WOODBRIDGE, Va. –
A big country star opened a huge, new restaurant last week in Woodbridge, Va. But a house rule for the new establishment is roiling some Virginians: no guns are allowed inside.Toby Keith is not only a hugely successful country star (and actor), he also has personally opened a couple of restaurants, and through other companies, has now expanded those establishments into about a dozen cities.
The latest Toby Keith restaurant opened in Woodbridge. Prominently displayed on the front door is a sign saying: “NO GUNS PERMITTED.”
Virginia happens to be a gun-friendly state, where it’s quite permissible for citizens to strap on a weapon and go into a bar or restaurant, as long as the weapon is clearly visible. State law is silent on the issue of drinking while openly carrying a gun. (State law does prohibit most citizens who are legally carrying a concealed weapon from consuming alcohol, but they, too, are allowed to go into a bar or restaurant.)
The owners have the right to say “no” to firearms, and that’s the rule at Keith’s Woodbridge restaurant.
The no guns policy has caused quite a stir on Facebook where potential patrons are duking it out. What seems odd to me is that in Virginia, the owner of the establishment decides if he or she allows guns or not. In this case, No Guns is the choice of Toby Keith. What’s left to be said?
Does that policy also apply to off-duty police officers I wonder? Well, at least you know THAT restaurant will NEVER be held up at gun point. Criminals generally obey all signs that are posted on entrance ways as a matter of course you know! Nice idea, but the only guns you have to worry about are those carried by people who could give a rats butt about a sign anyway. Sorry, but gun free zones just aren’t as the news has clearly shown to be the case.
“……We didn’t find anyone at Toby Keith’s who objected to the no guns rule. It’s possible we found no dissension because gun fans are boycotting the establishment. If that’s happening, the boycott doesn’t appear to be effective. At lunchtime, there was a 20-minute wait for a table.”
Doesn’t appear to be hurting the bottom line. Protest/comment away.
@Second Alamo
I fail to understand why the owner of the establishment isn’t being allowed to exercise HIS freedom of choice. I see the boycott as a form of bullying.
The old criminals reading signs argument is VERY OLD. All gun owners don’t comply with wishes either. The moral of the story is to think dumb and assume nothing.
The video is showing up fine on chrome. Not so much on firefox or IE.
I have no problem with the proprietor’s rule. If you don’t like it, go elsewhere.
I fully support the right of the property owner, business owner, etc., to implement a “No Guns” policy in their establishments. They have made a business decision, and shall reap the benefits or consequences thereof. I will respect their policy by not doing any business with them, as I do with all establishments that post visible signs declaring their “No Guns” policy.
I applaud the guy for doing what he thinks is right, when it is going to be unpopular amongst his fan base. I’m not sure it’s rational or smart. Has he or someone explained the rationale?
Its perfectly okay for him to have a no guns rule. Property rights trump…well, unless you want to allow smoking……
Boycott? I don’t think that there is a “boycott” to hurt business. Its just the decision not to go there by those that carry. He has stated clearly that he does not want their business.
More power to him. I applaud all proper exercise of rights.
Fortunately most don’t let minor single issues drive them. It would be a pretty narrow world.
Lyssa,
The 2nd Amendment isn’t a “minor single issue” to many Americans, just as “reproductive rights” isn’t a minor issue to many here, and does define their attitudes toward a whole host of people, places, and things.
Now, it is unclear from the article as to whether Mr. Keith actually owns this restaurant…it could be a franchsiee establishing a policy.
I wouldn’t classify this as a boycott. There are a whole host of establishments that I refuse to do business with, because they either ban guns on-premises, donors to anti-2nd Ammendment organizations, or their executives have made anti-2nd Ammendment statements. Now, I have seen some establishments that do it the right way: “Weapons prohibited, except in accordance with state and federal law” or “Weapons prohibited except with permit”, or less-so “Open-Carry Prohibited, Concealed Carry OK with permit”.
I think it might be prudent to go talk to the manager or owner of the bar and make those suggestions. @Steve
Tell me seriously, do you really think that every gun carrier is a responsible drinker? I find alcohol and guns a terrible mix. I have seen it as a terrible mix personally.
As a person who is a reproductive rights person, I do see areas of compromise. With A2 people, I see none. For example, I could easily support a 20 week ban IF pregnancy was calculated normally, having nothing to do with conception or fertilization (who knows when those take place) and if life of the mother, rape and incest and fetal anomaly were part of the exception package. The biggie there is fetal anomaly and that is always left out.
@Steve Thomas
I keep laughing at the manager of my bank.
