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

[bglaze]

Not a problem, this thread is everywhere!

You got that right! =)

 

[Hammerhead]

I almost agree with all of your post except:

He has no Constitutional rights on anothers private property, including a business. Whether you're speaking of US or IN, Constitutional Rights don't apply on someone else's property.

Decorum suggests that he should have been the bigger person & just left when the manager gave him two options that he didn't care to aquiesce to.

I can't see why so many otherwise responsible adults can't seem to understand that concept.

WHY potentially get the police involved in a matter that should have easily been settled by mature adults acting in a civil & responsible manner? Why do people have the idea that it's OK to do as they want at the expense of others? Again, I say, THAT is the problem with the world today.

Insomuch as the Constitution is binding to the Federal Government in some areas (not getting into the debate over their treatment of it), you may be right that the Constitution does not allow for some protections on private property. However, while the 1A does say that "Congress shall make no law..." the 2A does not have such a qualifier. Shall not be infringed, not shall not be infringed, unless you're not on your own property. Article 32 of the Indiana Constitution also lacks any qualifier. Indiana Code also does not restrict the legal carry outside of those places specifically enumerated and codified in its text. It DOES allow for the carry of a weapon without a LTCH on private property with the permission of the property owner.

A Right is a Right, not because it's put onto paper, simply because it's been given to all man, not by man, but by the virtue of existence.

You speak of decorum being key, and how he should have been the bigger person, leaving before the threat of police intervention. You speak of being mature and acting civilly, and the downfall of modern society due to a lack of respect or an entitlement attitude.

Again, this is your moral compass pointing you to this. The OP seemingly does not have this direction, nor a social obligation to do so.

I, also, disagree that civility, respect and decorum are not always the best answer. Sometimes, you have to make waves. Sometimes you have to kick a little ass. Sometimes, you have to tell someone to go do something anatomically impossible. Sometimes, you have to say no, and mean it.

I also believe that this feel good, show your emotions, softening of our country is leading to its downfall. Especially when it comes to carrying a weapon.

Stand up, pull your boots on, strap your nads back on, slap your shootin' iron onto your belt, and be prepared to lay a beat down on some jack wagon attempting to do you wrong. Don't fraking roll over. You don't have a right to not be offended if you see something you don't like (generic you). I do have the right to defend me and mine, and you and yours if it comes down to it, especially if you're not ready, willing and able.

*The previous paragraph is not to misconstrued as a personal attack on anyone specifically. I'm not addressing this directly at Finity, or any other member or poster here on INGO. It's a general statement of my personal opinion on the wussification of our country. Void where prohibited, no refunds, no exchanges. Not valid in the State of Denial. Vehicles will be towed at owners expense.

 

[finity]

OK, I guess there can be more to say. There can ALWAYS be more to say.

Insomuch as the Constitution is binding to the Federal Government in some areas (not getting into the debate over their treatment of it), you may be right that the Constitution does not allow for some protections on private property. However, while the 1A does say that "Congress shall make no law..." the 2A does not have such a qualifier. Shall not be infringed, not shall not be infringed, unless you're not on your own property. Article 32 of the Indiana Constitution also lacks any qualifier.

So, which protections does it not allow?

Only the ones that have a qualifier?

Why would the Founders allow private citizens to restrict 1A Rights but not allow any others be restricted?

I doubt ANY legal scholar (progressive or conservative) would put forth that the Constitution is binding on any private citizen.

The Constitution does not "allow for" any protections. It's a limitation on the GOVERNMENT to act in a certain way.

Indiana Code also does not restrict the legal carry outside of those places specifically enumerated and codified in its text. It DOES allow for the carry of a weapon without a LTCH on private property with the permission of the property owner.

Notice the bolded part.

A Right is a Right, not because it's put onto paper, simply because it's been given to all man, not by man, but by the virtue of existence.

Very true but you are forgetting the corollary:

Your Rights stop where others Rights begin.

