Hassled by Buffalo Wild Wings for OC at Dupont, Fort Wayne

[in625shooter]

I was just reading the thread about the lack of looting in Japan, and how their society pulls together to help each other due to their long tradition of honor and concern for each other as a people. Even in the face of widespread disaster, you don't see rudeness or self-serving behavior.

And then I click on this thread, and see the typical selfish behavior of an American who can't be bothered to show some consideration for his fellow citizens by honoring a simple request that doesn't even affect his ability to defend himself. On someone else's property, no less.

I am thankful that I don't have any friends that feel that they need to shove a gun into every social interaction they make during while they are out and about in public. What a treat it must be to have something as simple as a meal turn into a political firestorm and multi-page internet thread. I suppose I live a boring life.

+1000, Some people will never get this!!!

 

[snowman46919]

NO! NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!







YOU DON"T HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY!

The Constitution only protects you from your Rights being infringed by the GOVERNMENT not a private person.

The only rights you have on another persons property are the ones they give you or the ones the owner is forced to give you by law.

THAT'S IT!!

If you don't like the owners rules then you shouldn't enter onto the property. It doesn't matter if those rules are that you must believe in the religion he does, tape your mouth shut, leave your firearms at the gate, wear a pink tutu that says "I {heart} Obama", let his soldier son quarter with you in your room, not read a newspaper or book that he doesn't approve of or any number of other Rights infringements that the GOVERNMENT can't get away with.

A business is forced by law to not discriminate against the protected classes (race, creed, color, origin, religion, etc). Those classes are protected by law. Other than that they can discriminate against whoever else they want. Because those other classes AREN'T protected by law. It's not a matter of "morals". It's a matter of LAW! If it was morals I would be saying that a homeowner shouldn't disciminate, as well, because discrimination is wrong! BUT THAT'S NOT THE LAW!

Now, OTOH, If the GOVERNMENT tried to give the power to the business owner to infringe those rights with the backing of LAW & the power of the state then THAT would be an infringement of his Constitutional Rights. It still wouldn't be an infringement by the private party. It would be an infringement by the state using the private party as a tool of infringement.

You have Constitutional Rights in your home.

You have Constitutional Rights in on the street.

You have Constitutional Rights on someone elses property but those protections are from infringement by the GOVERNMENT not from infringement by the property owner.






Ok, I'm better now...

Hey only 143 more!

Umm...do I get a prize or something for reaching 2000 posts?

Constitution states I have the liberty and the right to keep and bear arms per the 2A with the attachment of "Likewise, the keeping and bearing of arms, while a right of persons, is also a duty of able-bodied citizens." That is in plain day black and white, care to show me in what laws, rights or any other piece of actual fact that you have the right to strip me of mine when I step on your property? You don't because at that point you would be infringing upon me at the behest of your own rights which is not allowed under the Constitution.

 

[finity]

Just because some of the BWW stores you see with signs doesnt mean the owner is anti-2A. Has anyone though about the fact that it may be a stipulation of the insurance policy for to help lessen the cost of the liability?

I think there was an insurance-type on here a while back & he said he never saw any stipulation that no guns signs be put up to get a lower rate in any policy he ever wrote.

I dont see where dis-respect was shown to the manager? He made a request to a patron and the patron responded in a civil manner and obviously the manager respected his opinion enough to not ask him to leave and with any luck was educated a little bit and will use this experience to help the less informed about firearms more informed

The following quotes from the OP doesn't sound to me like the manager "respected his opinion enough to not ask him to leave".

The manager continued to reiterate these two requests multiple times. "Sir, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. I'm politely asking you to simply cover it up or go put it in your car."
.
.
"Are you bothering my table?" He nodded yes and continued his requests; she turned and left.
.
.
"I just want to make my other customers comfortable."
.
.
"I'm just asking you to cover it up or go put it in your car."
.
.
"I can just write down your plate number. But, I just want you to cover it up and go put it in your car. Would you like a cop to come take care of this?"
.
.
After several rounds of him asking and me declining, he stood and declared that he would be calling a cop to "come take care of this. They'll be here in a minute."