There is a “No weapons allowed” sign on the door, with a picture of a gun and of a knife.
I ask them….”Who is that sign for?” The bank robber won’t care. And the law abiding gun carrier isn’t going to rob you.
I see it as pretty minor. My husband owns guns but it’s not the most important thing to him – not even in his top ten. As a gun enthusiast, he respects the opinions of others enough and is self confident enough not to be so easily offended or to see it as a threat to the second – he sees it as a guy who owns a bar and thinks guns and alcohol don’t mix in his place. Our major concerns that would keep us from patronizing a restaurant include things like bad food, lousy clientele, terrible service – not things like restrictions on weapons or requiring a tie and jacket. Maybe some would see a dress code as a violation of free speech…..
Matters not, I avoid chain restaurants on the basis of food quality anyway.
I have never felt alcohol and guns were a good mix. I certainly don’t begrudge a bar owner that thought. Its all part of the liability.
Why would a civilian want to go to a restaurant carrying a gun? I can’t imagine that the inability to take a deadly weapon into an eatery would influence anyone’s choice of dining.
That’s pretty much how I feel also, Scout. If the neighborhood is that bad, I just think I will choose to eat elsewhere.
Or, if I really felt unsafe, I would just quietly pack heat, in my purse, and not call attention to myself.
I can remember once when I was meeting friends for dinner, that I was glad I knew someone was armed. Now did I KNOW? No. I would have been willing to bet that the person was though. It wasn’t needed but….just knowing.
And I think that is the point. If no one knows and no one is calling attention to themselves…no harm, no foul.
@Scout
That’s because you don’t carry one.
Some people do. Btw…everyone outside of the military, including police, are civilians.
@Moon-howler
Most people that carry, do it concealed…so now that Virginia law does not require open carry where alcohol is served, 99% of carry is concealed in restaurants.
Unless you are a law enforcement officer and then everyone else is a civilian.
I don’t care what Toby Keith’s mandates are on guns. I support his right as an owner (or whoever owns the franchise) to set their own policy.
To be truthful, if I go to an establishment and see someone carrying visible weapons, I don’t know the intent. Unless it is obvious law enforcement, I am not going to enter. Color me cautious.
I bet Rick and Steve miss a lot of good places to eat/do business. And Cargo, ask a policeman if he thinks he is a “civilian”. And, BTW, “No Guns Permitted” doesn’t mean the restaurant owner doesn’t have a gun.
Totally agree.
Virginia concealed carry does, however, prohibit consumption of alcohol if you are carrying.
Thank you for reminding us all of that important fact, Confused. Indeed it does.
How about open carry?
Looks like I may make a special effort to go out to his restaurant. For my family, especially my son, seeing someone in every day clothing, i.e. not a uniform, touting a gun around like the wild west, would create horrible anxiety for him. He would wonder, how do we know this guy isn’t a nut and would be out of there in two seconds flat.
Amen!
@Moon-howler Not sure what the policy is on open carry.
Here is what I found on open carry and consuming alcohol. while it may be an incredibly stupid, it appears to be legal. Not positive, but this looks fairly accurate.
“The reason you cannot locate anything in the Code of Virginia is that there is nothing there – a total and complete absence. Laws/statutes general forbid or penalize a specific act and the General Assembly has chosen throughout the history of Virginia to leave this right unrestricted. The absence of a law against OC is what makes it legal.”
Well,I feel better already. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, CS, you missed the point of my simple question: Why would anyone want to be armed with deadly force when dining at a restaurant? You’re right, I don’t carry concealed because I have never perceived any reason to be armed as I go about my daily business. The only time I transport a weapon anywhere is between my house and a range. But that fact doesn’t explain what the need is for everyday citizens to be hauling weapons into restaurants, grocery stores or the Five & Dime.
I take your semantic point that “civilian” could be used to connote police officers (in contrast to active duty members of the Armed Forces), but, lest you misunderstand my original query, I don’t have a problem with police officers carrying weapons.
I’ll use this opportunity to renew my suggestion that the law require people (other than police officers) carrying weapons around to do so openly and conspicuously. If I go into a bar or restaurant with a lot of people visibly carrying weapons, I can leave without infringing on their right to bear arms. The idea that these weapons should or can be hidden has never made a bit of sense to me. If they are to have a deterrent effect on crime (a premise I question, but which I’ll accept for these purposes) carrying open would have just as much, if not more, of a deterrent effect. Since we seem to be in a jurisdiction unlikely to impose any real competence, need, or meaningful psychological screening on people carrying deadly weapons in public, at least require that they do so in a way that let’s us know who they are and gives us a chance to give them room.
