Chipotle vs Tools for Dissent

[jrdolall]

Overreaction? It was a business decision, pure and simple, and it is not for us to judge, one way or the other.

I will respectfully disagree with this. It is most certainly up to us to judge and hold accountable any business that has in place a policy that we disagree with. I voice my displeasure by sending very polite messages and by refusing to spend my money in such establishments. While they certainly have every legal right to post sign banning firearms in MOST states we need to make sure they know there is a percentage, however small, of people that are taking their money elsewhere.

Will it do any good? Nobody can answer that question. It has worked in the past and it will work again.

PS If I owned a business and two guys walked in like this then I would demand that they leave immediately. Not because they had a gun but I don't want or need idiots in my place of business. I sometimes OC and have never had a business owner ask me to leave.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I will respectfully disagree with this. It is most certainly up to us to judge and hold accountable any business that has in place a policy that we disagree with.

When your business becomes a ground zero in the political battlefield of an issue, and it begins to affect your ability to pay your bills, you might begin to think otherwise.

I'm not going to hold judgement over some specific, targeted businesses who wanted to remain neutral and had their hand forced after what I've seen what they've been put through.


You may have openly carried your gun in a holster someplace without issue. But a few businesses had immature, adolescent-minded customers go there and handle those guns so they could be used for props in pictures. Over and over.


At some point even the most 2A tolerant business will say enough is enough and chose a non-confrontational way to end it.

 

[PedalBiker]

At some point even the most 2A tolerant business will say enough is enough and chose a non-confrontational way to end it.

No doubt. We have a lot of "rights" that are just not appropriate inside a restaurant.

From an early age I worked on my kids' manners at eating establishments. Manners are important.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You can identify and see yourself in the actions of these two attention whores if you want. And because you do, that makes you defend indefensible behavior.

And you can post a quotation from any of my posts that would indicate such a claim is true? I'll wait. A long time. Because you won't be able to.

 

[HexHead]

Funny how when the two guys carry their guns into Chipolte, the vast majority of gun owners will jump on the bandwagon of OMG! Look what they did! That's just going way too far, what idiots they were for doing that!

And when Chipolte bans ALL firearms in ALL restaurants over the actions of just two people in one restaurant - well, that's not overreacting, that's just a business decision.

Why is nobody suggesting that all gun owners write letters to Chipolte corporation and express that all they had to do was kick the two clowns of the restaurant but that since they banned all firearms in all restaurants, the rest of us gun owners will take our business elsewhere. If we don't start expressing our desires to these companies with equal volume as the Mom's Demand Action then the MDA is going to be the only voice the companies will listen to.

Stop making sense. Some anti might read it and think we're not contrite enough.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It's interesting to note that Chipolte's response wasn't necessarily in response to people in their restaurant at the time complaining. From the CNN Money article...

An activist group called "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America" began a Twitter campaign on Monday against customers bringing guns into Chipotle.
The group, which was formed after the mass shooting of children in Sandy Hook, posted a photograph on its Twitter account of two guys carrying guns inside a Chipotle (CMG) restaurant. The Twitter handle @MomsDemand asked customers to tell Chipotle that such images are not "acceptable," and that "we won't feed our kids next to armed gunmen."
Chipotle response came within 24 hours of the campaign.
On Tuesday, the group tweeted: WE WON! @ChipotleTweets says #BurritosNotBullets No more guns in stores.

It just seems so much easier for the pro-gun side to blame the guys carrying the guns for some reason - a reason that I don't understand. Personally, I do believe the two guys carrying the guns actions were inappropriate. However, I also believe that Chipolte's overreaction was equally inappropriate and the pro-gun side should be equally as engaged as making that clear to Chipolte as we are engaged in proclaiming the inappropriateness of the two guys carrying the guns.

Chipolte is being 100% two-faced regarding the issue:

http://time.com/105602/chipotle-gun-ban/

Chipotle says it typically defers to local laws on the issue because it doesn’t think it’s fair for employees to ask customers not to bring guns into stores. But backlash following a gun rally at a Dallas Chipotle this weekend led the chain to take action.

“The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens and we appreciate them honoring this request,” the statement continues. “And we hope that our customers who oppose the carrying of guns in public agree with us that it is the role of elected officials and the legislative process to set policy in this area, not the role of businesses like Chipotle.”

and then...

