Red Robin Restaurant in Phoenix

Just an FYI

My wife and I, after my *FINALLY* getting her carb dialed in on her motorcycle, took a toodle around the Prescott area last Wed. When we got to the square, we were both hungry, so we parked the bikes and went to the Palace on Whiskey Row (historic place, by the way).

I actually hadn't been there in about, oh, 30 years so I asked the manager on duty what their policy on carrying concealed firearms was. Her response? She showed me her carry piece!

Now, as far as I can tell all of the other bars/saloons/eateries on Whiskey Row are anti-firearm -- so if you're ever up here and want to eat a good meal on Whiskey Row (the food was *EXCELLENT*), then go to the Palace.

That being said, I never knowingly patronize an anti-gun business. If I do, and find out after the fact, I make sure to let the company know *IN WRITING* why I'll never come back. Their policy on firearms is the only reason that my wife and I dropped our Costco membership, and went to Sam's Club. I can carry in there with no silliness.

Link to form letter for non friendly 2A businesses

From what I found on other states boards is RR pretty much as a canned response whenever contacted regarding firearms restrictions. Maybe keeping it at the local resturaunt and district manager level might be the way to go. Either way I am trying to put my 2 cents in. Here is a form letter I am working on. Any suggestion would be welcomed
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?92591-Form-letter-to-send-to-non-friendly-2A-businesses

Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV said:

My wife and I, after my *FINALLY* getting her carb dialed in on her motorcycle, took a toodle around the Prescott area last Wed. When we got to the square, we were both hungry, so we parked the bikes and went to the Palace on Whiskey Row (historic place, by the way).

I actually hadn't been there in about, oh, 30 years so I asked the manager on duty what their policy on carrying concealed firearms was. Her response? She showed me her carry piece!

Now, as far as I can tell all of the other bars/saloons/eateries on Whiskey Row are anti-firearm -- so if you're ever up here and want to eat a good meal on Whiskey Row (the food was *EXCELLENT*), then go to the Palace.

That being said, I never knowingly patronize an anti-gun business. If I do, and find out after the fact, I make sure to let the company know *IN WRITING* why I'll never come back. Their policy on firearms is the only reason that my wife and I dropped our Costco membership, and went to Sam's Club. I can carry in there with no silliness.

Click to expand...

I also dropped my membership with Costco due to their no firearms policy and joined Sam's Club instead. I must say that I'm pleased with the change for many reasons.

gutshot said:

I tired of hearing this crap. Sixty years ago it was a private property owners "right" to keep people of out of their property just because they were the wrong color. That was only changed when people refused to accept it any more and went in anyway and stayed in. OC is no different. How do expect to change things by just accepting things as they are?

Click to expand...

Thoreau said:

I have a home in NE Phoenix. If I say you can't come in (for whatever reason.. you're carrying a gun, you're jewish, you're black, you're gay, you're (insert any other 'minority' here)) guess what, I can still do that. Private property is NOT yours to dictate.

Business is under no obligation to appease your will either, nor should it be.

As far as expecting to 'change things', I absolutely, positively do NOT want to chip away at private property rights. So in short, I don't. This isn't a problem in need of fixing.

How about another example of what you might think is discrimination, and think the government should fix. I can't buy body armor from various local retailers because I'm not a cop or military. That isn't the law stopping me, it's the policies of the local retailers. Do I run around demanding a law that forces them to sell to me? Hell no. I buy elsewhere.

If the above example isn't enough to help you realize that 'discrimination' still exists, and is legal, try checking out the Desert Ridge shopping center at Tatum and the 101. But don't do so if you're under 16, not with a parent, and it's after (I think) 8pm. Yup, age discrimination! Oh Noes! Let's make a law that forces the property owner to change that too!

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, Thoreau.

Gutshot, you really should try basing your morals on something more constant than the whims of the majority. In addition, bigsd offered a remedy and in no way suggested to simply accept the status quo.

http://www.asrpa.com/
go to the above link and click on CCW cafe, it tells you who is PRO and who is Negative!
HTH
Bob

Cava3r4 said:

http://www.asrpa.com/
go to the above link and click on CCW cafe, it tells you who is PRO and who is Negative!
HTH
Bob

Click to expand...

Nice idea, but they need to check their math and/or typing in the welcome letter.

Thoreau said:

I have a home in NE Phoenix. If I say you can't come in (for whatever reason.. you're carrying a gun, you're jewish, you're black, you're gay, you're (insert any other 'minority' here)) guess what, I can still do that. Private property is NOT yours to dictate.