It’s far better to carry concealed. The open-carry people are going to be the ones who get shot first when deranged gunmen enter the restaurant.
I don’t live my life waiting for deranged gunmen to enter the restaurant where I am. In fact, I have never had it happen. If I have a choice of being in a restaurant with open or concealed, I will choose concealed. Then I don’t have to deal with it. Open? I figure I have to leave. The visual is a sign to me that something is wrong.
Concealed does prevent someone from trying to take a gun.
Although I have real doubts that the deranged gunman intent on firing up a restaurant is going to be very methodical about it, Emma, I doubt even more that there is going to be a deranged gunman firing up my evening dining experience or that it is particularly good public policy to address that remote likelihood by having masses of people carrying concealed weapons when they sit down to dine. In any event, back to my question: why would anyone want to take a deadly weapon to dinner in a nice restaurant.
@ Lyssa: not carrying a gun is also pretty effective at preventing someone from trying to take it.
@ Moon: I take it that your problem with my modest suggestion is that you’d rather not know how many shootin’ irons are around you when you eat. I guess there may be some comfort in that, but I want the option to stay the heck away. I’m not sure how many guns it would take me to decide to go elsewhere – it could be one if I don’t have confidence for any reason in they guy who’s carrying it – but that should be something on which I’m permitted by my government allows me to make my own decision.
I agree with your first suggest…leave the fire arms at home. However, if I go out to eat and someone is boldly packing heat, I will not dine at that establishment. How do I know that heat packer isn’t getting ready to go all postal on the entire restaurant–Tony Soprano style?
Maybe I am just the Queen of Denial. I can’t fear what I don’t know is there.
“I bet Rick and Steve miss a lot of good places to eat/do business. ”
Just pizza … I won’t eat Papa John’s either. During the “Obamacare” debate this guy was crying the crocodile tears of the wealthy about how he wouldn’t be able to afford to pay for healthcare for his employees, how he didn’t have that profit margin selling his pizzas. Yet, subsequently, we all see him paying Peyton Manning to hang out with him in commercials, and he’s bragging about giving away MILLIONS, literally MILLIONS of pizzas just because it’s NFL season. So that’s tens of millions he’d rather spend trying to look cool than to apply to his employees’ welfare. And make no mistake, the pizzas he gave away could pay for a lot of health insurance. He was running the commercials WHILE he was crying to Congress – “One million free pizaas Peyton? How about TWO million free pizzas?” Regardless of one’s political beliefs we should all be able to agree that this man is a massive d-bag.
I think he would be more likely to go postal if he’s hiding the weapon when he enters the establishment. In Virginia under current law, we all have the right to carry a firearm in plain view. I personally carry a cavalry sword almost everywhere I go. All I’m saying about firearms is just carry them out where we can see them. Preferably in day-glo pink, reflective holsters. The we all know who the people are who think they have to carry around deadly force as they go about their day-to-day business and can give them as wide or narrow a berth as each of us cares to allow them. Personally, I’ll keep a fair amount of distance between me and them, because I question their judgment as to why they think they need to be armed to the teeth. But that’s just me.
A side benefit, however, is that I think a lot of people who carry firearms routinely know that it’s a bit loopy this side of Dodge City (which apparently had stricter gun limitations) in the 1870s. I think a lot of folks carry guns around for the same reason my children, when infants, would carry a blanky or favorite toy – it provides some comfort and security from the unknown. If folks had to satisfy those anxieties publicly, I think it likely a lot fewer people would carry weapons.
I think you might be on to something.
Do you think these younger folks know what ‘day-glo’ is?
“The we all know” should read “Then we all know. . .”
For those who say “Guns and Alcohol don’t mix”…I agree. I think the current laws are sufficient, with the only change I would make being a prohibition on consuming alcohol (or any intoxicant) while armed, whether carrying openly, or concealed. As far as someone having anxiety regarding seeing someone carrying openly, why? The person doing so is in full compliance with the laws, and as such, shouldn’t be considered a threat, but I guess that’s a personal thing.
Regarding “why a civillian would feel the need to carry”, again, a personal decision. I’d rather “have it and not need it, than need it and not have it”. If someone chooses to be prepared to protect their life, the lives of their family, (and to a lessor degree) the lives of others, that is their choice. I respect the police, their authority, and the tough job they have to do. I also know that seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
I will point out that since the ban on carrying concealed in places that serve alcohol was lifted, the predictions of “wild west shootouts” has not materialized, nor have the “streets run red” with the broadening of carry laws. Nope. The only thing that has happened is whenever there is a “spree killing” invloving a firearm, anti-gunners call for restricting the rights of the law-abiding citizen, completely ignoring the fact that the restrictions they call for wouldn’t have prevented the incident, upon which they base their claims.
