Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Arizona Star - Businesses warm up to public gun carry, offer discounts to gun carriers

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://azstarnet.com/business/local/...e84669630.html

    Eateries wrestling with AZ gun laws
    Tim Steller Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, May 30, 2010




    GREG BRYAN / ARIZONA DAILY STAR Roy Schaefer, proprietor of Monkey Burger, 5350 E. Broadway, initially was neutral on the right to bear arms, but he's become a believer. In his eatery, holders of concealed-weapons permits get a 10 percent discount.




    Gloria DiCenco was chatting amiably with a few Italian speakers at Beyond Bread on North Campbell Avenue on April 20 when armed men began coming in.

    First there were two, then more. Finally, maybe 20 people carrying holstered guns and, in some cases, ammunition, arrived and ordered food, DiCenco said. A hush fell over the restaurant, she said, and her group's happy mood turned tense.

    It happened that her Italian conversation club crossed paths with a group of local advocates of "open carry" - unconcealed carrying of firearms. And the open-carry advocates saw their Beyond Bread dinner quite differently - as noticeably unremarkable.

    "That's the whole point - nothing happened," said J.D. "Duke" Schechter, who was among the group of gun carriers.

    As Arizona's gun laws grow more liberal, business owners, employees and customers are increasingly confronting the issue of firearms in private businesses. In Arizona, a business may prohibit firearms on its premises, but some have found that doing so alienates customers who may have been carrying weapons concealed all along, or who simply believe in the right to bear arms. A less organized cadre of customers, like DiCenco, wonder why people feel the need to carry guns everywhere.

    Facing the firearms issue is something many business people, including Beyond Bread owner Shelby Collier, would rather not do.

    "We're really trying to take a neutral position," Collier said. "To the extent that that becomes a problem, I may have to take a position. I hope it doesn't come to that."

    The issue didn't begin with Arizona's new concealed weapons law, which as of July 29 will allow people over age 21 (and not prohibited from possessing a weapon) to carry a concealed gun without a permit. However, it's become more pronounced as business owners realize how many people are carrying firearms, and as gun-rights advocates push for public acceptance.

    Pro-gun website

    One locally based website, www.GunBurger.com maintains databases of restaurants that prohibit and permit firearms. The site encourages gun owners to "vote with your dollars" when they encounter gun-prohibiting businesses and "take your business elsewhere."

    The Arizona Citizens Defense League, a nonprofit group that supports expanding gun owners' legal rights, provides templates of business-sized cards on its website that users can print out to hand to business owners who prohibit firearms. Under a logo indicating no guns means no money, the cards say "You have made a decision to ban guns in your store. I am going to respect that decision and take my gun and my money to a competing business."

    Pro-gun arguments have worked with some Tucson restaurant owners. The Hungry Fox, a bustling diner at 4637 E. Broadway, put up a sign prohibiting guns last year but quickly heard protests from customers who, unknown to the restaurant's owners and employees, were concealed-weapon carriers. The restaurant's management quickly reversed the policy.

    "We were going to lose a lot of customers, and we can't afford to lose even one," said Dene Little, the restaurant's manager.

    . . .

    discount offered

    Beneath the debate over firearms in businesses lies a deeper disagreement over the place of firearms in society.

    Many gun owners view carrying a firearm as a fundamental right - or even a responsibility - in that it allows for self-defense.

    That belief helped underwrite Roy Schaefer's new business, Monkey Burger, at 5350 E. Broadway. A start-up investor made it a condition of his investment that Schaefer permit guns and give a 10 percent discount to concealed-carry permit holders.

    Initially neutral on the issue, Schaefer has come to believe in the right to bear arms in public.

    "I just feel that they're appropriate and should be allowed in the public with people who are responsible," he said.

    He's planning to open a second restaurant, this one downtown, on Aug. 1. It will have the same firearm policies, Schaefer said.

    . . .

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Pretty good website (gunburger), but small database for Phoenix. they should look into combining databases with the AZ Patriot ones..

    Link here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum10/31746-1.html

  3. #3
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    Kudos to the investor mentioned in the above article.

    If George Soros can use his money to attack the rights of "we the people" then "we the people" can use our money to support those same rights.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  4. #4
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the link Mike. I was at that OC event at Beyond Bread in Tucson. There was no panic, no sudden hush that evening and afterward the manager welcomed us back.

