The Restaurant business

[jaysouth]

We are all now relieved that our elected represenatives have over ridden the veto of our carpet bagger (NJ) gov and let stand legislation that would allow HCP holders to carry in establishments that serve alcohol.

Let me give you some perspective of a former restaurant owner. If your favorite establishment posts a non-compliant sign forbidding carry in their premises, let it ride. The owner is pandering(trying to keep his paycheck) to that portion of his customer base that we call 'sheeple'. He is getting flack from them and has to do something. He knows that a non compliant sign will make the sheeple feel warm and fuzzy and won't prevent any of his HCP customers from breaking the law or enjoying the premises.

There is a restaurant chain that posts a small international symbol that could be interpeted to mean no firearms allowed. We have all seen the red circle with a diagonal slash superimposed on a revolver. The sign has no legal standing in any state, and could not be used as the basis for any prosecutions. The restaurant chain makes the sheeple/soccermoms/hystericalhandwringers feel good and does nothing that prevents a legal carrier from entering.

If an establishment posts a compliant no carry sign, go after them full bore. Do not let them rest on their warm and fuzzies for a minute. Get your ten best friends to call them ten time a day each and complain. If a restaurant loses ten percent of its gross, the owner's paycheck does not do down a corresponding ten percent, it disappears completely.

If someone cites the potential for increased insurance premiums, remind them that posting a compliant sign forbidding legal carry makes THEM liable for a customer's saftey. Talk about raising premiums, they would go out the roof if just one person got injured because they could not defend themselves because of an establishment's no carry policy and posting of a compliant sign.

But again, if an establishment posts a non-compliant sign, do not take it personally, they are just trying to keep their livelyhood alive. Smile and let it ride.

We won, not the soccer moms, not the sky-is-falling-crowd, not the control freaks, WE WON!!!

[Oh Shoot]

...If your favorite establishment posts a non-compliant sign forbidding carry in their premises, let it ride. ...He knows that a non compliant sign will make the sheeple feel warm and fuzzy and won't prevent any of his HCP customers from breaking the law or enjoying the premises....

How does your advice relate to those who prefer to exercise their rights to open carry?

- OS

[Volzfan]

How does your advice relate to those who prefer to exercise their rights to open carry?

- OS

I thought about that too and I would guess that restaurants will be much like Walmarts. They will not mind if we are CC'ing but if we are OC'ing they will probably ask us to conceal the weapon or leave.

[Guest GhostHunter]

How are we to distinguish between a compliant sign and a non-compliant sign? I have seen several over the last few months, and they all were different.

[Steelharp]

How does your advice relate to those who prefer to exercise their rights to open carry?

- OS

Well, since those folks have basically put a "shoot me first" sign on (basically a permit badge without the badge)... maybe they should stay home and eat, anyway.

[RinTN]

How are we to distinguish between a compliant sign and a non-compliant sign? I have seen several over the last few months, and they all were different.

This thread might help...

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/21580-tca-39-17-1359-tennessee-prohibition-carry-notice.html

[jaysouth]

How does your advice relate to those who prefer to exercise their rights to open carry?

- OS

Interesting question because I spent most of my life in the restaurant business in a state that forbids CCW in establishments that serve alcohol but allows open carry in the same establishments. It was always a challenge on the rare occasion when someone entered with OC. I usually talked them out of the gun or into covering it up. Should that fail, I would ask them to not reurn and scare my soccermom customers. I have had customers walk out because "someone had a gun". I have had customers express discomfort over seeing police officers in plain clothes carrying openly. "How do I know they are real cops" Not a rational ideation on their part, but there are fewer and fewer rational people with common sense any more.

Open carry is a very bad idea. It scares the sheeple/soccermoms and handwringers. Those people do not like you(us), they are morally superior and smarter. The more you get in their face, the more they will support someone who panders to their bad judgement(how did obama win an election, pandering).

It takes away the tactical advantage of having the means to defend yourself. I know a couple of teenagers who would bash in your head with a brick, take your gun, wallet and gold teeth, all in about 3 seconds. Simply because you marked yourself as a worthwhile victim by displaying an asset that they could readily sell on the street. How many people have been murdered for pocket change?