Since all "men" have Rights & no one's Right is more important than another's there is a natural restriction on those Rights.

You can't deny that the owner has the Right to control his own property. It's not in the Constitution but it's one of those "unenumerated" ones we always hear tell of. Maybe the Founders thought it such a BASIC & obvious Right that they didn't even think they needed to put it in there.

Since all Rights of all people are equal then wouldn't carrying a firearm on someone else's property against their wishes be infringinging on their Right to control their own property?

That's why I say you have no Rights on someone else's property. Your Rights stop where their Right to control their property begin. The only Rights you have are the ones the owner allows you to keep. If you don't like it you always have the Right to leave.

You speak of being mature and acting civilly, and the downfall of modern society due to a lack of respect or an entitlement attitude.

Why, yes. Yes I do.

Do you not see this as reasonable?

Again, this is your moral compass pointing you to this. The OP seemingly does not have this direction, nor a social obligation to do so.

And I would posit that we are worse off for it.

I, also, disagree that civility, respect and decorum are not always the best answer. Sometimes, you have to make waves. Sometimes you have to kick a little ass. Sometimes, you have to tell someone to go do something anatomically impossible. Sometimes, you have to say no, and mean it.

I agree with all that...

Until you start infringing on the Rights of others. Then you just have to sit down and shut up or leave.

I also believe that this feel good, show your emotions, softening of our country is leading to its downfall. Especially when it comes to carrying a weapon.

Stand up, pull your boots on, strap your nads back on, slap your shootin' iron onto your belt, and be prepared to lay a beat down on some jack wagon attempting to do you wrong.

Define "wrong".

Are you "wronged" when a person excercises their Right to control their own property?

Are you trying to say that Rights are "inalienable" only to the extent that they can be taken away by the force of others? If so then they are not much of a Right.

[/quote]Don't fraking roll over. You don't have a right to not be offended if you see something you don't like (generic you).[/quote]

I already said I agree with that but YOU don't have the right to be offended for someone else exercising their Right to control their own property, either.

 

[Expat]

Property rights? What are those? State and local governments have the right to dictate whether I smoke or allow others to smoke on my property. State and local governments have the right to steal land from one private citizen and give it to another private citizen. Sorry for the threadjack...

 

[tyrajam]

Well that took a while to read through 36 pages of posts! There have sure been a lot of good arguments made here, on both sides of the issue. For me, it boils down to the fact that just because I have the "right" to do something doesn't make it right. When we are in the public eye, we end up making an impression on people, either good or bad. Look at this through the other customers eyes, or the other employees eyes. Did they see a person who was thoughtful of others? Or did they see someone who cared more about standing on his right to do exactly as he pleased? I have run into this situation with hunting and with trapping also. Both times I was legally in the right. I had permission to set my traps where they were, but the mother who's kids found them and worried about her children stepping on them ended up having a good opinion of trappers. I apologized (even though I had done nothing wrong), explained that a #1 1/2 foothold trap could not possibly harm a child's foot, and promised to pull them that day, which I did. I was in the right; I could have politely refused to move them, and she would have seen trappers as selfish jerks who don't care about kids. Instead, I'd like to think I left the impression of a person who cares more about her peace of mind than about what I have to do. I also used to duck hunt on the White River in Hamilton County. It got to where I had somebody coming down to the water almost every time I went out, yelling about me murdering ducks, shooting up the property, etc. I quit several years ago, not because I had to,but because I realized that I was helping to form their opinions of hunters-and they were not good.
There is a big difference between a person who lets someone walk all over them and take away their rights, versus a person who chooses not to exercise their rights at a given time to be considerate to others. As a guy, I think my ego gets in the way sometimes, and I bristle a little bit when someone asks me to do something that I don't have to do; I think most guys get their hackles raised over this. But it's the confident man who knows he's doesn't have to do something, but smiles and does it anyway to be kind. I remember as a teenager arguing with my mom over a confederate flag t-shirt. I gave her the reasons I wore it and I was 100% right and I wasn't about to back down. My mom smiled and told me that just because I could wear it didn't mean I should wear it. What did it say about me that I cared more about being right than being kind. I hate arguing with moms; even when you're right you lose!