    I noticed the ANTI GUN Tucson Star dipped into the Brady Bunch bin of bull schit for their view of OC.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    GWbiker wrote:
    Thanks for the link Mike. I was at that OC event at Beyond Bread in Tucson. There was no panic, no sudden hush that evening and afterward the manager welcomed us back.

    I noticed the ANTI GUN Tucson Star dipped into the Brady Bunch bin of bull schit for their view of OC.
    Why do I always miss these Tucson OC events?!?!

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Manu here in Washington offered a 15% discount to open carriers at his restaurant.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member JoeGlock40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    tucson/marana , az
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Dahwg wrote:
    GWbiker wrote:
    Thanks for the link Mike. I was at that OC event at Beyond Bread in Tucson. There was no panic, no sudden hush that evening and afterward the manager welcomed us back.

    I noticed the ANTI GUN Tucson Star dipped into the Brady Bunch bin of bull schit for their view of OC.
    Why do I always miss these Tucson OC events?!?!
    me 2 dang it
    "You may find me one day dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you’ll find me in a pile of brass.” – Trooper M. Padgett

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Has anyone been to the Monkey Burger while OCing?

    Does the owner entitle the OCers a discount too, or has anyone asked him?

  9. #9
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    RockyAcres wrote:
    Has anyone been to the Monkey Burger while OCing?

    Does the owner entitle the OCers a discount too, or has anyone asked him?
    OC is Verboten. Monkey Burger serves Beer.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    GWbiker wrote:
    RockyAcres wrote:
    Has anyone been to the Monkey Burger while OCing?

    Does the owner entitle the OCers a discount too, or has anyone asked him?
    OC is Verboten. Monkey Burger serves Beer.
    Thanks...I didn't know...thought it was just a specialty burger-joint.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    That wasa pretty good read. The comments section was even more enjoyable. It all reminds me of one thing though...I really miss living in a state that protects the rights of it's citizens.

  12. #12
    Newbie crisisweasel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pima County, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    What myth of self defense?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    crisisweasel wrote:
    What myth of self defense?
    I too would like to know.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    I think he is saying that self-defense being the basis of the RKBA is a myth. He contends that the basis is protection from tyranny.

    I see the foundation as being varying manifestations of self-defense:

    -- Defense of self against predatory animals

    -- Defense of self against predatory people

    -- Defense of self and community against foreign invaders

    -- Defense of self and community against domestic tyrants

    To me, it is all self-defense.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    "As Arizona's gun laws grow more liberal..."? Greg Bryan is an ignorant idiot. Arizona has been an open carry state since before statehood in 1912. AZ CWP (concealed carry permits) were unheard of until 1994. "Liberal?" How 'bout IAW the AZ Constitution Greg boy... Ever heard of it ... much less read it?

    AzC Art 2 Sec 26 "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." The last part refers to 'regulators'.

    As usual... MEM is off his meds or on 'em... posting from his sandbagged bunker on stiltsdeep in the bayou.



  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    That would depend on the meaning of "liberal."

    If he meant liberal in the sense of leftist gun control, then he is off-base.

    If he meant liberal in the sense of classical liberalism, increasing liberty, then he is right that the AZ laws are becoming more liberal.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    That would depend on the meaning of "liberal."

    If he meant liberal in the sense of leftist gun control, then he is off-base.

    If he meant liberal in the sense of classical liberalism, increasing liberty, then he is right that the AZ laws are becoming more liberal.
    No... Not only no, but hell no! Understand that rights are recognized or restricted/denied. It's not an 'increase'... it's what's enumerated in the AZ Constitution as the 'norm'. Prior to '94, there was no AZ CWP. When that law was passed, it was argued to be against the AZ Constitution which did not (and does not) specify mode of carry. The right to bear arms is a right... no matter how you do it.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    That would depend on the meaning of "liberal."

    If he meant liberal in the sense of leftist gun control, then he is off-base.

    If he meant liberal in the sense of classical liberalism, increasing liberty, then he is right that the AZ laws are becoming more liberal.
    No... Not only no, but hell no! Understand that rights are recognized or restricted/denied. It's not an 'increase'... it's what's enumerated in the AZ Constitution as the 'norm'. Prior to '94, there was no AZ CWP. When that law was passed, it was argued to be against the AZ Constitution which did not (and does not) specify mode of carry. The right to bear arms is a right... no matter how you do it.
    Regardless of the existence of any right, Liberty is increasing in AZ law. Therefore, under that classical definition of "liberal," the laws in AZ are becoming more liberal.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    That would depend on the meaning of "liberal."