Chipotle is requesting that all non-law enforcement customers refrain from bringing guns into their stores amid pressure from a mothers’ group calling for complete ban on guns in stores.

But, it's not being two faced nor overreaction.... it's just a "business decision". Open your eyes. Chipolte is siding with the group that complains the loudest which will always be the anti-gun groups because the pro-gun side is not willing and/or afraid to complain as loudly as the anti-gun side does.

 

[HexHead]

Geez… I saw that particular picture after I posted my previous reply. The picture you posted (post #23, since it usually won't copy to replies) is evidence of this problem. These guys aren't even slinging their guns, they are carrying them in-hand.

For a cop, your powers of observation are pretty suspect. The fat guy on the left has his rifle slung, using a single point sling. His hands are clasped on his chest, resting on the butt plate.

 

[Nom de Forum]

..... If I owned a business and two guys walked in like this then I would demand that they leave immediately. Not because they had a gun but I don't want or need idiots in my place of business. I sometimes OC and have never had a business owner ask me to leave.

What identified these two men as idiots was what they had in their hands when they walked in. Only idiots would walk into a restaurant carrying not a rifle in a case, not a shoulder slung rifle, but a rifle that would be perceived as instantly ready to be fired. If I observed this behavior I would immediately be moving to an exit or cover and preparing to draw my CCW. What a shame those two idiots did not walk into a restaurant filled with people with CCWs. The restaurants surveillance video would be hilarious to watch as multiple CCW holders took cover and prepared to draw their pistols while the look on the faces of the idiots changed from surprise to fear and their pants became soiled. I hope those fools are reading this thread and realize they are marked men for scorn and condemnation for years to come.

 

[HexHead]

I... because the pro-gun side is not willing and/or afraid to complain as loudly as the anti-gun side does.

This, and I think afraid is more appropriate.

 

[BullfrogKen]

LCDR - So you deny making excuses, and calling for us to defend what they did - while admittedly unwise and unproductive - as the price the community pays to defend rights?

Don't come before me and try to tell me you're not an apologist for the open carry movement. We both know you are. You've been involved in nearly every open carry thread on this forum defending it, and you're doing it this week in the various threads about this instance.


Look, I get how the justice system is tested by bad people who do bad things, yet have enumerated rights. And while it might offend our conscience to do it, our system demands they have the full protection and access to those rights.


But this week, and in many instances before this, you have suggested that we close ranks around these people. That we shouldn't criticize them. That since the radicals in the anti-gun and progressive movements don't face criticism from their side, we shouldn't do it either.


You're an apologist for open carry. OK. I don't care so much whether one conceals his gun or not. I care about image, attitudes, motivations, behaviors, and specifically results. Far too many open carry provocateurs care nothing about those. And because they don't, they're not on my side.

And because unlike the radical progressive, gun-ban crowd, the end does not justify the means for me. Unlike them, I understand that with rights comes a responsibility when we exercise them. And unlike them, I will criticize those who exercise precious rights - rights not recognized in most of the known world - when some immature, attention-seeking whore abuses them for his own personal in-your-face amusement and 15 minutes of fame I will not close ranks around him and extend my protection.


Now if you truly want me to embarrass you, and point out how for years you've been an apologist here for the open carry movement - even the most recently radical side of it - and how I think that makes you too ready to jump the defense of actions like this, I'll take that challenge.


But I'd rather not.



How about we both admit that while even criminals deserve the full protection of the law, we recognize we're not defending what they did. We're only defending civil rights, right? We're holding the process accountable, while at the same time repulsed at the defendant's actions.

I defend the right to openly carry a firearm. I don't defend it when its used irresponsibly. Or to use it to get in someone's face by asserting it and making it the front lines of a political battlefield. Especially on someone else's property. And really especially when that property is someone's livelihood.

 

[tomrkba]

VCDL has a different take on Chipotle's "decision":

2. Thoughts on Chipolte’s new position on carry in their establishments
*****************************************************************

Based on the headlines in the press, you’d swear that the Chipolte restaurant chain is now banning guns on their premises. Lazy, biased reporting does not change the facts, however.

Chipolte has simply taken the same road as Starbucks and Jack-in-the-Box: REQUESTING that gun owners do not carry in their establishments.