But really, this isn’t a discussion about guns. This is about property-rights. Just as Lyssa pointed out, we make choices where to spend our money (and where not to) based on a myriad of reasons. This is but one reason I will choose not to dine there. Same with Ted Turner’s restaurants, or Buffalo Wildwings. I don’t feel that I am “missing out” on anything. There are plenty of good places to eat, that trust the law-abiding citizen to be exactly that: peaceable, law-abiding.
Steve, I don’t assume everyone carrying a weapon is benign. If you don’t know the person, you should remain skeptical, I think. Sometimes, even if you do know them…just saying. I knew someone many years ago who I made “check his weapons” when he came to my house.
“Steve, I don’t assume everyone carrying a weapon is benign.”
Great point. Is it the weapon, or the person that is either benign or malignant? If all people were benign, would there be any need for weapons? Even the peaceful Shao Lin monks understood that predators have always tried to pray upon the weak, and as some of us have come to understand, an unbalanced mind is a very dangerous thing. A gun on someone’s belt (or concealed in an ankle holster) is only as dangerous as the person carrying it, and the dangerousness of the person carrying it is only as bad as the malignancy of the mind (or heart) of that person. I’ve known some very dangerous people. They weren’t a danger to me, or anybody who didn’t wish to do them harm. However, if you were someone who tried to harm them, they were very dangerous. Some of them routinely carry a firearm. Some choose not to.
But back to my orginal point: Toby Keith has every right to ban any and all weapons at his establishments, and the public can decide whether or not they wish to risk being in a place that criminals would know the likelihood of encountering an armed citizen is low. Why do you think criminals and spree killers pick places where the likelihood of encountering an armed citizen is low? Minimum risk vs. Maximum impact.
Famous bankrobber Willie Sutton was asked by a reporter “Why do you rob banks?” His reply, “Because that’s where the money is.”
Why is it that you don’t see spree-killers shooting up gun-shows? Why don’t armed robbers try to rob gun stores? Because the likelihood of encountering an armed citizen is 100%.
@Moon-howler
I don’t live that way, either, but everyone should have some small level of combat mentality.
When you walk into a movie theater, do you just grab a seat and tune out and enjoy the previews? I do, but not before I’ve taken a quick scan and know my exit points if I had to get out. What’s my plan B? The same is true for restaurants, bars, circus tents–anywhere I am closed in with a number of people and limited exit points. What if there were a fire? People die because they automatically try to leave the same way they came in. These events are thankfully not commonplace, but they happen.
And to answer Scout, I’m having a hard time believing that a murderer is going to carefully wear his/her weapon out in the open as your proposal would require. Because, as we all know, murder is illegal, and murderers seem to have a problem obeying that law, too. And they seem to like the element of surprise. You’re seeking a false sense of security in assuming that no one is hiding a weapon intended to kill you if only you could legislate an open-carry-only law.
And I’m not seeing where anyone is suggesting that masses of people should be carrying firearms in fine restaurants, as you suggest in #31. I’m sure most people don’t. The point is that the law says that they CAN, unless posted otherwise. Why does the venue matter?
That doesn’t answer my question, Emma. My proposal is not aimed at lunatics. They’ll do their lunatic things any way they choose. My proposal is aimed at all the people who think they are so at risk in doing daily chores around the community that they are packing heat to protect themselves against murderous lunatics at the toy store, restaurants, and shopping malls. I don’t share their risk analysis and have doubts that the screening programs for carrying concealed are sufficiently rigourous to preclude persons of low skill levels and judgment from carrying firearms. I also question the judgement of people who think that arming themselves for daily routine activity is a rational decision. So all I’m advocating is giving the bulk of us the ability to make an informed decision as to whether we want to be in an environment with firearms in the hands of “civilians”. I don’t. Steve is OK with it. He stays, I go. It’s that simple.
I realize that the right exists to carry openly. I have used it on rare occasion. My small modification of that situation is to eliminate the carrying concealed option (obviously, police officers would be excepted). I see no reason why carrying concealed should be a valid option except for undercover police officers.
I share your view that alert citizens need to know where exits are I’m one of those people who reads the cards in the back of airplane seats and counts the rows to the nearest exit.
Totally agree about the need to check the exits and in general, be aware of your surroundings. I even listen to the flight attendants.
“I also question the judgement of people who think that arming themselves for daily routine activity is a rational decision.”
