Chipotle caves...

[grylnsmn]

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.

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.

Where do you get the idea that they want you on their property? They have explicitly said that they don't want you on their property if you are carrying a gun.

If you want to go the "infringing" route, what gives you the right to infringe their property rights, which are explicitly protected by both the 5th and 14th Amendments? They cannot be denied control of their property except through due process, and by entering their property against their states wishes you are denying them control of their property.

Your right to bear arms is not stronger than their right to control their property. You have no right to be in one of their restaurants. Period. You only gain the privilege of being on their property when you abide by their rules, and that includes their request not to bring guns on their property.

The right to bear arms isn't stronger than other rights simply because it is your pet hobby horse. It is one of many rights that we all have, but those rights end where the rights of others begin. Your right to bear arms is (or should be) absolute right up until you reach their property line, but once you cross that line, you cross from exercising your rights to violating their rights.

 

[jmelvin]

My communications with Chipotle (2 e-mails) have both identified a common point, where I think we may find common ground. Their news releases indicate that Chipotle had no problem with open carry or concealed carry, but now something has happened in Texas to change their minds. Although they don't come out and explicitly state that the handling of guns is likely the big concern, my own inclinations lead me to that conclusion based on various pictures I've seen from some of the Texas long gun OC events. Chipotle states that they had no problem with OC or CC, and generally wanted to stay out of the fray, so it seems we must read between the lines to identify a potential problem. Given this I have suggested that they modify their request to simply ask that firearms brought in not be handled in their stores, much like gun shops where this request seems to work fine. It's a pretty simple request that attempts to solve the assumed new issue of firearms handling, allows for carry, and helps Chipotle avoid having people thinking its acceptable to walk in and handle their guns. Pistols can be carried in holsters and rifles in scabbards and both allow a person to avoid handling their gun while going about.

Hopefully they'll see the sense in this request and make the change, then the sidearm OCers and longarm OCers both have a means of carry and the restaurant will have a policy to address those rare birds who think its acceptable to play with their guns in public. Granted it doesn't do much for the rabid anti gunners, but the safety issues associated with handling are mitigated. I hope that some of the various gun groups get behind this idea so we have a common rallying point for dealing with situations like this.

 

[OC for ME]

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

Talk about going down the rabbit hole. Another cop resorting to a non sequitur and hyperbole to make their point. No matter how you slice it this thread is not about rape/murder.

Ask yourself this one simple little question: Why is rape/murder illegal?

Hint: It's not cuz the government says so.

 

[Primus]

Talk about going down the rabbit hole. Another cop resorting to a non sequitur and hyperbole to make their point. No matter how you slice it this thread is not about rape/murder.

Ask yourself this one simple little question: Why is rape/murder illegal?

Hint: It's not cuz the government says so.

Talk about non sequitur.... my job has nothing to do with this conversation or what I said.

Actually smart guy murder is illegal because man passed laws saying so. Its IMMORAL because its wrong (natural law, god, etc.)

Hint. When you murder someone your charged for breaking a state or federal law that was passed by man. You then get sentenced based on that. Hence it being "illegal".

Can we climb out of the rabbit hole Alice?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[kenny]

My communications with Chipotle (2 e-mails) have both identified a common point, where I think we may find common ground. Their news releases indicate that Chipotle had no problem with open carry or concealed carry, but now something has happened in Texas to change their minds. Although they don't come out and explicitly state that the handling of guns is likely the big concern, my own inclinations lead me to that conclusion based on various pictures I've seen from some of the Texas long gun OC events. Chipotle states that they had no problem with OC or CC, and generally wanted to stay out of the fray, so it seems we must read between the lines to identify a potential problem. Given this I have suggested that they modify their request to simply ask that firearms brought in not be handled in their stores, much like gun shops where this request seems to work fine. It's a pretty simple request that attempts to solve the assumed new issue of firearms handling, allows for carry, and helps Chipotle avoid having people thinking its acceptable to walk in and handle their guns. Pistols can be carried in holsters and rifles in scabbards and both allow a person to avoid handling their gun while going about.