That is a night and day difference from banning guns. Clearly all they want is for the anti-gun group Moms Demand Action (MDM) to quit whining and go eat a burrito.

Based on their press release, it is clear that gun owners can continue to legally carry in their establishments - openly or concealed, same is with Starbucks and Jack-in-the-Box.

The MDM call it a victory in an effort to seem relevant, but I can’t quit yawning.

Here is an article with a correctly worded title:

From theguardian.com: http://tinyurl.com/nfwszpl

Chipotle asks customers not to bring firearms to stores

 

[JRH6856]

Chipotle says it typically defers to local laws on the issue because it doesn’t think it’s fair for employees to ask customers not to bring guns into stores. But backlash following a gun rally at a Dallas Chipotle this weekend led the chain to take action.

In Texas, that does not work. Chipotle has a beer and wine license from TABC. Texas law prohibits unlicensed firearms where alcohol is served. It is legal to carry an unlicensed weapon (long gun) into a restaurant serving alcohol but the restaurant may lose its license if they allow the gun to remain on premises. If signs are not posted, employees have to get involved.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It just seems so much easier for the pro-gun side to blame the guys carrying the guns for some reason - a reason that I don't understand....

I don't think the reasons are all that mysterious. In essence, those two guys were lousy ambassadors for gun owners and cast us in a bad light. They reinforced negative stereotypes many people have of gun owners. They engaged in a public spectacle apparently for their own amusement resulting in a predictable, negative response from an essentially disinterested third party business.

You might not agree, but it's impossible to fathom how you can't understand that.

 

[NavyLCDR]

LCDR - So you deny making excuses, and calling for us to defend what they did - while admittedly unwise and unproductive - as the price the community pays to defend rights?

As before, I challenge you to quote one single statement of mine that is calling for us to defend what they did. As before, you won't be able to, because you are just making stuff up because you don't agree with some of the things I have actually stated.

Once again - for those that won't twist what I write like BullfrogKen here likes to do:

I don't agree with the actions of the two guys who carried the rifles in the restaurant. My position is that at some point our vehement and loud denunciation of their actions begins to do more harm then good because:

1. We are providing those two guys with exactly what they want - attention and publicity and
2. We are starting to sound exactly like the typical anti-gun groups like MDA and the Brady Bunch.

My position is also that Chipolte's reaction to the two guys was not simply in response to the fact that the two guys acted inappropriately. Chipolte's reaction was more influenced by Mom's Demand Action than it was by the single incident and we should be complaining just as loudly about Chipolte's decision to cater to Mom's Demand Action as MDA complains about the guns.

What you like to do, BullfrogKen, is lump all "open carry activists" together into one stereotype, which simply is the same action that the anti-gun groups like to do with anyone who carries a gun in any manner. You might find it interesting the OpencarryDotOrg, one of the foremost open carry activist groups which I have been a member of for years, has this as one of their "rules of conduct":

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

(14) LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control and lack of trigger guard coverage, we cannot support long gun open carry.

 

[NavyLCDR]

They engaged in a public spectacle apparently for their own amusement resulting in a predictable, negative response from an essentially disinterested third party business.

and resulting in a predictable, negative response from the pro-gun side of the guns rights issue as well - one which we have been more than happy to provide loads of; which also, I am sure, is very pleasing to the anti-gun groups.

It's not a matter of should the two guys' actions be denounced - it's a matter of is the level of denouncement of their actions by the pro-gun side also doing more harm than good. And does our lack of denouncement for Chipolte's actions in catering to Mom's Demand Action do more harm than good. Again, Chipolte and most businesses and government is going to cater to who complains the loudest - and that continues to be the anti-gun groups.

Why is it that we cannot make the clear statement that, "We do not condone the actions of the two men who carried rifles into the restaurant and feel that it was inappropriate to do so. However, equally, we cannot condone Chipolte's decision to ban all guns in all their locations simply due to the actions of these two individual's in one store. For that reason we are calling for a boycott of all Chipolte's restaurants not only by gun owners, but by any person who believes that Chipolte's decision was based upon the political clambering of one single activist group - Mom's Demand Action - whose views clearly do not represent the majority of Americans or the majority of Chipolte's customers."