And I question the judgement of someone who thinks that “civillians” who carry are paranoid, while simultaneously advocating for the only lawful means of carry be open-carry. So, in the winter time, how does one wear a coat without covering their firearm? How does a woman in a dress, carry a firearm without a belt? How does one eliminate the posibility of a thug snatching the firearm from the exposed holster?
Lawful concealed carry hasn’t caused massed shootings. It hasn’t caused the people who do carry to go all Dirty Harry/Death Wish. Really Scout, I find your arguments to be thin and irrational. The fact is, crime can happen anywhere. Perhaps not in the Toy Store, but in the parking lot of the toy store.
But you’d rather know without a shadow of a doubt that someone is carrying. You see a gun, in a holster, you go. Now who’s being paranoid? Have you ever been threatened by someone lawfully carrying?
I did hear from a friend that went to the restaurant. She won’t go back because the male employees dress requirement is jeans and a tee. The female employees dress requirement resembles Daisy Dukes.
Well, there’s reason to boycott.
I grew up in an era, Steve, when we had police forces to deal with crime. If anything, compared to that time and place, suburban Virginia is safer and we still have police forces. As for style considerations, I have seen any number of adaptable holsters that are easily carried outside winter wear. As the demand for such appurtenances increases when my proposal is implemented, there will be even more imaginative and fashionable solutions. As for thugs grabbing weapons away from law-abiding folk, that risk is completely eliminated by not carrying weapons in public. I would never carry a weapon if I thought it likely that thugs might snatch it.
My objection to concealed carry is not based on my contending that concealed carry leads to mass shootings. My objection is that concealed carry accomplishes little or nothing that open carry would not, that a lot of people carry concealed for reasons that are frivolous, and that I want the option of being able to act rationally on accurate information as to who’s carrying and how many firearms are in a given public space. My starting assumption, given data on how many grocery stores or nice restaurants in Northern Virginia have been fired up by maniacal gunmen in the forty years I’ve resided here, is that that risk is extremely low and not necessarily mitigated by average joes packing heat. If you have better data, I’ll look at it with an open mind. If I really get to a point where I feel threatened, I don’t have a problem carrying openly.
Most people smoke for reasons that are frivolous, too, and interestingly enough, there are also laws that regulate where people may smoke. However, I am statistically far more likely to be harmed by secondary smoke on the patio at Okra’s than I am by the guy sitting nearby carrying concealed. I wouldn’t enjoy my meal if I had to spend every second worrying about what someone might be carrying under their jacket. It’s irrational to obsess over statistical insignificance. They’re not the people you need to worry about.
“My objection is that concealed carry accomplishes little or nothing that open carry would not, that a lot of people carry concealed for reasons that are frivolous, and that I want the option of being able to act rationally on accurate information as to who’s carrying and how many firearms are in a given public space.”
Scout, I cannot begin to address the “logic-holes” in your arguments. First off, the Manassas/NoVA that you moved to 40 years ago, has changed, in case you hadn’t noticed. It’s changed notably in just the past 16 years that I have called it home. 40 years ago, PWC & Manassas were the butt of jokes, as to how “rural” and backward it was. MS13 didn’t exist, and the Cripps and Bloods were LA problems. Now they are in our middle-schools. Go ahead and tell me you disagree…You’d still be wrong.
Concealed Carry has grown since the first state, Florida, passed a bill recognizing a citizen’s 2nd Ammendment right to lawfully and peaceably carry a firearm for the basic human right of preservation of their own life, or the life of an innocent. Vermont never denied this right to their citizens, and has never required a permit to own or carry, concealed or open, which is otherwise known as “Constitutional Carry”. AK, AR, AZ also have Consitutional Carry laws. Today, only DC and the territories make no provision for carrying a firearm. All other states recognize the right, and are either “Shall Issue” or “May Issue”. Furthermore, many states have entered into reciprocity agreements with eachother, allowing citizens of one state, to carry concealed in the other, provided the armed citizen holds a valid permit from their home state. Other states make provision for non-resident permits as well. So, gratuitous point about “concealed carry accomplishes nothing” is nulified by the fact that every state in the union has recognized seen the need to make provision for this constitutional right.
To your point that “open carry would accomplish everything that concealed carry does”, as well as your argument that you’d “never carry where a thug might take your gun away”, I counter with this: You are concerned because you don’t know who may be packing, and who may not, and yet we have lot’s of people, like Elena, who say the very sight of a firearm not on the hip of a uniformed police officer causes them anxiety. So, you have anxiety because you don’t know who’s armed, and Elena has it when she knows positively who’s armed. I would say her anxiety has is more rationally based than is yours. Haven’t you every heard the rule in logic that you can’t prove a negative? Do you spend your days anxiously wondering if the person next to you at Starbucks, waiting for their half-caf venti latte is packing? If you do, who’s more paranoid, you or the person who may or may not be exercising their constituional right to be lawfully armed for the purpose of self-defense?