It sounds like the manager was bullied into not pushing the situation any further. Was that a character flaw on the manager's part for not pushing HIS REAL Rights & requesting that the OP leave? Sure, but that doesn't make what the OP did respectful in any way at all. Just because I don't forcefully exert my Rights doesn't mean it makes it OK or legal for you to ignore them.

I don't think there was any education going on except the one that the manager got that showed that gun-owners are obstinate & bull-headed & don't respect anyone's rights but their own.

You want to educate them. Try having a civil discussion with them:

"sorry, I didn't realize that you didn't allow guns in your restaurant. I wasn't doing anything illegal by carrying my gun, but if that's the way you feel then I'd like to get my food boxed up & I'll gladly leave. I think you should know, though, that I won't be coming back, armed or not. I also know a lot of gun-owners feel the same way that I do & will not frequent a business that doesn't allow us to carry. You may want to rethink your policy or suffer the possible loss of income that the policy entails. Thanks." Pay, leave & don't come back. No reason to make a scene or get the cops called - which mk2ja was willing to have happen before he complied with the managers requests.

What exactly did he think would happen differently if the manager did ACTUALLY CALL the cops? He was either going to cover it up or leave AND he was still going to have to pay for his food.

Why not just be a mature (gun-owning) person & just make the choice before all the drama of the cops having to show up? Don't they have btter things to be doing with their time than to be baby-sitting a person who is throwing a "make-me" tantrum?

 

[mkbar80]

I was just reading the thread about the lack of looting in Japan, and how their society pulls together to help each other due to their long tradition of honor and concern for each other as a people. Even in the face of widespread disaster, you don't see rudeness or self-serving behavior.

And then I click on this thread, and see the typical selfish behavior of an American who can't be bothered to show some consideration for his fellow citizens by honoring a simple request that doesn't even affect his ability to defend himself. On someone else's property, no less.

I am thankful that I don't have any friends that feel that they need to shove a gun into every social interaction they make during while they are out and about in public. What a treat it must be to have something as simple as a meal turn into a political firestorm and multi-page internet thread. I suppose I live a boring life.

+1

 

[Hammerhead]

He didn't have to.

He didn't have to.

He didn't have to.

There is no right to not be offended, annoyed, or ignored. The OP didn't have to cover because "there was a complaint." He didn't have to cover at all. He didn't have to comply with a silly request attempting to appease some ninny (customer, not manager) bothered by the legal display of a firearm.

Your moral compass might point you towards "doing the right thing" and "complying to not seem like an ass". His does not, nor should it.

And if the manager did actually call the cops? Were they going to force him to cover his legally carried gun? How and why? They could only present the OP with the idea of leaving at the request of the manager, which the manager didn't seem willing to pursue without the police there.

Stop telling us he should "do the right thing". He did the right thing to his own conscience and personal beliefs. He offered to leave, if that's what the guy wanted. It wasn't, so he didn't.

I understand the OP to be younger than I, and I believe he acted maturely and appropriately. He wasn't throwing a tantrum, he asserted his rights respectfully and calmly, without being belligerent, raising his voice, or causing a scene.

He chose not to roll over and comply. Good for him.

 

[finity]

There is no right to not be offended, annoyed, or ignored.

And he doesn't have a right to ignore the wishes of the property owner either.

The OP didn't have to cover because "there was a complaint." He didn't have to cover at all. He didn't have to comply with a silly request attempting to appease some ninny (customer, not manager) bothered by the legal display of a firearm.

You're right.

He had another choice. He could have left.

Your moral compass might point you towards "doing the right thing"

Usually.

and "complying to not seem like an ass".

Only if I'm on someone else's land.

Otherwise, as long as I'm not infringing on your rights, if you don't like something I do you can stick it up...well you know. If I realize I am infringing on you then I'll comply & not be an ass about it. I've been know to make a mistake sometimes & I'm not afraid to admit it when I have.

His does not

I see that & I'm sorry for it. The world may be a better place if everybody didn't have to always "win" at the expense of others. He could have easily apologized & left. He chose not to & chose to make a scene if the cops would have been called.

Now, to many of us, he just looks like a spoiled kid saying "make-me". I don't care how polite he was about it. If I calmly & quietly tell you (generic you) to f*** off does mean that I'm still being polite & respectful? I highly doubt it.