Business is under no obligation to appease your will either, nor should it be.

As far as expecting to 'change things', I absolutely, positively do NOT want to chip away at private property rights. So in short, I don't. This isn't a problem in need of fixing.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The business is under an obligation to please me. I have made the business meet my demands by passing laws, codes and regulations. Such as a business must have a license by the city to operate or must have a separate license to sell alcohol or that a business can't sell alcohol after 1 AM. When you open a business you agree to operate that business under certain laws and regulations. If I can get my elected politicians to pass a law saying that only the state can regulate the carrying of weapons in licensed business how is that different from the state saying that spray paint has to be under lock and key?

The business owner would have the option of closing or maybe going to all internet sales, just like the store that doesn't want to lock up it's spray paint.

Phoenix David said:

I disagree. The business is under an obligation to please me. I have made the business meet my demands by passing laws, codes and regulations. Such as a business must have a license by the city to operate or must have a separate license to sell alcohol or that a business can't sell alcohol after 1 AM. When you open a business you agree to operate that business under certain laws and regulations. If I can get my elected politicians to pass a law saying that only the state can regulate the carrying of weapons in licensed business how is that different from the state saying that spray paint has to be under lock and key?

The business owner would have the option of closing or maybe going to all internet sales, just like the store that doesn't want to lock up it's spray paint.

Click to expand...

2 AM. We changed that law a long time ago. LOL

sharkey said:

2 AM. We changed that law a long time ago. LOL

Click to expand...

Okay nit picker....CITE the law!! This is OCDO and you can't say that without a CITE.

Okay, I'm just nit picking the nit picker. SMILE

Phoenix David said:

I disagree. The business is under an obligation to please me. I have made the business meet my demands by passing laws, codes and regulations. Such as a business must have a license by the city to operate or must have a separate license to sell alcohol or that a business can't sell alcohol after 1 AM. When you open a business you agree to operate that business under certain laws and regulations. If I can get my elected politicians to pass a law saying that only the state can regulate the carrying of weapons in licensed business how is that different from the state saying that spray paint has to be under lock and key?

Click to expand...

I think at least some of us would say the spraypaint law, and all laws which force some kind of public agenda on private property owners, ought to be invalid, and that you shouldn't be able to pass laws which ram laws and regulations down the throats of business owners. Businesses do not exist for the purpose of furthering social agendae (unless the owner specifically intends that), or catering to the sensibilities of others. Property owners take the risks, pay the bills, and ought to have full dominion over their domiciles and businesses. Your spray paint example is a particularly good one here, since once again it places the onus not on the individual perpetrating the crime of vandalism, but on vendors. This is much the same logic used to push gun store owners around and burden them with bureaucracy and regulation.I don't think there should be alcohol licensing. I think this is one of the more egregious uses of government power. I sure as hell oppose the idea of any kind of curfew and other nanny state affectations.On the other hand if someone decides they don't want to sell alcohol on Sundays, or don't want alcohol on their property, that's their right, tof course, what property owners ought to have the right to do, and whether they should choose to do certain things, are two different questions. In short, people should not even be able to petition the government to infringe the liberties of others. That they can and do to the extent they do is an example of a decaying, corroded Republic. We should have been perfecting our freedom and improving on what the framers appeared to have intended, not going in the other direction.

IMO what your doing is giving a corporation/business the same right as a individual and I do see them as having the same rights as an individual. They should not be allowed to give money/gifts (buy votes) to politicians. They should not have free speech rights, if the state it's in say you can't. advertise chain saw, well then you can't

Now the owners have full rights as an individual, If Mike Odell wants to spend money on an ad and say vote for Joe Smith cause he's cool, that's fine but not a ad that says "Pep Boys says you should vote for Joe Smith cause he will make oil changes a government subsidy."

But in reality none if this will ever happen as were are to far down the road and I don't see any off ramps in the near future, so I am fine with working in the established system of regulations and laws. Yes it would be the moral high ground to be against more regulation but in the end being on the moral high ground really doesn't get you much except a warm feeling

I have a home in NE Phoenix. If I say you can't come in (for whatever reason.. you're carrying a gun, you're jewish, you're black, you're gay, you're (insert any other 'minority' here)) guess what, I can still do that. Private property is NOT yours to dictate.

Business is under no obligation to appease your will either, nor should it be.

