User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/8/2014 2:57:55 PM EDT
[#1]
Good response. What I want to know is why taxpayer money is able to be used to provide a sign to a private entity restricting my constitutional rights. If a business wants to restrict my rights on their property, thats their right, but they should have to pay for the signs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 12:14:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Shoulda also asked them what specific law they were citing for refusing to serve open carry customers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 12:41:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Ive heard that Arby's as a corporation is a big supporter of the Dem party.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:58:06 PM EDT
[#4]
To be honest, I'm afraid this isn't going to change until protestors with signs start making scenes various stores on their busy days/times calling-out their stance against rights to self-defense. No guns, just signs. Should include informatory rhetoric such as how stores in Alabama also used to deny other civil rights too like the rights of people with dark skin to enter, or eat along side people with light skin. Right now they can be confident there will be no consequences for their prejudices.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 6:24:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be honest, I'm afraid this isn't going to change until the "Concealed Means Concealed" crowd starts taking their 2nd amendment rights seriously and stop funding anti-gun companies like this one, Costco etc. protestors with signs start making scenes various stores on their busy days/times calling-out their stance against rights to self-defense. No guns, just signs. Should include informatory rhetoric such as how stores in Alabama also used to deny other civil rights too like the rights of people with dark skin to enter, or eat along side people with light skin. Right now they can be confident there will be no consequences for their prejudices. FIFY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 3:06:56 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FIFY. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To be honest, I'm afraid this isn't going to change until the "Concealed Means Concealed" crowd starts taking their 2nd amendment rights seriously and stop funding anti-gun companies like this one, Costco etc. protestors with signs start making scenes various stores on their busy days/times calling-out their stance against rights to self-defense. No guns, just signs. Should include informatory rhetoric such as how stores in Alabama also used to deny other civil rights too like the rights of people with dark skin to enter, or eat along side people with light skin. Right now they can be confident there will be no consequences for their prejudices. FIFY. So the problems with the "Concealed Means Concealed" mantra are this. First, it often condones lawlessness, particularly in states where carrying concealed is subject to permission slip. I for one am not working to build or endorse a lawless society, I work for a society where the laws are just (fools errand perhaps). Secondly, it perpetuates a society of discrimination against otherwise lawful behavior and enjoyment of civil rights. One might as well advocate to the black man in Alabama's past denied an opportunity to dine at a certain establishment that he simply go to a restaurant that doesn't discriminate as tell someone they shouldn't worry that businesses discriminate against their rights protected in the Federal and State constitution relating to self defense. Just go somewhere else that doesn't discriminate is not a satisfying answer to me. I for one am not very comfortable with the notion of sitting at the back of the bus, and it doesn't matter if it's discrimination based on race, religion, or armed status. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 4:58:58 PM EDT
[#7]
So the problems with the "Concealed Means Concealed" mantra are this. First, it often condones lawlessness, particularly in states where carrying concealed is subject to permission slip. I for one am not working to build or endorse a lawless society, I work for a society where the laws are just (fools errand perhaps). Secondly, it perpetuates a society of discrimination against otherwise lawful behavior and enjoyment of civil rights. One might as well advocate to the black man in Alabama's past denied an opportunity to dine at a certain establishment that he simply go to a restaurant that doesn't discriminate as tell someone they shouldn't worry that businesses discriminate against their rights protected in the Federal and State constitution relating to self defense. Just go somewhere else that doesn't discriminate is not a satisfying answer to me.
I for one am not very comfortable with the notion of sitting at the back of the bus, and it doesn't matter if it's discrimination based on race, religion, or armed status. x1000... well said |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2014 7:02:12 AM EDT
[#8]
This sign at Charter Cable made me want to sling an M-16 on my back.