If you told your child to clean their room & they replied (in the meekest mildest voice possible) "no, daddy/mommy, I'm not going to. You can't make me. I have rights". Would you then feel that your child showed the proper amount of respect to you? I sure wouldn't. If you then chose to not punish the child for his disrespect that would make you a terrible parent but it wouldn't make the child any less disrespectful. Any normal mature onlooker from outside would see that as well. Now, if he was seen by another kid getting away with it that kid would probably say "kudos".

nor should it.

Obviously that's HIGHLY subjective.

And if the manager did actually call the cops? Were they going to force him to cover his legally carried gun? How and why?

Nope, they wouldn't have forced him to do anything...

EXCEPT...

Make a choice between the two options the manager gave him originally (cover it or put it in the car) or the third one that is implied by the existence of the other two (pay & leave).

That's it. Those are the only options.

If anyone thinks it's going to turn out any differently once the cops are called then you need to adjust your medications.

Those are the same options he had before the cops would have been called, so why not make it easier & just do the mature, respectful thing & not have to involve the cops in the first place.

Well, I guess they would have forced him to make the choice of leaving if he didn't fairly quickly make another one. I really can't see how it would have ultimately turned out any other way at that point than him paying & leaving or going to jail.

They could only present the OP with the idea of leaving at the request of the manager, which the manager didn't seem willing to pursue without the police there.

Hmmm...& why not?

Do you think it might be possible, even just a little bit, that he might have been just a little intimidated by the obstinate & unreasonable person with the gun?

Stop telling us he should "do the right thing".

He should. Do you disagree with that? Are you saying that he should be doing the wrong thing?

He did the right thing to his own conscience and personal beliefs.

And there's the most important thing isn't it?

Do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want & to hell with the wishes of everyone else around you even the guy who owns the property. Hey, as long as it it's OK to YOU you should be able to do it. I thought only those damn smelly hippies felt that way.

I understand the OP to be younger than I, and I believe he acted maturely and appropriately. He wasn't throwing a tantrum, he asserted his rights respectfully and calmly, without being belligerent, raising his voice, or causing a scene.

So, now saying "I'm not going to do what you ask even though you are well within your authority to do so, so go ahead & call the cops" ISN'T causing a scene? Since when does getting the cops called on you not constitute "a scene"? Is that only when it is a WASP gun-owner?

And we wonder why the youth of today is so screwed up & don't have any concept of respect for others...even the adults can't figure it out.

 

[mkbar80]

And we wonder why the youth of today is so screwed up & don't have any concept of respect for others...even the adults can't figure it out.

This

 

[rmabrey]

I've thought on this for awhile and though it really doesnt matter, I still fail to see how covering up your weapon would put any patrons that saw it at ease. Which leads me to believe no customers complained and the manager was just playing authority figure.

 

[SirRealism]

I've thought on this for awhile and though it really doesnt matter, I still fail to see how covering up your weapon would put any patrons that saw it at ease. Which leads me to believe no customers complained and the manager was just playing authority figure.

Yeah, that was the one thing I found a bit odd. If a customer had truly been afraid of eating near someone with a holstered handgun, how would covering have helped that person?

It makes me think that the customer was offended (as in, cover-that-shirt-with-the-vulgar-expression kind of offended) rather than afraid.

 

[mk2ja]

Oh man… so many posts to which to reply!

Here I go.

 

[mk2ja]

Thanks for the polite reply. I have another question if you'd be so kind. Let's say you go into a restaurant and order your food. The manager approaches you and informs you that the restaurant has a dress code (as some restaurants do) and that you'll need to cover up your Rose Hulman polo with one of their loaner shirt and ties. Would you have handled the situation the same as the BW3 situation? Would you have informed him that you had a right to wear your RH shirt and that you didn't care if it made his other patrons feel better to have you in proper attire? Would you have offered to leave the restaurant rather than put on their shirt and tie? Would you have informed him that he had no right to ask you to "cover it up?" I guess the point I'm driving is whether your reaction to a business agent's request is dependant upon the subject of the inquiry.

I think that if I was in a restaurant that had a fancy dress code and I was not within that dress code, I'd probably just leave rather then be seated in the first place. Maybe it's not how you meant it, but in my mind, I'm picturing myself on a date with a pretty girl (hey, no comments from the peanut gallery!) and we walk in and are informed that jeans/polo is not acceptable. I'd probably just take her elsewhere.

