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

[wolfts01]

I would be up for going to an OC meet at BWW if one gets organized. I usually go to the one off of 37 by Wal-Mart. I'm not sure what their policy is; I've never noticed. It would give me an excuse to get another holster.

We just need one of you "OC Fanatics" to organize the event for us timid CC folk.

 

[theweakerbrother]

At one point, he did ask me directly if I had a permit, and I assured him that I did.

Do you have a permit?

 

[mk2ja]

Do you have a permit?

Well, of course I wasn't going to make an issue of his nomenclature at the time. Haha. I just said answered in the affirmative when he asked that.

 

[btgarner0]

http://www.opencarry.org/in.htmlhttp://www.opencarry.org/in.html

If it is not posted at the front door, I believe you have the right to refuse.
I personalty stand up and applaud you on the way you handled it

 

[ljadayton]

I give a big to the Op. Way to keep a cool head under pressure.

But the thing that gets me about the OC issues we here members talk about on here, is take the OP for starters Do the public really not understand that he was finger printed had a background check, and was found fit by the state of indiana to be able to purchase and leagaly carry that gun

This would require the sheep, I mean customers, to KNOW or assume he was legally allowed to have the gun. Criminals seldom have a LTCH but they also don't always look like a criminal. The general public, when seeing a "man with a gun" will generally automatically assume he's a criminal.

 

[femurphy77]

Actually, the part I underlined is incorrect. "If not b then not a" is known as the contrapositive of "if a then b" and is used in mathematics to prove statements that cannot be proven directly. These two statements are equivalent. I would be 100% correct in saying that if I get the food AND atmosphere (a), then I will pay (b). But if I do not get the food AND atmosphere (~a), then I will not pay (~b).
You can't get much better in court than mathematically proving that you are right.

Also, if food was the only consideration then movie theaters, music concerts, dance clubs, etc could all ask you to leave their property before you get entertained without giving you you're money back. The experience is a major part of the "contract" that BWW would be violating by kicking you out. With all the TV's and such, BWW is most certainly selling an experience as well as food.

Stop it!!! You're making my head spin!





Of course it might have been those Land Sharks last night too!!!

 

[Cemetery-man]

However, I don't let that single part of my life dictate every other part of my life. Just because there are some that don't believe or like the fact the individuals carry guns, it doesn't mean I cut them out of my life. My sister-in-law, one of my brothers, a few people I work with don't like guns. I still respect them, work with them, try to educate them, and continue to have a relationship with them.

BW3 serves food. They are not a gun store. They are not a sporting goods store. The serve food and their opinion on gun ownership doesn't mean poo to me. I do, however, like their food, their beer, and their large screen TVs. I don't look at everybody and everything in my life through 2A lenses. I determine to enjoy my life and live it as I see fit. Not as BW3 sees it or, forgive, even as you see it.

+1. Well said.

 

[Mr.Strato]

WolfsO1...Actually, I got it said like I wanted, wasn't talking Math, sorry it went over your head.

 

[mainjet]

I see we have the informed line over there, and the misinformed line right here.

In Indiana the "No Firearms" signs have no teeth to them, now if you are informed to leave after your firearm is seen and do not, then by law you are trespassing.

Trespassing will not get you labeled as a "Proper person" and this is in no way related to Bill b's thread about what went on in St. Johns, Indiana.

Well, I may be misinformed on this that I can admit...However the term "proper person" to me seems very wide open and can easily be interpreted in many ways. So I would not be so sure that in a situation like this that you will come out the winner in every case.

Add a cop that doesn't like you and what your doing when he shows up and the legal circus is just getting started. Yes, you may win when it's all said and done but I think that many people get a skewed idea of ho the legal system will work. You think your just going to be able to get up there and tell your story. Well, it doesn't really work that way.

The OP open carried in the BWW - Fine. There was no sign as has been discussed here - Fine. I was probably wrong about the "teeth" that a sign have - I admit.

BUT the reason I compare the St. John case is becuase I also believe that nothing was done wrong in that case. YET, Bill still had his license taken and still was arrested, taken to court and had a ISP hearing on his license. I believe he will ultimately prevail because I believe he was in the right just as I do the OP here. But when it's all done Bill will be some thousands lighter.