Hopefully they'll see the sense in this request and make the change, then the sidearm OCers and longarm OCers both have a means of carry and the restaurant will have a policy to address those rare birds who think its acceptable to play with their guns in public. Granted it doesn't do much for the rabid anti gunners, but the safety issues associated with handling are mitigated. I hope that some of the various gun groups get behind this idea so we have a common rallying point for dealing with situations like this.

J,

Someone carried a rifle into a restaurant, which was not the smartest move. I can understand why there were concerns with handling the same. Never ate there and don't plan to in the future. Hopefully some type of organized event will take place so we can all show our support.

 

[jmelvin]

Yeah I know folks carried rifles there, but they were also handling them, like at Starbucks according to the pictures I've seen. I've been a Chipotle customer since the first one came to Columbus, Ohio in 1999 or 2000. The wife and I have a long history of going to some pretty good lengths to get their stuff too, just because we liked their food. Needless to say after 14 years of being a loyal customer I feel betrayed, but I'll abide their rules and take my business elsewhere. I hope they'll change their mind and I'll happily return, but if not, then I'll just do without.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Yeah I know folks carried rifles there, but they were also handling them, like at Starbucks according to the pictures I've seen. I've been a Chipotle customer since the first one came to Columbus, Ohio in 1999 or 2000. The wife and I have a long history of going to some pretty good lengths to get their stuff too, just because we liked their food. Needless to say after 14 years of being a loyal customer I feel betrayed, but I'll abide their rules and take my business elsewhere. I hope they'll change their mind and I'll happily return, but if not, then I'll just do without.

But NONE of the hoplophobes are stating that handling is their fear, only people like you are. Hoplophobes fear is clearly the object, not the handling. Some of us are making handling a issue where it is not. Granted that safe gun handling should be practiced by all, but to a hoplophobe there is no safe gun handling, a gun has a mind of it's own.

YOU are making it a issue, not the business, not the hoplophobes. Nothing wrong with discussing and promoting safe gun handling, but putting in where it is out of context is unwarranted.

 

[OC for ME]

Talk about non sequitur.... my job has nothing to do with this conversation or what I said.

Actually smart guy murder is illegal because man passed laws saying so. Its IMMORAL because its wrong (natural law, god, etc.)

Hint. When you murder someone your charged for breaking a state or federal law that was passed by man. You then get sentenced based on that. Hence it being "illegal".

Can we climb out of the rabbit hole Alice?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Your job has everything to do with this conversation. Your job "influences" your views on a wide range of issues. Your posts have consistently demonstrated this.

Inserting rape/murder into a 'property owner right' v. '2A right' discussion is a non sequitur. Your "What about rape murder? Do you think you should be able to do that on private property too?" comment is hyperbole in the extreme.

Simply put, your 2A right stops at my property line. Else there could be no trespassing a citizen for carrying a gun onto another citizen's property.

 

[Primus]

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.

Your job has everything to do with this conversation. Your job "influences" your views on a wide range of issues. Your posts have consistently demonstrated this.

Inserting rape/murder into a 'property owner right' v. '2A right' discussion is a non sequitur. Your "What about rape murder? Do you think you should be able to do that on private property too?" comment is hyperbole in the extreme.

Simply put, your 2A right stops at my property line. Else there could be no trespassing a citizen for carrying a gun onto another citizen's property.

Maybe you missed his initial post.

Might want to explain to him about where the 2a right stops.

If you read a little more careful you could see that was the POINT of me making the rape/murder comment was that it was going down a rabbit hole and getting off topic.

And for the record EVERYONE'S job/life influences their beliefs/views on topics.

Just some develop stronger beliefs. Yes I have strong views on rape and murder. Its what happens when you clean it up.

Can we move on now?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[ChristCrusader]

Else there could be no trespassing a citizen for carrying a gun onto another citizen's property.

Trespassing rules would still apply, if asked to leave, then one must leave.
But one wouldn't be able to be asked to leave just because they're keeping or bearing, or prohibit entrance because of keeping or bearing.

 

[vt800c]

hey, how do we get hoodies banned?

I mean to be honest, I'm more wary of a guy wearing a hoodie (especially when it's 90 degrees outside and he's wearing it over his head) and of a mature individual open carrying a properly holstered firearm (except some of the cops, because some of those guys shouldn't be trusted with a wooden spoon. No offense). How do we get chipotle to ban hoodies?