Perhaps on a scenario more in-line with what you might've meant… a couple weekends ago that same ex-corpsman friend and I worked out for a couple hours in the morning, took a break for lunch, and then went back to the gym. Since we knew we were going back to the gym, we didn't take a shower and even left our smelly gym clothes on under some sweatpants and a jacket. We went to Culver's and I felt kinda awkward since everybody else was more well dressed. I'd not been to a Culver's before so I had no idea it would be like that. If somebody'd asked me to leave because I was smelly or underdressed, yeah, I would've left without dispute. ... But I never feel awkward or out of place for carrying. (Though I admit there are times I do CC instead of OC because even I think it would be more appropriate—examples: weddings and funerals.) I am comfortable with my sidearm at all times, but I am not always comfortable in sweaty or dirty clothes in a formal setting.

I think sometimes (and this may not be the case with your situation) that people get emotionally involved when it involves a firearm because they think it's an attack on their rights or that the person is just trying to control them. Without making this into an OC vs. CC debate, if you choose to OC and a business agent asks you to conceal it on their property, I think it's polite and prudent to either leave the premises or comply with the request.

No response necessary to this section. You expressed your view and it is one with which I, in fact, do not necessarily disagree. No rebuttal coming.




This point (below) is excellent, too.

Not all things are as important to me as this. I am not going to argue with a proprietor in some other cases. If I was asked to abide by a dress code, or to spit out my gum, I would. These things are not an important tenant of my value system.

But to me, there are definitely some things that are just too important to compromise on, period. And they are also worth being asked to leave over.

 

[GeneralCarver]

Well good job overall. I think I only disagree with with you when you mentioned that you would leave and not pay for your food. Refusing to pay for your food because you don't like it is one thing. But you guys were already eating and they took the time/cost to make it for you and the problem was unrelated to service or food quality. And no, service isn't the problem here. I suspect you might believe this. So, I will comment on it. That establishment and its manager have the right to specify who can come and go and if you can pack a piece or not on the property.

I would have asked the manager for a to go bag and offered to leave. I would NOT even want to take a chance waiting for the police to show up. The manager didn't ask you to leave, so technically you were not "trespassing". However, I don't trust law enforcement to understand situations they come to handle, especially when its me and a serious issue at hand (such has bearing arms). You might get some butt head cop with an attitude and things could go south for you, if you feel me.

I think its important to keep your answers short and simple. Yes, no. Sounds like you did. We can't change other people's minds on these issues in the moment and its not worth even trying. When carrying guns its important to sallow pride and always de-esculate.

Just my two cents man. Overall you were peaceable and not hostile which is good. Nothing wrong in "standing up" for what you believe in.

 

[mk2ja]

Finity I have to disagree with you on this, what you are talking about is tyranny by the majority.

No, I think that's right. "Rule by majority" differs from "tyranny by majority" only insomuch as the laws set in place violate the rights of mankind. There are bound to be multiple viewpoints on issues facing a society, so the way to determine how a [democratic/republican] society should exist is that those who hold one viewpoint have to convince enough people so that they can form a majority which is able to say, "OK, this is how it's gonna be."

Rule by majority. Or, if the rule is hostile to the rights common to man, said rule is described as tyranny.

He may have been polite, but imo he was still being argumentative.

From the New Oxford American Dictionary (built-in Dictionary app in OS X)…

argumentative |ˌärgyəˈmentətiv|
adjective
1 given to expressing divergent or opposite views: an argumentative child.
2 using or characterized by systematic reasoning: the highest standards of argumentative rigor.

From the Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus (same app)…

argumentative
adjective
the futility of dealing with argumentative people: quarrelsome, disputatious, captious, contrary, cantankerous, contentious; belligerent, bellicose, combative, antagonistic, truculent, pugnacious.

Leads me to this…

cantankerous |kanˈtaNGkərəs|
adjective
bad-tempered, argumentative, and uncooperative: a crusty, cantankerous old man.

And this…

belligerent |bəˈlijərənt|
adjective
hostile and aggressive: a bull-necked, belligerent old man.

I admit that I expressed divergent and opposite views from the manager.
I admit the manager was engaged in an expedition of futility in requesting I cover up or disarm.
I decry any accusation I was bad-tempered.
I decry any accusation I was hostile or aggressive.