In my 47 years, I’ve never had a greasefire in my kitchen. Am I paranoid because I have a fire-extingusher (concealed) under the sink, or am I just exercising the wisdom of “better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it”?
Regarding the Police, I would suggest you look up the SCOTUS decision in Warren v. DC, but if you are unwilling to, I’ll help you out: The court ruled that the Police have no duty to protect you from crime or acts of violence. Boom…there it is. It is MY duty to protect MYSELF, and MY FAMILY from crime or acts of violence, whether in my home, or in public, and the 2nd Ammendment garantees my right to do so. You can choose to rely on the police, and you can choose not to exercise your right. I’m not advocating that you be forced to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise. Your choice, is your choice. You can call those who do “paranoid”. They can easily respond by calling you “naieve”.
Now regarding the odds: Odd are extremely low that a person will find themselves in an “active shooter” scenario. However, the odds, are a bit higher that a person could find themselves faced with someone who plans to rob them, or physically (including sexually, especially in the case of women) in public. Perhaps the odds are in the individuals favor, but would you want to risk you or a loved one being on the wrong side of a statistic? I don’t play the lottery, because I know the odds of me winning are “1 in X Million”. However, according to the FBI Uniformed Crime Statistics, MY (or my loved ones) chances of becoming the victim or a VIOLENT crime in Manassas (City Of) 20110, and/or the surrounding Manassas zipcodes are….. 1 in 294! (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/va/manassas/crime/) Pretty good odds, if one is playing Megabucks. In the lottery of personal safety, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…not so much. You want to play those odds…go right ahead.
But if this isn’t enough real data for you, or the logic or reasoning still to thin, I would suggest you take a good look at John Lotts exhaustive study on the effects of gun ownership on crime rates…which also includes a tremendous amount of data on the impacts of concealed carry on crime rates. And just in case you want to argue this work is just “NRA Propaganda”, anti-gunners have tried to debunk his study many times, and failed. His work has been peer-reviewed, and the results confirmed and duplicated in several other studies, including studies commissioned by the FBI. Now, I will admit, correlation and causation cannot be proven conclusively, but then again, neither can your arguments/opinions regarding the subject, even less so, now that I think if it.
But let’s agree to disagree, and leave it at this: If you ever see me at Toby Keith’s, assume that I am armed. Why? Because the only circumstances under which I would be present there would be that they’ve changed their policy. You can make that same assumption in any place not listed on the VA list of prohibited places, that has a policy of banning firearms. Why? Because I don’t make a habit of going to these places. Now, your assuming that I am indeed armed may be 100% incorrect. That I hold a CHP is a matter of public record. Whether or not I am choosing to lawfully exercise my rights, is my business, and no concern of yours. If I see you in these same establishments or public places, I won’t make any assumptions as to whether or not you are lawfully armed…because it’s none of my concern, and none of my worry.
As a non-carrying gun owner, I agree with Scout. Too many of the gun owners I know have anger management problems and I definitely don’t want to be in any bar where they’re drinking or feel they have a point to prove. I’d rather see that they are armed so that I can avoid them.
I don’t feel that I’m the fearful one. As a woman, I’ve ridden Metro alone, walked to class in DC alone, frequented galleries in “iffy” parts of town, and never carried a gun. I never think when I walk out the front door,”should I be carrying a weapon?” My father always carried one because of his job, but he didn’t speak about it or chose restaurants because of their gun policies. I think he disliked the idea of a bunch of armed, minimally trained cowboys getting in the way of LE officers. How many gun nuts out there have ever practiced shooting at moving targets and a variety of moving targets except for possible military training in their youth. Has anyone ever shot at Quantico’s FBI range? Ever had to size up friend or foe in seconds and aim accordingly? If you’re confronted by what you consider to be a dangerous person, do you wing ’em or go for the heart or head?
@Censored bybvbl
Censored… “gun nuts” “minimally trained cowboys”? Your statements are slathered in bias. Do you know which segment of the population is the fastest growing segment of gun-owner/concealed carry permit holder? Women.