My argument and comparison comes from that fact that sometimes you get to go through the system even when your right. I think that the OP did a good job of standing up to his right to his choice of carry. I for one would be willing to fight to to his last penny for his right to stay in their restaurant OCing after the manager asked him to cover it.

Now let's just say there was a sign. Let's say you carry in anyway and the manager calls the police after asking you to cover it and you refuse. Now the Police get there and the manager tells the police that several customers have complained that they were scared and left the restaurant because of that. YOUR RIGHT BUT you may get removed form the resturant and you may get reported to the ISP as not be a "proper person" because the police did not like how you were asked to cover it on private property and you refused, people were scared and left the establishment.

In the end you will. hopefully, win. Your ISP hearing will go your way and your lawyer will get you off. You will be out some doe and you will have a great story to post here. We will all say that this is complete BS and we are behind you 100 percent while we all sit on the edge of our seats waiting for the next couple months while you wait to here about the next continuance of your case. Then after about a year you will hopefully be able to get your license back. ALL because you were falsly accused of not being a "proper person".

In my opinion the term "Proper person" is a very wide open term that is intentionally put in there that way. Why? So that they can take your license if they want to for all sorts of reasons that may not be in the IC.

So when you say that this sort of case has nothing to do with the St. John case, I disagree.

Oh and that is the last I will say on this because I feel that I am hijacking the thread. There was not sign so I will not argue that anymore.

 

[jbombelli]

IC 35-47-1-7
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44-3-3 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-41-1-6.3), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application; or
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5; P.L.49-2005, SEC.1; P.L.118-2007, SEC.34.


*************************

This is pretty straightforward, and not wide open at all. I don't see anything in there about trespassing, or carrying a firearm in violation of someone's no-guns signage, or refusing to leave when asked. It would be a big, big stretch to conclude from this sort of activity someone is prone to violence or instability. And I'd be really curious to see the "documented evidence" they would be required to produce.


You aren't going to lose "proper person" status for refusing to stop doing something legal, no matter who asks you. If they ask you to leave, you have to leave. But you don't have to cover your gun if you don't want to. Period. Except (technically) in Speedway.

 

[mainjet]

IC 35-47-1-7
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44-3-3 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-41-1-6.3), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application; or
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5; P.L.49-2005, SEC.1; P.L.118-2007, SEC.34.


*************************

This is pretty straightforward, and not wide open at all. I don't see anything in there about trespassing, or carrying a firearm in violation of someone's no-guns signage, or refusing to leave when asked. It would be a big, big stretch to conclude from this sort of activity someone is prone to violence or instability. And I'd be really curious to see the "documented evidence" they would be required to produce.


You aren't going to lose "proper person" status for refusing to stop doing something legal, no matter who asks you. If they ask you to leave, you have to leave. But you don't have to cover your gun if you don't want to. Period. Except (technically) in Speedway.

You are good! Nice job. I will admit I am 100 percent wrong on this one

 

[bglaze]

True.

More words:

The managers choice to ask him to cover it up.




Ditto...

What if I was in a restaurant wearing a pro-Obama t-shirt, the kind with the Warhol-esque Obama painting and 'Hope' written across the bottom. And let's say the restaurant happened to be known for its pro-conservative policies and its anti-Obama political agenda.

A manager of said restaurant approaches me and hands me large apron from the kitchen and asks that I wear it to cover up my t-shirt for the remainder of my visit. He states that my pro-Obama shirt is offensive to some of the other patrons.

I tell him, 'No sir, I love Obama, and it is my right to wear this t-shirt if I wish. However, if you ask me to leave, I will honor your request and leave.'

Am I, the t-shirt wearer, in the wrong for not complying with the property owner's wishes? Or am I just standing up for my right to free speech?

disclaimer: this is a purely hypothetical situation, especially the part about me wearing an Obama t-shirt!

 

[Bill of Rights]

What if I was in a restaurant wearing a pro-Obama t-shirt, the kind with the Warhol-esque Obama painting and 'Hope' written across the bottom. And let's say the restaurant happened to be known for its pro-conservative policies and its anti-Obama political agenda.