I think the fact that I offered to make a concession to the manager speaks to my reasonableness. (Yup, it's a word. Checked in my Dictionary app first.)

because I try to do the right thing even if they didn't ask me to.

And I know this will arise from somebody, so I'll try to pre-empt it. Yes, the manager has the authority to expel me from his restaurant. That is a request I would have honored—and I informed him of this—but he chose not to exercise that authority when I suggested it.

I disagree with the sentence I left. Yes the manager has the authority to expel you, but after being informed of the fact that he didn't wan't you OCing at the time, you should of complied or left on your own.

(I'm not sure which sentence you were speaking about, so I'll answer for both.)

The part about "[doing] the right thing even if they didn't ask me to" was an allusion to a previous set of comments earlier in the thread. I wasn't trying to claim that I always do the right thing even if nobody requests it, and I certainly was not claiming that I did so in the event described in the OP. I may be an idiot, but I'm not stupid.

Obviously, the "should have done this/that" argument is the very basis of all the discussion in this thread. I believe that it was reasonable to counter the manager's request: "I will not be complying with your conditions. Your options now include asking me to leave or leaving me alone to enjoy my meal with my friends." He decided that it was not important enough to ask me to leave.

I think finity has mentioned that perhaps the manager decided it wisest to not ask an armed, "apparently unreasonable", man to leave. I would argue that since I had suggested I would leave if he wanted me to leave, that should really eliminate finity's position. (position |pəˈziSHən| noun. 6. Logic. a proposition laid down or asserted; a tenet or assertion)

I have a family member who doesn't like guns, I don't carry in her house. She has never had to ask me not to, I know her position and while I don't agree with it, I follow it in her house. When she is at my house I carry and she hasn't asked me not to, because while she may not like it, she understand same as I do, my house my rules.

Likewise, when in my own house, I refuse to cover up just to make somebody else less uncomfortable. However, not too long ago I was at my own brother's house (my brother, ex-Army NG, is the one who introduced my dad and me to the idea of carrying for personal protection in the first place) and he requested I cover up for company coming over for dinner. I complied; his house, his rules.

You (generic) may ask, "What's different between that evening at my brother's house and last Friday evening at BWW?"

In my brother's house I am family and a guest. A guest has no rights in somebody else's home (not sure if anybody has said that in this thread yet).

In a restaurant, I am a paying customer. The paying customer does get some say because the establishment which seeks to earn money from the potential customer must, by the principles of economics, provide a service, experience, product, or any combination thereof by which to make the customer willing to pay said establishment, and if the customer is unsatisfied by that service, experience, product, a combination thereof, or the prospect of receiving the same, the customer, on "threat" (Do NOT interpret "threat" as "do this, or I'm not paying;" if you do not understand this difference, I can explain in a separate post.) of not giving money to the establishment, can exact change to make it worth purchasing. This concept is the very basis of a competitive market economy.

Would I comply? No. But after making my objection known, if they still insisted, I would leave. It's their house, their rules. I have two choices, either follow their rules or willingly remove myself from their premesise.

A third option exists, though you may be disinclined to consider it among your own options in that scenario. You can also try to get what you, as a customer, want out of your experience. I am sure there are other scenarios wherein you would not discard that option, such as when negotiating the price of some good you'd like to purchase, such as a car or a gun. The difference here is that I was negotiating the service/experience I was going to receive for the money rather than the money I would pay for the good.

I'll tell ya this, too—my dad told me long ago I'd make a good lawyer because I never stop trying to get what I want and I argue like all get-out. I think I've reinforced that to everybody, eh?

Anything else is being an ass.

He may have been acting lawfully and peacefully, but he was not acting graciously. Being gracious would have meant after being asked the second time to remove himself without being told to.

Personal prerogative. "Pick your battles" would probably be the saying. Again, you may not have been interested in defending your choice to OC for dinner, but there ARE times when you WOULD negotiate with somebody who wants something different than you want.

 

[bglaze]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/members/mk2ja.htmlmk2ja,

For an Unreasonable Argumentative Ass, you're makin' some damn good points! Tried to rep you again, but it's makin' me spread the love before I can.