I have shot the FBI’s pistol and shotgun qualification courses. During the time I went through Basic School at Quantico as a newly minted 2ndLt. By virtue of my DD-214, I was not required to take an NRA-approved course, in order to get my CHP, but I went ahead and did so. I did so, because even though I had the best firearms training that the tax-payers could supply during my USMC career, I realized that there is a tremendous difference between what a serviceman does with a weapon (Locate, Close with, and Destroy the enemy through superior fire, and the focused application of maximum violence), and that which a private citizen does (use only enough defensive force to neutralize an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury). I’ve also continued to take regular classes regarding armed self-defense, which focus on safety, threat awarness, threat escalation/deesclation, in addition to practical (as opposed to tactical) shooting. Law enforcement has a very different mission as well, and their training reflects this. And perhaps you are not aware, but there has been tremendous growth during the last decade of schools for exactly this type of training, all over the country. Many of these schools have courses designed specifically for women, as the demand is high, and continues to grow. So, there you have it.
What I find ironic, Censored, is you will decry any attempt at limiting/regulating an implied constitutional right, and yet you are perfectly fine with limiting/regulating an expressed right. It took the SCOTUS twisting themselves into a corkscrew with Roe, making a “due process” argument after digging deep into the 14th ammendment, and yet, “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is pretty clearly stated right there in the 2nd Amendment. So, you object to the “transvaginal ultrasound” requirements before seeking to terminate a pregnancy, while arguing that unless someone can have the same proficiency as a Federal Law Enforcement officer, they shouldn’t be allowed to carry?
Perhaps as a “non-carrying gun owner” it is you who could benefit from civillian practical training. If you took such a course, you’d most likely be drilled in “shoot/no-shoot” scenarios, that simulate the most likely scenarios an armed citizen would face. You’d learn “threat avoidance” the “7 yard rule”, in that an assailent can cover 21 feet in the time it takes a well-trained individual to assess and react, because action is always faster than reaction, and lastly, you’d learn that threats aggress directly towards you…they don’t move away, and they don’t move laterally. If they are moving in these directions, unless they are shooting at you, they are not a threat.
“The female employees dress requirement resembles Daisy Dukes.”
Heh. This place is sending a mixed message.
And one last point regarding the perceived danger of lawfully armed VA CHP holders: Since the VA right-to-carry law was passed in 1995, only 0.2% of permits were revoked for ANY reason, which include felony crime, Class-4 Misdemeanor, use of illegal drugs, being subject to a protective order. Revocations due to acts involving a firearm are 0.02%. So, statistically, you are more likely to be murdered in the parking lot of Toby Keith’s during a robbery, than you are to be endangered by a lawfully armed citizen.
@Steve Thomas
I’m assuming that most of the gun carriers I know possess their guns legally. BUT, I know some of them are nutty. I’ve heard one threaten to shoot a woman with whom she disagreed politically. I think her statement was hyperbole but given enough beer, she might try it. I also know gun owners who have accidentally shot their dressers and mattresses. Not all gun owners inspire confidence. In fact, quite a few make me want to give them wide berth. I don’t want to be trapped in a crowded auditorium with them any more than I want to be trapped by some gun-weilding nut intent on randomly shooting everyone. Target shooting is a far cry from the training LE officers go through and even they can screw up in a crowd.
Try using another term instead of “gun banner” if you want to lecture about incendiary language.
Anyone who wants any restrictions on any weapons at all is now seen as a ‘gun banner,’ even if that person is a gun owner.
I have stopped even trying to find common ground. I guess I am just a “gun owner banner.”
I agree with Elena about the dangers of second hand smoke. If I were in a place where there was a lot of it coming from concealed sources, I’d leave.
My problem with concealed carry is not a problems with constitutional right to carry. If our society has come to a point where everyday citizens go around carrying deadly force on their persons, let’s just know about it and we can all make our own judgements as to whether that’s the kind of culture in which we are willing to live. So don’t confuse my position with anti-2d Amendment sentiment. I just say do it on the outside so we all know what’s going on. And I have to say further that I’m not so much about what these people are doing with their weapons – I assume in most cases it’s simply a psychological crutch against their perception of a dangerous world in which they will be protected by firearms (I carry my cavalry sword for decoration – I doubt it will help me much in an altercation). What I am primarily concerned about is what’s inside these people’s heads. I view it as a completely irrational risk analysis to think that carrying a hidden weapon on one’s person will halt a crime or make one’s suburban environment safer. I’ve owned firearms for years. The only place I’ve ever been where they have done me any good at all (although I enjoy it) is at a firing range. I don’t think my experience is atypical.