That is what this whole argument boils down to for me. When I'm carrying, hunting, or wearing a shirt from the NRA or INGO, I'm an ambassador. I wouldn't want people to see me as the guy who won't because he doesn't have to. I want them to see me as the guy who is gracious and courteous enough that he does, with a smile, because he's asked. And maybe those people will smile a little bit too the next time they think of what a "gun owner" is.

 

[bglaze]

I wouldn't want people to see me as the guy who won't because he doesn't have to. I want them to see me as the guy who is gracious and courteous...

I believe I know how the OP responded due to his reputation, and I would describe it as gracious and courteous.

The request to cover up was illogical and unreasonable. Asking you to remove a trap is one thing--you are taking the trap completely out of the equation, and the mother no longer has to fear for her child's well-being. A customer requesting that another patron "cover up" his weapon is like that same mother asking you to make sure your traps are camouflaged next time, so that she and her kids don't have to see them. The traps are still there, and the assumed danger still lingers, it just isn't visible.

The OP said that he would leave peacefully if his actions were enough of a disruption to warrant it. The manager obviously didn't think they were.

A manager can ask ANYTHING of you. If they asked a Muslim woman to remove her Hijab, because it was making some customers nervous, she would probably refuse. Yes, the manager's property rights trump her right to religion, but his authority lies in being able to eject her from the property. Also, the request to remove a head-garment is just as ridiculous as the request to "cover up."

It isn't wrong to decline a request if the request is something that isn't up for compromise. You are doing right by kindly letting them know why you must refuse and also by acknowledge their authority and offering to leave peacefully if asked.

 

[Lead Head]

Obviously you are anti OC, but you miss the point that it is LEGAL to do so, and many carry that way not to "cause trouble" but because that is the way they CHOOSE to carry. Be it comfort, be it access, whatever the reason.

You disparaging portrayal of OCers as "trouble makers" with "something to prove" just insulted half the members of this Forum. I would suggest thinking a little better before you speak.

As for


So you are able to discern when and where one "needs" to carry? Maybe the Police should hire you for your psychic ability to know when a citizen is "safe" and when they are not.

First off, I've never been anti-carry or anti-gun or anti-weapon. Gun and weapon ownership, including legal and responsible concealed carry is not new to me. Quite the contrary. It's a sit down restaurant with friends, not some dive bar or jacked up meat market at 2am. Concealed carry works for most and if OC becomes the norm out of necessity, maybe it's time to go commando. No, not the undies thing.

Also, offending people who ask for review of their situation in a "public forum" should be expected. You ask, we speak, nothing more. You don't get to choose how others reply unless this is a dictatorship. (I must of landed in Libya) Damn and I thought this was a good website to roost at for a long while.

If someone invites criticism for their actions and then whines about how others respond, it only exposes a chink in their armor.

Regardless, I joined INGO because it appeared as if others from Indiana were intelligent and also had a sense of humor about it all. It was never my intention to offend but sometimes the truth has that result. I am man enough to apologize when warranted but will never apologize for speaking the truth. Something also in short supply.

Remember, you asked in a PUBLIC FORUM so why you have a rebuttal is not even logical. Throw it all in the brain blender and move on. Next time, don't ask if you don't want to hear free speech. This too is a yet another right and one that is fading fast.

Gun owners whether they chose to carry or not have a tremendous responsibility and it is a right, not a privilege. Damn, there's that "right" word again. Confusing this right thing with privilege increases the risk of losing what many people around the world can only dream of.

Give 'em a reason to take 'em away and they will. The constitution is being dismantled right under our noses and the Right to Bear Arms may be what makes us different from other countries. My god man, what a heavy level of responsibility this is.

Be well......I'm on your side !