I am not advocating to support to two guys with the rifles. I am advocating for equal complaining and denunciation of Mom's Demand Action and Chipolte's response in catering to them.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

TABC (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission) has told any restaurant that has a license to sell alcoholic beverages (including beer) that allowing open carry of firearms will result in loss of their license to sell alcohol. As a result, Chipoltle had two choices: stop selling beer or allow open carry of rifles inside their restaurants.

No surprise which one they chose. It is also no surprise that Open Carry Texas modified their rules to forbid carrying longguns inside restaurants with a TABC license after this incident. Moms Demand Action may claim this as a victory but it is a pure business decision by Chipoltle - and one that was forced on them by these two rather than one they sought out.

There isn't an open to the public gun store within 50 miles of that Chipoltle that would allow customers to carry a loaded, uncased rifle on a sling inside their store. Are we going to boycott these establishments as well? If it isn't appropriate behavior in a gun store, why are we defending it in a Chipoltle?

 

[BullfrogKen]

Once again - for those that won't twist what I write like BullfrogKen here likes to do

What BullfrogKen likes to do is stay the hell out of open carry discussions on THR. He avoids them. He rarely participates in them. Ask the Staph, they'll agree. Check his post history, it'll support that claim.


Sailor, hop down off your soapbox and talk to me.



Facts are this.

Many national chains have previously taken neutral issues on the matter. Some had those neutral positions abused by OC provocateurs and were forced into a corner. That's not Chipolte's fault. Had they - and others - not been unwillingly forced into the front lines of a political fight drawn around them they'd have remained neutral. They had organized rally after organized rally organized via social media and planned at their businesses.

That's just not acceptable.


Again, you are an apologist because you look at this through your own eyes.

Yes, it is fully right to denounce irresponsible behavior. I don't want to be associated with it. I do not sound like the Brady Bunch when I say I don't tolerate the irresponsible use of a firearm.


You want us to look the other way and shut up about actions and behavior that really, actually, "yes, uh huh it is inappropriate to do this stuff" that is no more than grandstanding, attention-seeking stunts that make us look bad and do harm in the cause of advancing our rights.




No one postures and takes pictures of unnatural, socially unacceptable behavior for posterity.

 

[coloradokevin]

For a cop, your powers of observation are pretty suspect. The fat guy on the left has his rifle slung, using a single point sling. His hands are clasped on his chest, resting on the butt plate.

Well, lets go and make it personal here… that'll help your argument.

I've used a single point sling before, and would virtually guarantee that the rifle was in his hands as he walked through the door (when you don't hold it using that type of sling while the rifle is hanging in front like that it typically whacks you in the junk as you walk). Regardless, I didn't miss that fact in the picture, I just made the assumption that he probably carried the rifle with both hands on it when he walked in, rather than one hand on it as the picture showed. I'll admit that it was a bit of a logical leap given the picture, but that fact aside, it's very clear that the other guy was carrying his gun in hand.

Exactly what have you added to this discussion by jumping on me about that observation anyway?


My point still stands: A couple of morons walked into that establishment carrying long guns in a manner that could easily cause even the most pro-gun folks to believe that some very bad things were about to take place. Even if you ignore the fatter fellow, a look at Mr. Cool with the sunglasses is enough to suggest something is amiss. After all, he's carrying a semi-automatic rifle in his hands, and wearing sunglasses indoors (something often done by robbers who wish to conceal their identity). That's hardly normal restaurant behavior.

If you have a problem with my logic on this, fine. But, you pointlessly derail this discussion with the personal attack.

 

[the_skunk]

 

[Joe Demko]

God protect me from my friends.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It's not a matter of should the two guys' actions be denounced - it's a matter of is the level of denouncement of their actions by the pro-gun side also doing more harm than good...

And exactly what harm is that?

...And does our lack of denouncement for Chipolte's actions in catering to Mom's Demand Action do more harm than good...

We complain about "Mutt & Jeff" because they are/claim to be part of our RKBA community and some folks are defending their actions a being on our behalf. We are merely distancing ourselves from people whose conduct we don't want reflected back on us.

...Chipolte and most businesses ... is going to cater to who complains the loudest...

No, as a business motivated by economic self-interest they will cater to whomever reflects an image that is likely to be most congenial to the majority of their customers. Appearing to align with those two slovenly, rifle totting buffoons would do their overall corporate image no good.

