Done.
Me Too!
Done.
Ditto!Me Too!
Ask to meet with you and discuss it,,,,,at Hooters!
Hooters is anti also.
Are they, I haven't been there for years but the last time I did OC.
The staff had BIG GUNS too
I need to put up my unfriendly to gun owners site this week. I'll add the unfriendly Gun Shop Section too.
I guess it depends on which Hooters. I have heard of people having no problem at Waterside but the one or two on the Peninsula have asked people to leave.
I talked to a person at one of them on the Peninsula and they said that they usually had a no concealed carry sign up but since at the time you couldn't legally conceal carry because they served alcohol they left the sign off in VA. They thought that the sign would be added once the law changed. OC-ers were asked to leave. I didn't investigate it further than that and simply stopped giving them any of my business.
I also know Buffalo Wild Wings is Anti so I am still looking for a good wings place that isn't.
Originally Posted by 45acpForMe
I guess it depends on which Hooters. I have heard of people having no problem at Waterside but the one or two on the Peninsula have asked people to leave.
I talked to a person at one of them on the Peninsula and they said that they usually had a no concealed carry sign up but since at the time you couldn't legally conceal carry because they served alcohol they left the sign off in VA. They thought that the sign would be added once the law changed. OC-ers were asked to leave. I didn't investigate it further than that and simply stopped giving them any of my business.
I also know Buffalo Wild Wings is Anti so I am still looking for a good wings place that isn't.
This was in Richmond and it has been tears.
Though I do not subscribe to it, some would say it was unmanly to cry. Besides don't you have pictures archived? :lol:
Yes Waterside Hooters is or was friendly. Had several meet-ups there after Norfolk City Council meetings several years ago.
Though I do not subscribe to it, some would say it was unmanly to cry. Besides don't you have pictures archived? :lol:
Yes Waterside Hooters is or was friendly. Had several meet-ups there after Norfolk City Council meetings several years ago.
I think it has to do with the local manager whether they enforce the corporate policy or not. If I were a manager and saw 20-30 hungry people walking into my restaurant I would just smile and welcome the business. They may be more willing to kick a small party out if only one at the table is OC-ing.
So I know with Fuddruckers it became the corporate policy to ban weapons (before they went bankrupt) so we avoided all Fuddruckers since some of the monies spent at a 2A-friendly store would still make it back to corporate. What do we do with a corporate office (QS&L) that allows individual franchises to choose their own policy? I will avoid the NN QS&L but don't think the franchises that do support the 2A should be punished. I wish we could push a bill through the legislature that made business owners 100% liable for any and all damage done to a person on their property if they ban weapons. The way the law is now they can ban weapons and shun any responsibility since they don't condone what a criminal chooses to do on their property. They would have to be criminally negligent somehow before they would be suable.
Hooters is anti also.
I think it has to do with the local manager whether they enforce the corporate policy or not. If I were a manager and saw 20-30 hungry people walking into my restaurant I would just smile and welcome the business. They may be more willing to kick a small party out if only one at the table is OC-ing.
So I know with Fuddruckers it became the corporate policy to ban weapons (before they went bankrupt) so we avoided all Fuddruckers since some of the monies spent at a 2A-friendly store would still make it back to corporate. What do we do with a corporate office (QS&L) that allows individual franchises to choose their own policy? I will avoid the NN QS&L but don't think the franchises that do support the 2A should be punished. I wish we could push a bill through the legislature that made business owners 100% liable for any and all damage done to a person on their property if they ban weapons. The way the law is now they can ban weapons and shun any responsibility since they don't condone what a criminal chooses to do on their property. They would have to be criminally negligent somehow before they would be suable.
While I too wish all businesses were carry-friendly, that is not the answer. Making business owners liable for the actions of criminals is totally wrong. Yes, convincing businesses to go carry-friendly is a lot of work and we'll never convince all of them, but we need to resist that temptation of going to the government to force other people to do what we want. It is their property, it's up to them to determine what is and isn't allowed.
While I agree that more government is usually not the answer I find no other way to hold them liable for the increased danger they put their customers in. Yes we can not give them our business but what about the oblivious sheeple that go to the restauarant and don't care about 2A rights? They suffer too since criminals know it is a weapons free zone, their likelihood of robbery goes up with a lowered level of resistence available. I am just saying that if they choose to restrict my rights on their property, they should accept all responsibility on their property for what that decision enables.
This is kind of the flip argument of a parking lot bill where they ban firearms in cars because their insurance requires it because of liability issues. I say if your business follows state and federal law your liability should be reduced. If you create policies above and beyond what the law states you should then be more liable for any havok that ensues.
Yes I agree that it is their property and they should be able to do what they want with it but if I create a dangerous environment on my property I am still liable. So far the courts have not seen a weapon ban as a dangerous environment like I see it. The law/bill would define such a term such that banning of weapons for law abiding people should be seen as creating a dangerous environment.
It is their property, it's up to them to determine what is and isn't allowed.