 

[mk2ja]

I'm glad you used the "little r" right.

Hey, for the sake of this surprisingly cordial discussion, would you mind defining for me what you mean when you refer to little 'r' and big 'R' rights? Maybe it is something you frequently use in your posts, but I'm not altogether clear on your distinction. I've been wondering it basically every time you mentioned it in this thread.

'Preciate it!

 

[IndyBeerman]

mk2ja showed the manager disrespect by continuing to disregard the managers reasonable request.

Come on finity, get off of this disrespect .

In no way was Mk2ja disrespectful to him.

I've been on this site for two years and it's like this that wants me to put about 10% of the membership here on my ignore list.

So using your far fetched unfathomable reasoning, the next time a server comes to your table and persistently insists several times that you buy the daily special and you "politely" refuse, stop and think a bit about you being disrespectful to the servers wants and needs in you purchasing that daily special because he/she "wants" you to.


I'm outta here, I'm going to go to bed and get away from some of this before I blow a gasket.

 

[mk2ja]

As a hypothetical business owner, my customers have no rights in my business. Other than to decide to buy or not. They have no right to be there if I choose for them not to be.

I also disagree with passing laws for "the good of society" if they effect my private property, which is what a business is. I'm hoping to open up a small brewery/restaurant in a couple of years. I'm not going to discriminate against anyone there, because I will want as many customers as I can. More customers, more money.

I despise the smoking ban Fort Wayne enacted because it restricts the right ("Right"? Finity, you gotta help me out here, man!) of the property owner to decide what he wants to allow on his own property. The fact that it is open to members of the public does not change that he is (well, *should be*, but no longer is in Fort Wayne) allowed to dictate policy on his property.

If somebody wants to smoke at McDonald's but McDonald's has decided to ban it, the owner has the right to say, "Hey, I don't allow smoking, so either put it out or take it outside."

And on the flip side, what Fort Wayne's council did not understand, is that if an owner wants to allow smoking, that is just as much his right as the right of McDonald's' owner to ban it.

Can you tell me why any person has a right to come into a business I own? It is my property, same as my home.

I agree: No right to enter. If there was a right to enter, there would be no "closing time." The owner would not be able to say, "Hey! You all HAVE to leave whether you want to or not."

 

[Goodcat]

I'm going back and forth on posts... I think I'll delete everything and just say...

 

[mk2ja]

I am thankful that I don't have any friends that feel that they need to shove a gun into every social interaction they make during while they are out and about in public. What a treat it must be to have something as simple as a meal turn into a political firestorm and multi-page internet thread. I suppose I live a boring life.

You might've missed it earlier posts, but my sidearm was so un-obvious that even one of my fellow diners didn't know I had it.

Moreover, we were seated at a table, and arranged in such a way, that drastically—drastically!—limited the number of people who could see my sidearm.

It was mentioned by another poster that BWW is typically dimly lit, and that was the case on that night.

Here's more info, previously unmentioned. I was carrying a black handgun in a black holster. My shirt was dark grey. I was sitting with my chair at an angle so that my heavy hip was closer to the table.

All these things taken together demonstrate that I was doing nothing to draw attention to myself or my sidearm.

A treat, indeed. Who initiated the contact between myself and the manager? Not I. No sir, I didn't out to "shove a gun into every social interaction" I made in public that night, nor did I hope to generate a political firestorm.

If I'd had my own way, this past weekend would've been as uneventful as the previous weekend's trip to the BWW over by the Coventry 13 theater when it was just the ex-corpsman and I.

I just wanted to be left alone with my friends and my food, doing nothing to disturb the peace.

On that same line of thinking if we live with honor and respect to others why should the request even have been made in the first place?

Let me provide a slightly modified answer to that from what finity said. See below; changes in red.

Just because you respect others doesn't mean you have to be a door mat and accept every request they make.

Exactly. Well "said", finity!

The manager wasn't showing direspect for asking politely that the gun be covered.

Putting myself in the manager's shoes, I understand why he decided to make an attempt at appeasing the customers who complained. Once there is a complaint from one customer about another, you're gonna have to talk to at least one of them and possibly make one so upset that they don't return. We know how it played out this time, but…

A pro-gun manager might very well have decided instead to visit the tables of the complaining customers to explain that the man with the gun was not being offensive, abusive, suspicious, disruptive, or otherwise behaving or appearing in a way to cause alarm or discomfort. They may very well have replied to that information with, "Well, either tell him to take that gun outside or we're leaving and not paying!"

mk2ja showed the manager disrespect by continuing to disregard the managers reasonable request.