 

[NavyLCDR]

No, as a business motivated by economic self-interest they will cater to whomever reflects an image that is likely to be most congenial to the majority of their customers. Appearing to align with those two slovenly, rifle totting buffoons would do their overall corporate image no good.

And the biggest problem is that the pro-gun side refuses to band together and make our voice heard that we ARE the MAJORITY of these businesses customers. We don't have to align with those two "slovenly, rifle totting buffoons". But we do have to start aligning as the majority in this country and speaking more loudly than the minority anti-gun groups do. But we can't bring ourselves to do that. We will continue to be the "silent" majority, and we will continue to lose battles for no other reason than our unwillingness to stand up and proclaim our views with the veracity that the anti-gun groups do.

When 10 people voice their opinions 10 times more loudly than 100 people do - it seems like the 10 people are the majority - when in fact they are only moaning the loudest - which is EXACTLY what the anti-gun groups do. It's time we started doing some loud moaning and complaining ourselves - about things other than the foolish actions of the far and few outliers of gun owners.

 

[NavyLCDR]

TABC (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission) has told any restaurant that has a license to sell alcoholic beverages (including beer) that allowing open carry of firearms will result in loss of their license to sell alcohol. As a result, Chipoltle had two choices: stop selling beer or allow open carry of rifles inside their restaurants.

No surprise which one they chose. It is also no surprise that Open Carry Texas modified their rules to forbid carrying longguns inside restaurants with a TABC license after this incident. Moms Demand Action may claim this as a victory but it is a pure business decision by Chipoltle - and one that was forced on them by these two rather than one they sought out.

There isn't an open to the public gun store within 50 miles of that Chipoltle that would allow customers to carry a loaded, uncased rifle on a sling inside their store. Are we going to boycott these establishments as well? If it isn't appropriate behavior in a gun store, why are we defending it in a Chipoltle?

Your defense of Chipolte's decision fails because they did not choose to only ban open carry of rifles in their restaurants. They chose instead to cater to Mom's Demand Action and ban ALL firearms carried in ANY manner in ALL of their restaurants.

 

[BullfrogKen]

What you like to do, BullfrogKen, is lump all "open carry activists" together into one stereotype, which simply is the same action that the anti-gun groups like to do with anyone who carries a gun in any manner. You might find it interesting the OpencarryDotOrg, one of the foremost open carry activist groups which I have been a member of for years, has this as one of their "rules of conduct":

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

(14) LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control and lack of trigger guard coverage, we cannot support long gun open carry.

Ah, I see what you did there. As I was responding, you were editing your post to add this.


OK. I'll reply to that.

I do no such thing. As I said earlier, as a general rule I simply don't participate in Open Carry threads here. At all. You have no posting history at all to suggest I do any such thing, because I don't participate in these discussions.


However, you shed some light on something interesting.

This Open Carry site you like so much has declared that carrying rifles is completely off topic.

I know what off-topic discussions on a forum means. Any threads opened to discuss them get closed without discussion. They may even be deleted entirely. And any member who persists in engaging in an off-topic discussion after being warned is often banned.

So, if an off-topic discussion on your preferred Open Carry forum isn't tolerated - by advocates from its own community - what precisely are you doing here - in a community that isn't as warm to open carry in general - making so much effort defending it?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Your defense of Chipolte's decision fails because they did not choose to only ban open carry of rifles in their restaurants. They chose instead to cater to Mom's Demand Action and ban ALL firearms carried in ANY manner in ALL of their restaurants.

No, to date Chipoltle has not done that. They've banned open (i.e. unlicensed) carry of any firearm - the exact type of carry that threatens their TABC license. They haven't posted 30.06 signs at any of their restaurants at this time (the sign that prohibits the type of carry allowed by TABC - licensed concealed carry). Additionally, nothing in their statement appears to be directed at CHLs.

And once again, the Bloomberg-affiliated groups are claiming this as a "victory" but they had next to zero influence in this. TABC is the driving force here. MDA, etc. are just trying to milk a PR victory out of it - and the sad thing is, if these idiots had left the rifles at home and gone door-to-door for any one of the several prominent Texas politicians supporting open carry, this whole thing could have been avoided and a lot more done for open carry rights.

We were to the point where the anti-gun Democrat candidate was making pro-Open Carry noises. Now this is going to be the face of open carry going into the 2015 legislative session.