As far as expecting to 'change things', I absolutely, positively do NOT want to chip away at private property rights. So in short, I don't. This isn't a problem in need of fixing.

Most of these businesses with "no guns" signs are incorporated. Corporations, at least as they exist in America today, are in fact malign tentacles of the state, not human beings with natural rights, and don't really have any property or free-association rights to speak of as you and I do.

Corporate property is not really private property in the sense that your home (or even an unincorporated business) is, and it is disingenuous to assert that it is.

Incidentally, I find it incredibly ironic that anyone calling himself "Thoreau" would be imputing corporations with any rights at all.

I find it equally ironic that some Tea Party members voted to raise the debt ceiling. Much like anything else in life, you can't win them all =)

As for topic at hand, you're assuming that every business is also a corporation and you completely disregard the idea of a sole proprietorship. Not every place that prohibits firearms is a multi-billion-dollar mega-corporation. In fact, I'd wager that most of them are not, but that's just a guess there. Just an example, albeit in another state, and many moons ago, my the barber shop that I used to frequent in Pennsylvania was simply a converted garage on the ground floor of the owners house. Just two employees... the owner and his son. No LLC, no Inc., just a plain old sole proprietorship. Even ignoring that it was actually his house, are you saying that he shouldn't be allowed to control his own property? Or perhaps somehow he doesn't have the right to control the 'business' property?

Apply the same to the average hole-in-the-wall bar, or small family-owned restaurant, or any other small business and you realize quickly that the apparently distaste for corporate rights (however valid or 'right' it may be) doesn't carry into what you might consider to be 'true' private property.

As for the idea that, just as an inaccurate example, Wal-mart shouldn't be able to ban firearms because they're a big corporation, have some duty to the customer, and gets various tax and legal breaks by being such a corp... I don't believe they should be getting any of that special treatment in the first place. They SHOULD be on the same footing as a business owned by Joe Schmoe in all of the above categories, but Joe shouldn't be forced to give up control of his property until that day comes.

Thoreau said:

As for topic at hand, you're assuming that every business is also a corporation and you completely disregard the idea of a sole proprietorship.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely untrue. If you go back and read my post you will see that I specifically mentioned unincorporated businesses. You are misrepresenting my position. Here is the relevant quote:

Corporate property is not really private property in the sense that your home (or even an unincorporated business) is, and it is disingenuous to assert that it is.

Click to expand...

Thoreau said:

As for the idea that, just as an inaccurate example, Wal-mart shouldn't be able to ban firearms because they're a big corporation, have some duty to the customer, and gets various tax and legal breaks by being such a corp... I don't believe they should be getting any of that special treatment in the first place.

Click to expand...

But they are. And with limited liability comes limited rights. Don't like it? Don't incorporate.

And this is where we part ways significantly. Your solution is seems to be to limit the rights of ALL, instead of fixing the root cause. Get rid of the special breaks and favors, and the problem becomes moot. Sure, you still don't get to carry your gun into a place that bans it, but you get to live in a place that has more FREEDOM instead of more oppressive laws.

The fact of the matter is that there are many differences between corporations and small business, and adding legislation that effects both is not the right path to go down. This country has too damn many laws as it is.

In the meantime, until the pipe dream above comes to fruition, the free market is pretty capable of sorting itself out. Now if only Washington would let the free market do its thing. (and therein lies a whole new can of worms, haha!)

Thoreau said:

Your solution is seems to be to limit the rights of ALL

Click to expand...

Again, this is absolutely untrue. I have not now, nor will I ever, advocate any limitations on the property or free association rights of individuals or unincorporated businesses.

Thoreau said:

In the meantime, until the pipe dream above comes to fruition, the free market is pretty capable of sorting itself out.

Click to expand...

We do not have a free market in this country, and haven't for a long time. Any market where a government grants limited liability to certain entities is not a free market.

My apologies. I seem to have mentally lumped you in with some of the other posts and run with it without enough forethought.

That said, I think we're pretty close to being on the same page after re-reading your last few posts, at least to an extent. In the end, I'd rather just see the special status removed from corps and level the playing field while simplifying the law books a bit at the same time. I suspect it's safe to say we're reading from the same page in that particular book =)

As for your statement about us being sans free market (couldn't be more true) that doesn't negate the fact that the free market CAN sort itself out. We simply don't HAVE that free market. Just another reason the idea of more laws makes me sick to my stomach anymore