 

[Grapeshot]

I mean to be honest, I'm more wary of a guy wearing a hoodie (especially when it's 90 degrees outside and he's wearing it over his head) and of a mature individual open carrying a properly holstered firearm (except some of the cops, because some of those guys shouldn't be trusted with a wooden spoon. No offense). How do we get chipotle to ban hoodies?

No reason that they cannot - profiling is legal for them

 

[OC for ME]

Maybe you missed his initial post.

Might want to explain to him about where the 2a right stops.

If you read a little more careful you could see that was the POINT of me making the rape/murder comment was that it was going down a rabbit hole and getting off topic.

And for the record EVERYONE'S job/life influences their beliefs/views on topics.

Just some develop stronger beliefs. Yes I have strong views on rape and murder. Its what happens when you clean it up.

Can we move on now?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Quoting a citizen who thinks that slavery can be practiced on private property is ill advised.

Amendment XIII

Section 1.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

No citizen can hold slaves on their private property. I can ban ETOH on my property.

I agree, I shall move along.

 

[Running Wolf]

I mean to be honest, I'm more wary of a guy wearing a hoodie (especially when it's 90 degrees outside and he's wearing it over his head) and of a mature individual open carrying a properly holstered firearm (except some of the cops, because some of those guys shouldn't be trusted with a wooden spoon. No offense). How do we get chipotle to ban hoodies?

I've seen "no hoodies" signs at businesses. Usually right next to the "no guns" sign . . .

 

[ChristCrusader]

Quoting a citizen who thinks that slavery can be practiced on private property is ill advised.
No citizen can hold slaves on their private property. I can ban ETOH on my property.

You're either missing or obfuscating the point...

The Constitution's amendments are not/have not been devoid of influence over individuals or their private properties.

Any alleged private property right to discriminate against keepers and bearers was overwritten and superseded by keepers' and bearers' rights when the US2A and VA 1:13 were adopted by due process.

 

[Grapeshot]

You're either missing or obfuscating the point...

The Constitution's amendments are not/have not been devoid of influence over individuals or their private properties.

Any alleged private property right to discriminate against keepers and bearers was overwritten and superseded by keepers' and bearers' rights when the US2A and VA 1:13 were adopted by due process.

Private property rights (where the public is not invited) still remain supreme. Not only is it the law, but it is my will to defend what is mine.

 

[ChristCrusader]

(where the public is not invited)

Not an insignificant qualifier, lol.
I see what you did there ;-)

 

[WalkingWolf]

I've seen "no hoodies" signs at businesses. Usually right next to the "no guns" sign . . .

No colors signs have been common in night clubs in the past here. Don't know about presently, since we have not been in one in a long time.

 

[jmelvin]

But NONE of the hoplophobes are stating that handling is their fear, only people like you are. Hoplophobes fear is clearly the object, not the handling. Some of us are making handling a issue where it is not. Granted that safe gun handling should be practiced by all, but to a hoplophobe there is no safe gun handling, a gun has a mind of it's own.

YOU are making it a issue, not the business, not the hoplophobes. Nothing wrong with discussing and promoting safe gun handling, but putting in where it is out of context is unwarranted.

Wow WalkingWolf, you're pretty good at summarizing my first post regarding attempting to identify the issue. You're right, I am introducing the issue of handling as I stated explicitly. Hoplophobes don't think guns can or will be carried safely, but if Chipotle was truly fine with open and concealed carry up to this point, then something must've happened to change their mind. I, like skidmark, assume the issue is actually with handling of the guns, but something has caused a change. Of course the organization could be lying about previously being okay with CC and OC (I suspect that may be a part), but again someone would have to introduce that as an assumed point since Chipotle didn't state it blatantly.

 

[ChristCrusader]

No colors signs have been common in night clubs in the past here. Don't know about presently, since we have not been in one in a long time.

But no coloreds signs have been prohibited for a few decades...
The concept of non-discrimination is already "integrated" into society.
regardless of the reasons, when it's law, it's law.
US2A and VA 1:13 are law.
Unfortunately, they've been allowed to be trampled on...