Steve mentions my query as to what is accomplished by carrying concealed that would not be accomplished by carrying open, but doesn’t really address it other than to say that I shouldn’t care. My curiosity on that point remains unsatisfied. I think the primary reason people don’t like the idea of carrying open is that they know it’s a bit odd in modern society and that it does cause the general population anxiety and to make judgments about the thought processes of those who do carry. Under my proposal, one would have to factor in that societal reaction in choosing to go around carrying death-dealing force. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. As I said earlier, if I ever get to the point where my assessment of daily risk in daily activities is as dire as Steve and Emma’s, I may arm myself (beyond the ceremonial sword). But, if it’s that bad, I’ll carry right out in the open and not be shy about it (assuming I haven’t moved to more pacific climes).
By the way, Steve, if you want to have a concealed fire extinguisher in your kitchen, it doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t bother me either if you want to conceal your weapons in your house.
Ha! We are gun owner banners too. But then again, not every gun owner feels threatened or takes offense by a business owner making a decision regarding his resturant. It’s not going to change anything. I thinks it’s his right to do so. Or is one right more important than other? I always love that discussion.
A certain sanctimonious individual should take the argument that he incessantly bleats out whenever the subject of voter ID comes up and apply it instead to concealed carry. To wit: don’t propose a “solution” if you can’t demonstrate a problem.
You had one guy snap back in 2010 who happened to be a permit holder. That’s it. In 20 years of shall issue that’s all you can point at. It’s simply not a problem, and wishing won’t make it so.
If you feel overwhelmed with anxiety in the aisles of your local supermarket, involuntarily wetting your pants while trying to guess who is packing heat perhaps you should consider antidepressants as opposed to wringing your hands and clutching your pearls because your legislative fantasy simply isn’t going to happen given the composition of the GA, no matter how much lefties quack about it.
@Cato
Screw you.
Let’s get the New Year off to a good start.
“As I said earlier, if I ever get to the point where my assessment of daily risk in daily activities is as dire as Steve and Emma’s, I may arm myself (beyond the ceremonial sword)”
Sorry, but you’re the one who’s coming across as irrationally fearful here. You want to know what”s in everyone’s pockets, otherwise you can’t relax at IHOP. That’s a crappy way to live.
No, Emma, I have no interest in what’s in their pockets. Under my proposal, I only have to know what’s hanging on their exterior. That spares me the pocket lint/ticket stub issues. And, although it isn’t penetrating with Cato and a few others very well, my position is not based on experiences with large numbers of permit holders going postal in public places. My position is based on my concern about the kind of thought process and culture that leads large numbers of “civilians” to arm themselves to the teeth as they go about their daily business. I want to know how toxic my surroundings have become. Given the great freedom we all have to carry deadly weapons openly, this seems like a small request.
You’re funny. You’re trying to convince us of the nobility of your “small request,” when really the whole tone of if is a sneering ridicule of people whose motives you have predetermined. You want them marked with Day-Glo holsters so you know what the big “toxic” “threats” are to your “safety”. All I can do now is chuckle at your sanctimony.
I doubt that I have ever sneered at anything. Perhaps it is the flatness of this medium that leads you to consider my humble opinion more supercilious than it is intended to be. The toxicity of the culture to which I am averse, is not threats to my “safety” (although you put it in quotes, I haven’t used the word and I have explained that my concern lies elsewhere). My aversion relates to being around large numbers of people whose judgement leads them to arm themselves with deadly force when I personally can find no data indicating that the threat environment warrants it. Note well that I have not advocated that they not be able to make their own decision on that. I am only suggesting that they make that decision in a public manner that enables me to avoid them.
*I* am the one who admits to sneering. I do it often and I even raise a nostril when called upon to do so.
@Scout
Open carry was actually the law, previously, when around alcohol.
Why would people want to carry while at a restaurant?
Because they are carrying everywhere. The gun is an emergency tool.
I liked that rule, Cargo, although I think a dramshop proprietor should have every right to say no to firearms in his place of business.
Of course, my question is why would anyone want to carry a gun “everywhere”. My next question is why carrying open doesn’t have all the positive effects that advocates of carrying concealed claim for hiding these weapons on their persons.
A fire axe is an emergency tool also, but people don’t carry them “everywhere”, whether open or concealed. What is the “emergency” that a firearm is supposed to address “everywhere”?
I think I could imagine up a circumstance where carrying a firearm might be a logical response to the environment (a riot-torn neighbourhood where public safety has broken down completely, for example, or a post-apocalyptic scenario). But even in those cases, I would think carrying openly would put me at no disadvantage and might actually be helpful in protecting my interests.
@Moon-howler
And a very Happy New Year to you, as well!
(and by “happy new year” I mean raised middle finger)