 

[ATM]

...if OC becomes the norm out of necessity, maybe it's time to go commando.

WOO HOO!

No, not the undies thing.

Oh man!

...I joined INGO because it appeared as if others from Indiana were intelligent and also had a sense of humor about it all.

Depends on the day. Sometimes we have "serious Tuesdays" and things get... well... serious.

...Give 'em a reason to take 'em away and they will.

If merely seeing them is a reason to take them away, I'm pretty sure they were coming for them anyway. Molon Labe.

...Be well......I'm on your side !

Good to know.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It DOES allow for the carry of a weapon without a LTCH on private property with the permission of the property owner.

Cite please, the only thing I know of in IC that allows carry of a handgun on private property that is not your own, with permission of the owner is if it's your fixed place of business.

I believe I know how the OP responded due to his reputation, and I would describe it as gracious and courteous.

I've been put in the situation of the OP once, it was at my local credit union. The manager noticed I was carrying after I was finished and was heading towards the door, he politely got my attention and asked me to come back. He said and this is paraphrasing, I noticed you are carrying a handgun, and I started to butt in that I had a LTCH, and he cut me off and said I know that it is legal, and is your right to do so and I have no problem with you carrying. But our tellers are trained per upper management orders to hit the panic button at the first sight of guns, if you would please just cover it up when you come in I would appreciate it. There was a bit more back and forth but that is the gist of it, he never asked me not to carry it into the credit union, just that I cover it up. I do. I may be printing badly but it's "covered", their house their rules.

 

[jsharmon7]

It DOES allow for the carry of a weapon without a LTCH on private property with the permission of the property owner.

Cite please, the only thing I know of in IC that allows carry of a handgun on private property that is not your own, with permission of the owner is if it's your fixed place of business.

"a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession."

 

[finity]

Property rights? What are those? State and local governments have the right to dictate whether I smoke or allow others to smoke on my property. State and local governments have the right to steal land from one private citizen and give it to another private citizen. Sorry for the threadjack...

Agreed.

Smoking bans are an obvious infringement on property rights.

 

[bglaze]

their house their rules.

I don't disagree with you. If they have a policy like this and inform you in advance (he told you as you were leaving, but he was letting you know for future visits) then he has made a reasonable request. However, though it's true that it is their house, their rules. It is also my money, and my choice where to do business.

I posted in a different thread about me canceling my accounts with Carolina First bank over their new "No Guns" policy. My situation with them was slightly different in that Open Carry isn't legal in any form in South Carolina. So, I had been CCing in there for the years I had been doing business with them. However, one day they put up a "No Guns" sign, and I walked in and closed my accounts with them the instant I saw the sign.

Here in Indiana I bank with Chase, and I have Open Carried into my branch a number of times now, and not a word has been said to me about it. So, they get a thumbs up from me in this area. And yes, I probably would cancel my accounts with a bank who wouldn't allow me to OC. I wouldn't be mean about it, or angry at the manager for a policy that he cannot change. However, since there are plenty of good banks that don't have policies like this, one of them will get my business. That simple.

I am not saying that anyone here is wrong if they choose to continue doing business with a company who has rules against Open Carry for whatever reason. I'm really not! However, a person who says that I'm an ass because I am not willing to compromise in this area is a bit out of line. That person and I have different values. I am not impolite in how I deal with these companies; I just refuse to give them any more of my money. Many on here disagree with me; so be it. I am not trying to convert anyone into an unabashed Open Carrier. In fact, being a dedicated Open Carrier takes a very specific type of person, and that type of person isn't better than those unwilling to OC. They are just different. And a person has to discover for themselves if they want to be an Open Carrier or not.

I do think the Open Carry bashing that has taken place on these forums has helped to create more Open Carriers (I know of at least one). So, by all means, let the bashers continue the i'm-holier-than-thou-because-i-choose-to-CC-for-tactical-advantage approach. (This is not directed at those genuinely concerned with the tactical advantage of the element of surprise, because I believe there is one. It is directed at those who act like they are above OCers and are better citizens because of their choice.)