    If he meant liberal in the sense of leftist gun control, then he is off-base.

    If he meant liberal in the sense of classical liberalism, increasing liberty, then he is right that the AZ laws are becoming more liberal.
    No... Not only no, but hell no! Understand that rights are recognized or restricted/denied. It's not an 'increase'... it's what's enumerated in the AZ Constitution as the 'norm'. Prior to '94, there was no AZ CWP. When that law was passed, it was argued to be against the AZ Constitution which did not (and does not) specify mode of carry. The right to bear arms is a right... no matter how you do it.
    Regardless of the existence of any right, Liberty is increasing in AZ law. Therefore, under that classical definition of "liberal," the laws in AZ are becoming more liberal.
    Dude... laws restrict what you can do. The absence of law is liberty. Recognition of rights (by law, restricting the state authority to deny/control whata citizencan do by enumeration of and codification of a right) IS the very existance of a Right. Rights would exist w/o government. So... don't trivialize existance of rights. That's the statist's gig.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    I will try one more time, DUDE, and then I will stop.

    Liberty increased under the new laws. Therefore, by the very definition of the word, the law is becoming more liberal. I am not arguing whether or not it should be law or unwritten rights. I am discussing the meaning of the word only.

    B: The grass is not green.

    A: The grass is green.

    B: But, the cow has spots.

    A: The grass is still green.

    B: Dude, the cow has spots!



  21. #21
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    I will try one more time, DUDE, and then I will stop.

    Liberty increased under the new laws. Therefore, by the very definition of the word, the law is becoming more liberal. I am not arguing whether or not it should be law or unwritten rights. I am discussing the meaning of the word only.

    B: The grass is not green.

    A: The grass is green.

    B: But, the cow has spots.

    A: The grass is still green.

    B: Dude, the cow has spots!

    You were educated in statist government schools, no doubt (as was tha author). You begin with the premise that the state 'allows', No... the state restricts or disallows. Think of it this way... what is not illegal... is legal... and therefore may be done w/o permission as a natural action.The STATE does not allow me to do anything... but it will restrict or deny by authority granted the state by the electorate.

  22. #22
    Newbie crisisweasel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pima County, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    I think he is saying that self-defense being the basis of the RKBA is a myth.Â* He contends that the basis is protection from tyranny.

    I see the foundation as being varying manifestations of self-defense:

    -- Defense of self against predatory animals

    -- Defense of self against predatory people

    -- Defense of self and community against foreign invaders

    -- Defense of self and community against domestic tyrants

    To me, it is all self-defense.
    This is the way I look at it too. Defense of self against tyranny is just a permutation of the right of self-defense.

    Enumerated as such in the Second Amendment because in the context of a foundational document, this is what they were thinking about, but it no way exclusive of, or superceding, the larger point, which is the defense of one's life, or the right to one's life.

    Again, a right which exists prior to and supercedes any written document.

    I wonder if you could go back and talk to those guys what they'd say about defense from criminals. I have always assumed that they would consider a thing "obvious."

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    S.R.

    I did no such thing. You cannot have a civil intellectual debate, so you resort to insulting someone with whom you think you disagree. (You don't.) This convo is not worth wasting time on.

    Moving on.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    crisisweasel wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    I think he is saying that self-defense being the basis of the RKBA is a myth. He contends that the basis is protection from tyranny.

    I see the foundation as being varying manifestations of self-defense:

    -- Defense of self against predatory animals

    -- Defense of self against predatory people

    -- Defense of self and community against foreign invaders

    -- Defense of self and community against domestic tyrants

    To me, it is all self-defense.
    This is the way I look at it too. Defense of self against tyranny is just a permutation of the right of self-defense.

    Enumerated as such in the Second Amendment because in the context of a foundational document, this is what they were thinking about, but it no way exclusive of, or superceding, the larger point, which is the defense of one's life, or the right to one's life.

    Again, a right which exists prior to and supercedes any written document.

    I wonder if you could go back and talk to those guys what they'd say about defense from criminals. I have always assumed that they would consider a thing "obvious."
    The only reason that they wouldn't say, "Duh!" is because the expression did not exist then.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    S.R.

    I did no such thing. You cannot have a civil intellectual debate, so you resort to insulting someone with whom you think you disagree. (You don't.) This convo is not worth wasting time on.

    Moving on.
    Good... Keep yourself in Alabama by permission.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •