Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America said they petitioned the company as a reaction to open-carry gun activists at a Dallas-area Chipotle restaurant over the weekend.Without bothering to look into the matter more deeply than that, I commented (which comment was copied to my Facebook page as well):
All Chipotle management has to do is post the legislatively approved signage at the front door and the presence of guns in their establishments will no longer be a problem for them or their remaining customers. People like to eat out where they are welcomed; I suspect Chipotle management knows this too. Mothers Demanding Obedience, not so much.I then proceeded to go about my day, entirely missing out on all the sturm und drang that swept through the gun blogging part of these inter-connected series of tubes Al Gore graced us with.
Just to reiterate; I stand by my statement at NewsOK.com. Texas gun laws expressly permit the public carrying of "long guns" (rifles and shotguns, basically) in public places, but also designates the specific signage requirements to forbid people doing so, commonly called 30.06 signs from the section of the Texas Penal Code in which they are described in minute detail (TPC 30.06). While 30.06 signs are intended for concealed carry exclusion, they equally apply to any other manner of firearm carriage too. If Chipotle (or Starbucks) or any other business or privately owned property wishes to exclude the carrying of firearms by non-cops on their property, there's your sign. Put one up and let's all get on with our day.
That all said, there very definitely is a wrong way to go about abiding by the law you seek to have changed, and these two chappies have basically hit all the high points of doing so all in one go. More than that, I think there is a reasonable case to be made that both men deliberately set about to "cause alarm" and the particular Chipotle restaurant manager would be well within his own rights to file a complaint with the appropriate law enforcement office against the two men for Disorderly Conduct. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Texas State Open Carry organization didn't offer their own supporting evidence as well.
Beyond all that, I also think we Texans who don't appreciate this type behavior ought to make a reasonable effort to positively identify our men in Dallas and make good and sure that all the rest of the state's citizens are thoroughly well aware of just how ignorantly some of us are capable of acting in public. As long as groups like Moms Demand
Having lived in Texas for over 20 summers now I am all in favor of allowing Open Carry of firearms, but let's all make the effort to do so like we've done so all along. Making a big show of how you're dressed just draws attention to how insecure you are with your wardrobe. It's like scoring a touchdown in the big football game; when you find yourself in the end zone, at least make it look like you've been there before.
3 comments:
William,
I noticed an article published at NewsOK.com which noted the Chipotle restaurant chain response to two apparent Open Carry Texas supporters - I have no idea if they were actual members or not - carrying their rifles into one of the chains restaurants in Texas the previous Saturday.
From what I can gather; those two were part of a larger group that ate at Chipotle. A group that had no problems during the time they were there. Management raised no concerns, customers didn't call 911.
More than that, I think there is a reasonable case to be made that both men deliberately set about to "cause alarm" and the particular Chipotle restaurant manager would be well within his own rights to file a complaint with the appropriate law enforcement office against the two men for Disorderly Conduct. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Texas State Open Carry organization didn't offer their own supporting evidence as well
This is exactly the problem I have with many pro-rights advocates. I'm sorry to say but you are making the exact same argument that the antis use -- just carrying the firearm is cause for alarm or disorderly conduct.
Again; nothing in the actual course of the day could support such a statement.
Beyond all that, I also think we Texans who don't appreciate this type behavior ought to make a reasonable effort to positively identify our men in Dallas and make good and sure that all the rest of the state's citizens are thoroughly well aware of just how ignorantly some of us are capable of acting in public.
What type of behavior? Exercising their rights? Dining?
The boorish behavior I would call them out on is taking pictures in the restaurant but that is double edge sword.
How can you show people that NOTHING happened in public places if you don't take pictures of nothing happening in public places?
I would prefer them to leave the long guns slung but that is just personal preference.
Making a big show of how you're dressed just draws attention to how insecure you are with your wardrobe.
The only people making a big show of how they were dressed are the pro-gun folks against Open Carry of Rifles/Shotguns.
Good grief; they dressed and look like the majority of the people on the weekend. Some folks can't win; they dress in suits and ties and everyone would consider they are putting on a show. Dress like everyone else to show that normal people carry and they get called out for dressing down.
I think we've spent too much time and energy calling out our own side for doing something legal, for exercising their rights instead of focusing on the lies Moms Demanding Attention and the MEDIA are spreading. NOT one piece of evidence has been found to support the FWPD claim that employee(s) hid in the freezer. Not one bit of evidence to show that anyone complained -- either at Chipotle or Jack; so why the response?
Because they have an agenda. And frankly too many people on "our side" is supporting it.
What is the ethical or moral difference in carrying a rifle versus carrying a pistol?
The very words coming out of so many gunnies are exactly the words used by the antis regarding pistol carry.
Can't people see that?
Spot on with this post! Could you please email me back when you get a chance?
julieonpolitics AT gmail DOT com.
Thanks!
Hi Bob,
Thanks so much for including your more local viewpoint to all this.
Firstly, I think it important that we mutually understand that what I am objecting to here isn't so much the activism itself, but the manner in which these two particular gents allowed themselves to be photographed. And, I think the pic I linked to makes pretty clear that they were both deliberately posing for the camera.
I'm unconvinced that any organizer
of a political event involving firearms being openly displayed wouldn't require participants to adhere to the same safety standards a gun show or gun store routinely requires - weapons obviously unloaded. These two both had magazines installed and the bolt closed, a reasonable approximation of the "causing alarm" clause in the TPC. It isn't a question of how safely they may have actually been acting, they were each (apparently deliberately) presenting the image of a man with a loaded firearm. That exceeds the accepted standards of firearm safety generally, and presents onlookers with an image contrary to the political message intended.
Basically Bob, no matter what their intent was at the time, these two have literally made themselves the poster boys of "Your Doing It Wrong" when it comes to firearms handling and political activism.
As to the anti's using the same general rhetoric, that's the other difficult aspect of political activism - there is a very fine line between publicly acting in such a fashion as to excite people into criticizing your political statement as a political statement, and acting in a calculated offensive manner toward those you are trying to convince to your political viewpoint (and thereby giving your political opposition the appearance of a reasonable objection to anyone acting in similar manner). The political event that apparently happened earlier (and elsewhere) in the day didn't attract the ire of any national corporate business. Presumably other participants also sought out sustenance post-rally and none of them managed to make themselves (and more importantly to the rest of us, their political message) into objects of national public derision and ridicule. At some point we each have to accept personal responsibility for our actions, and these two - for whatever reason - made themselves into anti-firearms evidence.
I don't think it unreasonable we help make that point clear to any and all involved.
It isn't that 2A rights - particularly in reaction to how they are constrained by existing Texas legislation - shouldn't be actively and publicly demonstrated for, but that that fine line I mentioned earlier must be acknowledged and conformed to, to achieve the political goal that further advances those same rights. If you want to achieve the desired changes I know you support and work for so well already, it is essential that personal discipline be required of all involved (with the occasional example of our own Egregious Stupid behavior being pointed out by ourselves).
Sometimes you just have to call the penalty on yourself, if only to shield those you seek to influence in support of legislative change from becoming targets of the anti-2A groups themselves. That's simply the political and social reality within which we exist now, and historically always have. That's the underlying reason behind the whole, "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should" argument.
That's also why it is important to make political activism obvious and separate from activity that may well be legal but isn't actually ordinary public behavior.
And carrying apparently loaded rifles into restaurants in Texas in 2014 simply isn't "ordinary public behavior" yet, however common and unremarkable we both agree it ought to be.
Post a Comment