Open carry is a very bad idea and will not win you any friends whether they be supporters or detractors of our carry privilidges(your right to carry is not a right, it is a privilidge bestowed upon you by the state, it can be taken away). You certainlly will not be welcome in a restaurant or even WalMart.

Smile, we won.

Edited June 5, 2009 by jaysouth

[TN9mm]

Open carry is a very bad idea. It scares the sheeple/soccermoms and handwringers. Those people do not like you(us), they are morally superior and smarter. The more you get in their fact, the more they will support someone who panders to their bad judgement(how did obama win an election, pandering).

It takes away the tactical advantage of having the means to defend yourself. I know a couple of teenagers who would bash in your head with a brick, take your gun, wallet and gold teeth, all in about 3 seconds. Simply because you marked yourself as a worthwhile victim by displaying an asset that they could readily sell on the street. How many people have been murdered for pocket change?

Open carry is a very bad idea and will not win you any friends whether they be supporters or detractors of our carry rights. You certainlly will not be welcome in a restaurant or even WalMart.

Gotta say it people +1 to all of that ^^^^^

I have to agree. 99% of the time OC is not a good idea there is a rare exception where I see it as OK but day to day DON'T DO IT MAN, it removes all tactical advantage. You don't need to impress anyone with your pistol...post some pics on show and tell and impress some people who care (I really like my pistol and am proud of it but not gonna show it off in public that is what TGO is for). My

[Guest kringle02]

I open carry some times ,and Ive never had any problems at all 99% of the time its been "Man that's a big gun to is that a kimber " the reason i carry open some time is i think it helps the cause by people seeing other people carrying a gun the more they see this the more they get use to it ,and less uncomfortable they fill about it .and the more they see this and realize people are not getting shot in the streets the better off we are .just my 2 cents

[Smith]

As a member of a family in the fine dinning business, I gotta agree with the OP. It is similar to someone drawing attention to themselves politically or any other way. we want folks to be able to come and enjoy their experience the way they envision it. Not the way others would want to subject them to. We have a lot of the capitol hill folks (Yes, even those I can't stand and we rail on here) and I have small talked with them and enjoyed their company for the most part. They don't carry their poltics OC and everything is fine.

I'm not advocating compramise, just saying their are places to fight and places to just be people. Restraunts aren't the best place to fight for constitutional rights....... Especially since we are presently winning!

[Oh Shoot]

... Restraunts aren't the best place to fight for constitutional rights....... Especially since we are presently winning!

If you are still commenting about open carry in restaurants that serve booze, that "right" will (in most places) exist on July 14.

Whether it's wise or not can be debated, but there's no doubt there will be beau coup folks sauntering into TN restaurants that serve booze with a piece in plain view, just as they do now in restaurants that don't serve booze.

- OS

[Smith]

If you are still commenting about open carry in restaurants that serve booze, that "right" will (in most places) exist on July 14.

Whether it's wise or not can be debated, but there's no doubt there will be beau coup folks sauntering into TN restaurants that serve booze with a piece in plain view, just as they do now in restaurants that don't serve booze.

- OS

Personally i don't care. Our place isn't the type of place that is going to see any difference. I don't think OC is the best thing for a myriad of reason's that have been debated before, just saying that making restaurants the battle ground probably doesn't give us the most leverage for future battles. I see restaurants as a battle (an important one no doubt) within the larger war for personal freedom and constitutionality.

[Guest HexHead]

Personally i don't care. Our place isn't the type of place that is going to see any difference. I don't think OC is the best thing for a myriad of reason's that have been debated before, just saying that making restaurants the battle ground probably doesn't give us the most leverage for future battles. I see restaurants as a battle (an important one no doubt) within the larger war for personal freedom and constitutionality.

Getting together for OC gatherings in OC friendly restaurants that don't serve alcohol, like the private room at Shoney's is one thing. Showboating just because you can in the early days of restaurant/ bar carry is something different and isn't going to do the rest of us any good. The left wing liberal loons will really apply pressure to the restaurant management to post the establishment.

I guess I just don't get it???