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 8:11:30 AM EDT
[#9]
The Arby's in Vestavia is the same way. I noticed the sign the other day. My son just pulled his shirt over his pistol and they didn't say anything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 8:41:14 AM EDT
[#10]
I noticed one in Oxford not too long ago.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 5:11:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Arby's in Alabaster has a sign like that too. Bama, I was in that Arby's not too long ago and didn't notice that sign.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 5:28:17 AM EDT
[#12]
Well it's been over a week now and no response to my email.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 6:50:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shoulda also asked them what specific law they were citing for refusing to serve open carry customers. They don't need to cite a law to restrict guns in their store and they have a right to refuse anyone who has one. It's a private entity. As much as I disagree I don't think their rights should be denied. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:51:23 PM EDT
[#14]
delete
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 3:50:13 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They don't need to cite a law to restrict guns in their store and they have a right to refuse anyone who has one. It's a private entity. As much as I disagree I don't think their rights should be denied. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Shoulda also asked them what specific law they were citing for refusing to serve open carry customers. They don't need to cite a law to restrict guns in their store and they have a right to refuse anyone who has one. It's a private entity. As much as I disagree I don't think their rights should be denied. On the other hand, when someone takes away or impairs someone's rights, it's not out of the ball park to put some corresponding responsibilities on the party that took away rights. Even a prisoner must be fed, clothed, and provided with a place to sleep when their liberty has been taken. When someone creates a public unsecured gun free zone (i.e. does not actually check or try to prevent armed persons from entering or provide security in case someone does), they need to assume responsibility and accountability for the defense of visitors. Where violence occurs in an unsecured gun free zone, visitors who were unable to defend themselves to the full extent of their legal rights due to the UGFZ policy should be able to litigate favorably against the creator of the UGFZ for failing to provide adequate protection in lieu of upholding personal defense by respecting the civil right to bear arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 6:59:09 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On the other hand, when someone takes away or impairs someone's rights, it's not out of the ball park to put some corresponding responsibilities on the party that took away rights. Even a prisoner must be fed, clothed, and provided with a place to sleep when their liberty has been taken. When someone creates a public unsecured gun free zone (i.e. does not actually check or try to prevent armed persons from entering or provide security in case someone does), they need to assume responsibility and accountability for the defense of visitors. Where violence occurs in an unsecured gun free zone, visitors who were unable to defend themselves to the full extent of their legal rights due to the UGFZ policy should be able to litigate favorably against the creator of the UGFZ for failing to provide adequate protection in lieu of upholding personal defense by respecting the civil right to bear arms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shoulda also asked them what specific law they were citing for refusing to serve open carry customers. They don't need to cite a law to restrict guns in their store and they have a right to refuse anyone who has one. It's a private entity. As much as I disagree I don't think their rights should be denied. On the other hand, when someone takes away or impairs someone's rights, it's not out of the ball park to put some corresponding responsibilities on the party that took away rights. Even a prisoner must be fed, clothed, and provided with a place to sleep when their liberty has been taken. When someone creates a public unsecured gun free zone (i.e. does not actually check or try to prevent armed persons from entering or provide security in case someone does), they need to assume responsibility and accountability for the defense of visitors. Where violence occurs in an unsecured gun free zone, visitors who were unable to defend themselves to the full extent of their legal rights due to the UGFZ policy should be able to litigate favorably against the creator of the UGFZ for failing to provide adequate protection in lieu of upholding personal defense by respecting the civil right to bear arms. That concept is far beyond the Liberal thinking of the people that put up those unConstitutional signs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2014 8:56:44 AM EDT
[#17]
Stopped by today and they had taken the signs down.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2014 5:58:41 PM EDT
[#18]
good !!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2014 12:36:55 PM EDT
[#19]