I think that this has been a productive thread. The same arguments are being recycled for sure, but at least it's being discussed from many angles.

 

[bglaze]

Agreed.

Smoking bans are an obvious infringement on property rights.

Holy! I agree with finity!

 

[hoosiersasquatch]

At BUFFALO WILD WINGS we have tasty wings +
[/color]

So I guess both of you are saying is pretty much like admitting that you don't like Obama's policies but you'll be voting for him again in the next election because he seems like a nice enough fellow?

I wont be voting for Obama or spending my money at BWW, why would anyone give their money to establishments that do not support the second amendment. When my wife and I see a sign like this, we go somewhere else to spend our hard earned money. Do you think criminals are going to pay attention?

 

[bglaze]

I wont be voting for Obama or spending my money at BWW, why would anyone give their money to establishments that do not support the second amendment. When my wife and I see a sign like this, we go somewhere else to spend our hard earned money. Do you think criminals are going to pay attention?

I agree with you. I usually see these, turn around, and leave. Except at Simon properties; I just ignore their rules and keep on CCing.

Oh, and I will not be voting for Obama either.

 

[ATM]

...why would anyone give their money to establishments that do not support the second amendment.

As noted throughout this thread, there are many BWWs that don't infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

I understand that there are some that do, but I have never been to one of those establishments nor do I plan to give them any of my money.

 

[finity]

Holy! I agree with finity!

 

[Hammerhead]

My apologies. I was being optimistic on SB 506 which would make it legal to carry on someone else's property with their permission without a LTCH. Of course people under 18 can, per IC 35-47-10, carry with permission.

On a positive note, SB 506 seems to be on track to becoming law.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes.

You are in the wrong.

You don't have any rights to free speech while on someone else's private property.

What, you thought I was going to agree with you because you played the "O"-card?



Also, to answer the question about the PDA by gay men:

If the owner of the establishment asks you to stop then I don't see how you have any "right" to continue. The same would be true of PDA by two heterosexuals, also.

Are you really trying to say that if my wife & I decided to engage in some very heavy petting that it would be OK to just ignore the request by the manager to stop? Are you saying that if I did ignore them & continued then others wouldn't think more poorly of ME?

Again, did you think I would say differently because you played the gay-card?



It's true that they don't have the ability to "make" you do anything other than leave but just because the owner didn't take that ultimate step doesn't mean that you still wouldn't be an ass for continuing to act in opposiion to the PRIVATE property owners wishes.

The manager didn't handle it poorly, Mk2ja did. I think the manager handled it professionally. And Mk2ja acted like an ass...

Mk2ja, If you think differently then why don't I just come in to your house & proclaim loudly & repeatedly that Christianity is the cause of all the worlds ills & that anybody who follows it should be thrown in the loony bin? I mean, don't I have the right to freedom of religion & free speech, even in YOUR house?

If you asked me to stop & I refused wouldn't you think I was being an ass if I made you ask me to leave before I complied?

+100000000

and if OP had been asked to leave and failed to pay, that would be theft.

One's gun rights end at the front door of private property.

 

[bglaze]

...if OP had been asked to leave and failed to pay, that would be theft

That one is definitely still up for discussion. If the customer had not finished eating and as far as he knew was doing nothing wrong (OC is not illegal, and there were NO signs posted) then being asked to leave early (before he finished his meal and experience) would be them refusing to serve him. He did not break a posted rule; the manager responded to a complaining customer and made up a rule on the spot.

Even in a restaurant where dress codes are required, I would want notice when I enter, BEFORE I order, that I was dressed inappropriately for their liking. If I am wearing a polo and jeans, and the waiter allows me to order and serves me food, and then the manager waits until I have already taken a few bites before coming to me and saying, "I'm sorry sir, but you are not dressed appropriately for this establishment. We are going to have to ask you to leave." I will leave, but they've bought themselves a meal.