported post

TFred wrote:
OCforAll wrote:
TFred wrote:
MamaLiberty wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
eye95 wrote:
The handwriting is on the wall.  These companies are realizing the The 2A is making a comeback, and they want to be on the right side of the issue.
Click to expand...
"These companies" have no idea what the 2nd amendment is all about, much like 99.999% of their customers.

Glad to hear Golden Corral has (finally) decided to obey the law nonetheless.
Click to expand...
What "law" would that be? I think you've got that backwards, Mark. These businesses are private property. Just as you can decide who will enter your front door, so can they. If they decid that they don't want armed customers, there is no "law" to force the business to admit them.

It is always a very bad idea to initiate force. Instead, we must demonstrate that those who enter armed are no threat to either the business or their paying customers - that we ARE paying customers. When they see that, only then do we become valued customers.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have finally "decided to follow the law..."

TFred
Click to expand...
Actually no, the law has nothing to do with it. The accurate phrase would be that they now "allow" the public to OC on their property, which technically I'm not even sure the state could outlaw even if they wanted to. Private property is private property, right? The government can't take my right to allow you to OC while on my property, can they?
Click to expand...
Of course they can.  If you are a prohibited person, you may not possess a firearm anywhere at any time, openly or concealed.  There are some states that have arrested people for openly carrying on their own property.  The one big case that made a lot of noise was in Racine, Wisconsin.  I think that case was eventually tossed out, but it happens.

Virginia has a concealed handgun statute which is structured to provide that a permit acts as a specific exemption from a law generally prohibiting the carry of concealed weapons.  The way it is written, you as a private property owner are not allowed to grant a non-permit holder permission to carry concealed, even on your own property.  I'm sure there are similar examples like this from all over the country.

I'm sure you've been following the Starbucks story... they phrased it like this: "We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons."

Follow, comply, use as guidelines... what it boils down to in my view is the company is not imposing any additional restrictions on the carry of firearms beyond that which are already imposed by state law.  You can't express that idea without somehow incorporating a reference to "state law".

TFred
Click to expand...


I don't think you read what I said. I said the government can't take away "MY" right to allow someone else to OC on my property. If there actually is such a law that says you can't OC on private property even if given approval from the properties owner, then the law applies to the person doing the OC and not me. I can tell them that they can do whatever they want. If they break the law they it's their problem, but I've broken no laws.

That being said, please provide a link to actual case law that says a private property owner can't allow another citizen who themselves are legally allowed to posses a handgun, to OC while on their property.
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

OCforAll wrote:
TFred wrote:
OCforAll wrote:
TFred wrote:
MamaLiberty wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
eye95 wrote:
The handwriting is on the wall. These companies are realizing the The 2A is making a comeback, and they want to be on the right side of the issue.
Click to expand...
"These companies" have no idea what the 2nd amendment is all about, much like 99.999% of their customers.

Glad to hear Golden Corral has (finally) decided to obey the law nonetheless.
Click to expand...
What "law" would that be? I think you've got that backwards, Mark. These businesses are private property. Just as you can decide who will enter your front door, so can they. If they decid that they don't want armed customers, there is no "law" to force the business to admit them.

It is always a very bad idea to initiate force. Instead, we must demonstrate that those who enter armed are no threat to either the business or their paying customers - that we ARE paying customers. When they see that, only then do we become valued customers.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have finally "decided to follow the law..."

TFred
Click to expand...
Actually no, the law has nothing to do with it. The accurate phrase would be that they now "allow" the public to OC on their property, which technically I'm not even sure the state could outlaw even if they wanted to. Private property is private property, right? The government can't take my right to allow you to OC while on my property, can they?
Click to expand...
Of course they can. If you are a prohibited person, you may not possess a firearm anywhere at any time, openly or concealed. There are some states that have arrested people for openly carrying on their own property. The one big case that made a lot of noise was in Racine, Wisconsin. I think that case was eventually tossed out, but it happens.

Virginia has a concealed handgun statute which is structured to provide that a permit acts as a specific exemption from a law generally prohibiting the carry of concealed weapons. The way it is written, you as a private property owner are not allowed to grant a non-permit holder permission to carry concealed, even on your own property. I'm sure there are similar examples like this from all over the country.

I'm sure you've been following the Starbucks story... they phrased it like this: "We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons."

Follow, comply, use as guidelines... what it boils down to in my view is the company is not imposing any additional restrictions on the carry of firearms beyond that which are already imposed by state law. You can't express that idea without somehow incorporating a reference to "state law".

TFred
Click to expand...
I don't think you read what I said. I said the government can't take away "MY" right to allow someone else to OC on my property. If there actually is such a law that says you can't OC on private property even if given approval from the properties owner, then the law applies to the person doing the OC and not me. I can tell them that they can do whatever they want. If they break the law they it's their problem, but I've broken no laws.

That being said, please provide a link to actual case law that says a private property owner can't allow another citizen who themselves are legally allowed to posses a handgun, to OC while on their property.
Click to expand...
Ah, you are correct, I did mis-understand that portion of your reply, but my new understanding of what you said doesn't make any more sense. If an activity is against the law, why would there be any case or statute law speaking to whether or not you may give another person permission to break that law? You can't give someone permission to commit murder on your property. If the act of openly carrying in public view is illegal, then it's illegal whether you say it is or not.

Fortunately, fewer and fewer states exist where open carry is such an issue.

TFred
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

OCforAll wrote:
Private property is private property, right? The government can't take my right to allow you to OC while on my property, can they?
Click to expand...
States and cities can - they do it all the time - Chicago, New York, and the entire state of Texas!
 
O

OCforAll

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
68
Location
Ohio, ,
imported post

Mike wrote:
OCforAll wrote:
Private property is private property, right? The government can't take my right to allow you to OC while on my property, can they?
Click to expand...
States and cities can - they do it all the time - Chicago, New York, and the entire state of Texas!
Click to expand...


I understand areas where they ban handguns all together, but obviously not the entire state of Texas outlaws OC on private property, and especially on the property owner themselves. For example, if you come to my ranch to shoot targets I highly doubt it's illegal for you holster your weapon on a shooting range. But since I have never read the actual law, could you provide a link to the actual penal code outlawing one private citizen to OC on his brothers farm?
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

OCforAll wrote:
Mike wrote:
OCforAll wrote:
Private property is private property, right? The government can't take my right to allow you to OC while on my property, can they?
Click to expand...
States and cities can - they do it all the time - Chicago, New York, and the entire state of Texas!
Click to expand...
I understand areas where they ban handguns all together, but obviously not the entire state of Texas outlaws OC on private property, and especially on the property owner themselves. For example, if you come to my ranch to shoot targets I highly doubt it's illegal for you holster your weapon on a shooting range. But since I have never read the actual law, could you provide a link to the actual penal code outlawing one private citizen to OC on his brothers farm?
Click to expand...
You're running into a problem with the definition of "open carry". By definition, OC is in public. If you're on your brother's farm, you are likely to be out of view of the public. The case in Racine, Wisconsin that I mentioned earlier was a property owner, OCing in his own front yard, which the arresting officers interpreted to be openly carrying in public, because the public could see it.

ETClarify: So when Mike refers to Chicago, New York and the entire state of Texas, it is that definition, Openly Carrying in public, that he is referring to.

TFred
 
J

Jor Reeser

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
14
Location
, ,
imported post

As with some other members here, My son and I had no problem with OCing at the Corral in Dayton, Ohio. The only one to say anything was another customer. We recognized each other from a local range and introduced ourselves. The only thing he had to say was that it was strange to see two guys open carrying at the same time. That is what we need to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top