Can we eat there again? Lol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 9:18:03 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They don't need to cite a law to restrict guns in their store and they have a right to refuse anyone who has one. It's a private entity. As much as I disagree I don't think their rights should be denied. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Shoulda also asked them what specific law they were citing for refusing to serve open carry customers. They don't need to cite a law to restrict guns in their store and they have a right to refuse anyone who has one. It's a private entity. As much as I disagree I don't think their rights should be denied. I'm glad they took the signs down.. but saying this isn't exactly true. The government has told people over and over again that you can't refuse anyone service based on race , religion, gender, etc. When a private baker refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, he is sued and LOSES for a civil rights violation. You can not discriminate. So, a private business telling me that my firearms aren't allowed, when I am in total compliance with the law, should be subject to the same rules. Where's the equal protection here???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 9:36:43 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm glad they took the signs down.. but saying this isn't exactly true. The government has told people over and over again that you can't refuse anyone service based on race , religion, gender, etc. When a private baker refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, he is sued and LOSES for a civil rights violation. You can not discriminate. So, a private business telling me that my firearms aren't allowed, when I am in total compliance with the law, should be subject to the same rules. Where's the equal protection here???? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shoulda also asked them what specific law they were citing for refusing to serve open carry customers. They don't need to cite a law to restrict guns in their store and they have a right to refuse anyone who has one. It's a private entity. As much as I disagree I don't think their rights should be denied. I'm glad they took the signs down.. but saying this isn't exactly true. The government has told people over and over again that you can't refuse anyone service based on race , religion, gender, etc. When a private baker refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, he is sued and LOSES for a civil rights violation. You can not discriminate. So, a private business telling me that my firearms aren't allowed, when I am in total compliance with the law, should be subject to the same rules. Where's the equal protection here???? Guns aren't a race or religion -- well... for most us anyway. It's just like the signs that say "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service." It's a discretionary call that, right or wrong, has been consistently upheld by legal precedent every single time. CC or leave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 9:48:36 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm glad they took the signs down.. but saying this isn't exactly true. The government has told people over and over again that you can't refuse anyone service based on race , religion, gender, etc. When a private baker refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, he is sued and LOSES for a civil rights violation. You can not discriminate. So, a private business telling me that my firearms aren't allowed, when I am in total compliance with the law, should be subject to the same rules. Where's the equal protection here???? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shoulda also asked them what specific law they were citing for refusing to serve open carry customers. They don't need to cite a law to restrict guns in their store and they have a right to refuse anyone who has one. It's a private entity. As much as I disagree I don't think their rights should be denied. I'm glad they took the signs down.. but saying this isn't exactly true. The government has told people over and over again that you can't refuse anyone service based on race , religion, gender, etc. When a private baker refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, he is sued and LOSES for a civil rights violation. You can not discriminate. So, a private business telling me that my firearms aren't allowed, when I am in total compliance with the law, should be subject to the same rules. Where's the equal protection here???? You can preach there either or hold a protest on their property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 2:41:57 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can preach there either or hold a protest on their property. Typo? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 3:14:01 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guns aren't a race or religion -- well... for most us anyway. It's just like the signs that say "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service." It's a discretionary call that, right or wrong, has been consistently upheld by legal precedent every single time. CC or leave. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shoulda also asked them what specific law they were citing for refusing to serve open carry customers. They don't need to cite a law to restrict guns in their store and they have a right to refuse anyone who has one. It's a private entity. As much as I disagree I don't think their rights should be denied. I'm glad they took the signs down.. but saying this isn't exactly true. The government has told people over and over again that you can't refuse anyone service based on race , religion, gender, etc. When a private baker refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, he is sued and LOSES for a civil rights violation. You can not discriminate. So, a private business telling me that my firearms aren't allowed, when I am in total compliance with the law, should be subject to the same rules. Where's the equal protection here???? Guns aren't a race or religion -- well... for most us anyway. It's just like the signs that say "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service." It's a discretionary call that, right or wrong, has been consistently upheld by legal precedent every single time. CC or leave. They keep wanting there to be a "Gay Gene" so maybe there is a "Gun Gene" so legally places that rejected gun owners would be committing "Discrimination".  But as for the "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service." signs, that's a health code that is supposed to be applied to all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 4:20:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Typo? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You can't preach there either or hold a protest on their property. Typo? Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2014 4:24:57 AM EDT
[#26]
I still think it should be an equal protection case.
I do think that any owner that is asked, "Do you really want the gun community to boycott your store, here in Alabama?" will think twice. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