A manager of said restaurant approaches me and hands me large apron from the kitchen and asks that I wear it to cover up my t-shirt for the remainder of my visit. He states that my pro-Obama shirt is offensive to some of the other patrons.

I tell him, 'No sir, I love Obama, and it is my right to wear this t-shirt if I wish. However, if you ask me to leave, I will honor your request and leave.'

Am I, the t-shirt wearer, in the wrong for not complying with the property owner's wishes? Or am I just standing up for my right to free speech?

disclaimer: this is a purely hypothetical situation, especially the part about me wearing an Obama t-shirt!

Your right of free speech does not mean there will not be consequences from a private party for that speech. It only means that you cannot be punished by application or action of law for the act of speaking.

Consider that if you had a McDonald's shirt on and went into a Burger King, then stood up halfway through your meal loudly extolling McDonald's food quality, you would be breaking no law until you were told to leave and refused. (although you might perhaps be involuntarily detained in a psychiatric facility... )

And no, not -1 Burger King.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Rookie]

+1 McDonalds?

 

[bglaze]

Your right of free speech does not mean there will not be consequences from a private party for that speech. It only means that you cannot be punished by application or action of law for the act of speaking.

Consider that if you had a McDonald's shirt on and went into a Burger King, then stood up halfway through your meal loudly extolling McDonald's food quality, you would be breaking no law until you were told to leave and refused. (although you might perhaps be involuntarily detained in a psychiatric facility... )

And no, not -1 Burger King.

Blessings,
Bill

I understand completely. You would be asked to leave in this scenario. And they have every right to ask you to leave with the legal authority to exercise that right. However, Finite was saying earlier that the proprietor has the right to ask you to cover up, and that somehow you are legally obligated to cover up since it is their property. I was saying you are not. They have no legal authority to demand you behave in a certain way in their establishment if what you are doing is legal across the board. However, you WOULD be legally obligated to leave if asked. I don't believe anyone is arguing that. The same would go for private property (ie. someone's home).

 

[sloughfoot]

It must make you guys feel good to push the limits, then stand there with your hands on your hips (Errol Flynn like) and shout "I am in my rights!!"

IMO, you gain nothing by doing this. "They" can just change the law....

 

[sj kahr k40]

It must make you guys feel good to push the limits, then stand there with your hands on your hips (Errol Flynn like) and shout "I am in my rights!!"

IMO, you gain nothing by doing this. "They" can just change the law....

They can also just say, I never see anyone carrying a gun let's just make carrying a gun illegal!

 

[bglaze]

It must make you guys feel good to push the limits, then stand there with your hands on your hips (Errol Flynn like) and shout "I am in my rights!!"

IMO, you gain nothing by doing this. "They" can just change the law....

If the majority of gun owners are like you, and take sides against those of us gun owners who choose to exercise our rights, then yes laws will probably be made to restrict us.

However, look at civil rights and gay rights.

Let's imagine internet forums existed back in the 70's. And let's say instead of being on INGO we were on INGM (Indiana Gay Men). And let's say a similar story was posted, not about Open Carry, but about Open Display (of affection)...

Some guy posts and says, "Guess what everyone. Me and my partner were holding hands in a BWW, and the manager came up to us and asked us to stop, because some other patrons had taken offense to it. We didn't obey, and we stood our ground! We told the manager that it was within his rights to eject us, but we were going to continue to hold hands."

Then some other gay man posts something similar to your post, "It must make you guys feel good to push the limits, then stand there with your hands on your hips (Errol Flynn like) and shout 'I am in my rights!!'

IMO, you gain nothing by doing this. "They" can just change the law...."

Since gays stood up for their rights laws have been changed, but they have been changed in their favor and not vice versa.

Pardon me if I choose not to take your advice on this.

 

[sloughfoot]

They can also just say, I never see anyone carrying a gun let's just make carrying a gun illegal!

Yes, Sir. I agree.

They can do it, whether I choose to follow that law is my decision, but it will be a private decision. And "they" won't know about the decision that I have made......

I am the ultimate, former govment employee cynic.......

 

[randyb]

BW3 in Jeffersonville, by the basspro shop has an nice sign 'banning' the carry of a concealed or open carry handgun. I just turned around and went to hooters. In the future I will continue to go to beef o' bradys or other eating establishment.