[Guest DylisTN]

As a member of a family in the fine dinning business, I gotta agree with the OP. It is similar to someone drawing attention to themselves politically or any other way. we want folks to be able to come and enjoy their experience the way they envision it. Not the way others would want to subject them to. We have a lot of the capitol hill folks (Yes, even those I can't stand and we rail on here) and I have small talked with them and enjoyed their company for the most part. They don't carry their poltics OC and everything is fine.

I'm not advocating compramise, just saying their are places to fight and places to just be people. Restraunts aren't the best place to fight for constitutional rights....... Especially since we are presently winning!

Well said!

[Guest robert83]

Has anyone else thought about this?

Could a restaurant be held liable if they were posted no guns and were unable to protect you or a friend from getting shot? Seems to me like if the restaurant does not want you to carry a gun, fine. But it should be up to them to make sure you are safe.

[Mike.357]

Could a restaurant be held liable if they were posted no guns and were unable to protect you or a friend from getting shot

In a word, NO.

Basically as I understand it you cannot hold liable someone or a business for something unforseen happening. No one can predict a shooting, so no liability.

With banana peels left laying in a doorway a case could be made that the person or business knew somone would slip and fall so therefore they are liable.

[Punisher84]

Not to turn this into an open VS. CC thread, but you know it is allowed here in TN and I don't think anyone should think that their way is better than the other. I personally CC 98% of the time, but I FULLY, UNWAVERINGLY support our fellow gun owners right to OC.

Personally, I think the gun owners who bitch about OC do more damage to the cause than the antis do. Why? Because it divides us and a divided force cannot conquer.

[Guest HexHead]

In a word, NO.

Basically as I understand it you cannot hold liable someone or a business for something unforseen happening. No one can predict a shooting, so no liability.

With banana peels left laying in a doorway a case could be made that the person or business knew somone would slip and fall so therefore they are liable.

I don't know. I suppose a case could be made that if the restaurant posts, they are in fact "advertising" that everyone inside should be unarmed. I could see a jury finding liability in that.

[Guest redbarron06]

How are we to distinguish between a compliant sign and a non-compliant sign? I have seen several over the last few months, and they all were different.

Here is a good site from the AG. I will be printing this out and reducing it to wallet size to carry with me.

http://tennessee.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2007/OP/OP43.pdf

It answers the following questions as the AG sees the law.

1. In order to prohibit handgun permit holders from carrying their handguns in a nongovernmental building, must the sign contain the exact language set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a)?

2. May a property owner use the international circle and slash symbol in lieu of a sign that uses the language prescribed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a)?

3. In a building with multiple businesses, does Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a) require the posting of signs at every entrance to the entire building, or to each separate business that elects to prohibit handguns if the entire building has not prohibited the possession of handguns on the premises?

[Guest cowboy20th]

A restaurant does not have the liability of your protection with or without posting. Its like saying they should protect you from a lighting strike while you walk from your car to their door because you are left vulnerable to lighting strikes while walking through the parking lot.

You make the choice to enter the restaurant armed or not. The restaurant does not make the choice for you to eat there. If anything, posting would help to decrease their liability because they are making you aware of the fact of increased danger BEFORE you have made your choice. Not that I want any restaurant to post, put please stop using the old restaurant is responsible for my protection routine. They are not, only YOU are responsible. You assume the risk not them.

Due you sue the city because you got mugged and a cop was not following you around? Do you sue a car company because you rear ended somebody and they did not mention that your reckless driving could hurt you or others? No you don't, because it is YOUR responsibility to ensure your own safety not anyone else's, that is why most people here carry weapons. If you can't carry somewhere and don't feel comfortable with that then don't go there and write your politician.

[Wingshooter]

A restaurant does not have the liability of your protection with or without posting. Its like saying they should protect you from a lighting strike while you walk from your car to their door because you are left vulnerable to lighting strikes while walking through the parking lot.

You make the choice to enter the restaurant armed or not. The restaurant does not make the choice for you to eat there. If anything, posting would help to decrease their liability because they are making you aware of the fact of increased danger BEFORE you have made your choice. Not that I want any restaurant to post, put please stop using the old restaurant is responsible for my protection routine. They are not, only YOU are responsible. You assume the risk not them.