I tried to only disregard it once, but he kept asking over and over and over!

 

[mk2ja]

It sounds like the manager was bullied into not pushing the situation any further. Was that a character flaw on the manager's part for not pushing HIS REAL Rights & requesting that the OP leave? Sure, but that doesn't make what the OP did respectful in any way at all. Just because I don't forcefully exert my Rights doesn't mean it makes it OK or legal for you to ignore them.

I don't think there was any education going on except the one that the manager got that showed that gun-owners are obstinate & bull-headed & don't respect anyone's rights but their own.

I did get to educate the friend of my friend about several issues as a result of the events which transpired. Perhaps the manager didn't learn anything other than "that kid with the gun was really stubborn and unreasonable", but my fellow patron learned some aspects of carrying, rights, and law.

You want to educate them. Try having a civil discussion with them:

"sorry, I didn't realize that you didn't allow guns in your restaurant. I wasn't doing anything illegal by carrying my gun, but if that's the way you feel then I'd like to get my food boxed up & I'll gladly leave. I think you should know, though, that I won't be coming back, armed or not. I also know a lot of gun-owners feel the same way that I do & will not frequent a business that doesn't allow us to carry. You may want to rethink your policy or suffer the possible loss of income that the policy entails. Thanks." Pay, leave & don't come back. No reason to make a scene or get the cops called - which mk2ja was willing to have happen before he complied with the managers requests.

I remind you that it has been established in this thread that the reason I've never seen a sign on the door restricting the carry of firearms is that there are no signs to that effect at the Fort Wayne BWW restaurants. I have carried there on multiple occasions, as well as other locations, without issue. The only problem arose this time because some customer was uncomfortable at the sight of a firearm (or, for all we know, just wanted to cause some problems for me even if he wasn't uncomfortable).

Also, I remind you that I did not create a scene. The manager initiated the confrontation, made his request, and I provided my answer. I provided an alternative resolution, but it was declined. Any scene caused was the result of the manager to accept that he could not compel me to cover or disarm for the duration of my visit.

What exactly did he think would happen differently if the manager did ACTUALLY CALL the cops? He was either going to cover it up or leave AND he was still going to have to pay for his food.

Whoa, there!

Even if the cops showed up, I would not have covered up or disarmed. The cops are unable to compel a citizen to disarm or carry in a concealed manner in any location unless local, state, or federal law specifies that that location is "gun free" or "CC only". The cops do not have the authority to enforce the rules of a particular private property. By way of example, the cops could no more require me to cover up or disarm at BWW than they could require me to take off my clothes at a nudist colony. In that situation, if I didn't want to undress, the colony's staff would ask me to leave, and if for some reason I refused, THEN the cops would be able to take action.

… just make the choice before all the drama of the cops having to show up? Don't they have btter things to be doing with their time than to be baby-sitting a person who is throwing a "make-me" tantrum?

Indeed. Perhaps the manager shouldn't have thrown a tantrum.


As long as he didn't tell me to leave his restaurant, there's nothing the cops could do (legally, though they would have still tried to "resolve the issue," no doubt).

"OK, we're here. Where's the guy causing trouble?"
"Over there. Be careful! He has a gun!"
"He looks pretty calm. What's he doing to cause problems?"
"He wouldn't take his gun outside or hide it under his shirt!"
"Did you tell him to leave? He doesn't look like he's doing anything illegal or dangerous."
"Well, uh, no. I don't want him to leave. He offered, but I said I wanted him to stay."
"Why the heck did you call us, then?!"


Yeah, yeah, yeah... I doubt it would've gone down that way, too.

Why not just be a mature (gun-owning) person & just make the choice …

Does a demonstration of understanding of rights and economics not betray a level of maturity not found in a child? A youngling unsure of his ability to decide for himself how he wants to carry and unaware of his ability to carry on in a safe, non-threatening manner without yielding to silly requests would have given in, yet my actions are those of a person who has gained a more mature understanding of what can and cannot be done.