Due you sue the city because you got mugged and a cop was not following you around? Do you sue a car company because you rear ended somebody and they did not mention that your reckless driving could hurt you or others? No you don't, because it is YOUR responsibility to ensure your own safety not anyone else's, that is why most people here carry weapons. If you can't carry somewhere and don't feel comfortable with that then don't go there and write your politician.

I guess the difference is that the Second Amendment says that we can do it, but a business owner that posts a sign says we can't. If someone was denied the right to defend themselves when they otherwise would have had a gun, I could see a libility suit making it to the Supreme Court for a decision.

[Guest cowboy20th]

the establishment is owned by the owner. They have the right to set the rules and restrictions for doing business in that establishment as long as no violation of law takes place. The owner may decide to restrict banana's in the establishment, so you need to leave them in your car, this is no violation of your rights. You make a conscious choice to patronize the establishment you have no grounds for legal suit since you made the decision to enter and follow such rules as posted knowing the danger involved. No one is forcing you to enter such building, therefore you assume all risk. The restaurant owner has the right to decide if guns will be allowed in their establishment(s) or not. Your rights end when they infringe on the rights of someone else. This has been established in case law, though I don't remember the name at the moment. The restaurant owner would not be infringing on your rights because it is THEIR establishment. You would be infringing on theirs if you carried into their establishment against their wishes. They are not responsible for your safety only you are, and if you believe their establishment and its policies are unsafe, then go somewhere else.

[Wingshooter]

the establishment is owned by the owner. They have the right to set the rules and restrictions for doing business in that establishment as long as no violation of law takes place. The owner may decide to restrict banana's in the establishment, so you need to leave them in your car, this is no violation of your rights. You make a conscious choice to patronize the establishment you have no grounds for legal suit since you made the decision to enter and follow such rules as posted knowing the danger involved. No one is forcing you to enter such building, therefore you assume all risk. The restaurant owner has the right to decide if guns will be allowed in their establishment(s) or not. Your rights end when they infringe on the rights of someone else. This has been established in case law, though I don't remember the name at the moment. The restaurant owner would not be infringing on your rights because it is THEIR establishment. You would be infringing on theirs if you carried into their establishment against their wishes. They are not responsible for your safety only you are, and if you believe their establishment and its policies are unsafe, then go somewhere else.

Oh, I understand that private establishments can be posted to restrict whatever. The freedom (within the law) to run one's own business is part of what makes this a great county. I'm just sayin' that it's a little different than being struck by lightning in the parking lot. The question was could a place be held liable for preventing an indiviual from exercising their second amendment rights and privileges granted by the state by voluntarily posting a sign.

If I owned a restaurant I would seriously consider that question. You can be sued for anything - remember the hot coffee burning someone at McDonald's? With the right circumstances and the right lawyers, who knows what suit is possible. On the other hand, I don't think a restaurant owner could go wrong with just complying with the state law and 2A rights.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Batman

[Guest clownsdd]

There were some very good points here and looks to be a great discussion.

I think we all know:

1. If a property is posted wrong, keep you gun hidden and your mouth shut.

2. If property is posted correctly, be sure to inform them of you and your friends choice not to patronize the place because of it.

After all it is the business owner's right to post or not.

[Mousegun]

It's a good idea to keep in mind that the early days of restaurant carry will be carefully scrutinized by a lot of people and organizations both friendly and unfriendly to the cause.

It really is up to all of us to point this thing in the right direction. Just like the new law went in our favor, future laws that could favor us may be jeopardized if there is any problems with this new one.

Most newspaper reports were quite negative or had a less than positive slant to the law. Even Fox News reported to a slant that bordered on, "how crazy is this" when they covered the story.

If you OC, maybe, for just a little while, you may consider a cooling period while the new law settles in. Tuck it in. I know this may get a negative response or two (or maybe even three) but we had a great win on this one and I am sure we all would like to see a bunch more like it. I am not saying that OC will destroy what we got but none of us know the full effect of what we are embarking on.