PDA

View Full Version : Buckhorn Grill bans weapons after Open Carry event


Swiss
02-12-2010, 5:48 PM
Buckhorn Grill bans weapons after Open Carry event (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14390889?nclick_check=1)
By Janis Mara
Contra Costa Times


A California restaurant chain, the Buckhorn Grill, has banned the display of guns in its establishments after a gathering of gun rights advocates Feb. 6 at its Walnut Creek restaurant that drew about 100 men carrying unloaded guns.

"Buckhorn Grill would like to apologize for some misunderstanding about our 'no weapon policy' in any of our restaurants," John Pickerel, owner of Buckhorn chain, said in a statement. "We have not in the past nor shall in the future allow weapons in our restaurants."

The ban applies to all seven of the chain's restaurants.

The meeting of Open Carry advocates, who want to change California law to make it easier to carry loaded guns in public, was an exception Pickerel said he now regrets. Pickerel said the group "misled" Buckhorn about such things as the nature of the event and number of attendees.

"We had only 52 RSVPs the day before the event," said Brad Huffman, an Open Carry member who attended the meeting.

The location of the event, which took place without incident, wasn't announced until the night before, on KSFO radio.

The group handed out brochures, but only when people asked for them, Huffman said.

"We organized the event with (Buckhorn management) weeks in advance. They're backpedaling," Huffman said. "We spent more than $1,200 plus tips. It's ridiculous to take our money and stab us in the back a few days later."

Darklyte27
02-12-2010, 5:50 PM
I saw this, on http://claycord.blogspot.com/

and the blog and comments https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7054371743776251732&postID=7399886019121598882&isPopup=true

how low of a company..

8-Ball
02-12-2010, 5:54 PM
Well, this is the email address of the owner:

Owner
John Pickerrel
jrpickerel@buckhornsteakhouse.com

I sent mine...

ZRX61
02-12-2010, 5:55 PM
100 people spent $12 each? no wonder they don't want you back... ;)

SkatinJJ
02-12-2010, 5:59 PM
It's not as if I was busting down the door for poor service and mediocre food...

Someday they may improve their food, if maybe not their service.

The Director
02-12-2010, 6:10 PM
100 people spent $12 each? no wonder they don't want you back... ;)

Yeah really. My parents are in the restaurant biz and 100 people spending $1200 is definitely not worth the hassle. That's an insanely low per head cost....even for drinks!

Alaric
02-12-2010, 6:26 PM
If you want multiple email addresses to contact at Buckhorn Grill, here you go:

jrpickerel@buckhornsteakhouse.com; sbecker@buckhornsteakhouse.com; tommcl@sbcglobal.net; bucksfmetreon@buckhorngrill.com; bucknapa@buckhorngrill.com; buckwc@buckhorngrill.com; buckev@buckhorngrill.com; buckemb4@buckhorngrill.com; bucksfc@buckhorngrill.com; bucksac@buckhorngrill.com

Let them have it.

RP1911
02-12-2010, 6:29 PM
bucksac@...

LOL

SkatinJJ
02-12-2010, 6:34 PM
Yeah really. My parents are in the restaurant biz and 100 people spending $1200 is definitely not worth the hassle. That's an insanely low per head cost....even for drinks!

Sure, in a successful restaurant, but there, it's nearly empty on a regular basis.

For the reasons I've given before. When I've been there, the service was below par, and the food was mediocre.

For those who may not understand, reflect on the meaning of mediocre...then decide if your money is well spent for sustenance.

383green
02-12-2010, 6:46 PM
Heck, I spend $12 at SBUX without even tying up a chair.

FS00008
02-12-2010, 6:51 PM
Buckhorn is a horrible restaurant with crappy food. We throw them a bone and they bite the hand that feeds. They have royally messed up with this business decision. Rather than draw business, this will cause them to lose all business. It is now my policy to inform everyone about how Buckhorn, along with CPK and Pete's enjoy violating civil rights in order to remain PC.

dustoff31
02-12-2010, 6:55 PM
The meeting of Open Carry advocates, who want to change California law to make it easier to carry loaded guns in public, was an exception Pickerel said he now regrets. Pickerel said the group "misled" Buckhorn about such things as the nature of the event and number of attendees.


Wonderful. At this rate, by the time the OC people get the law changed, it won't matter as every property owner in the state will have posted his property.

SkatinJJ
02-12-2010, 6:56 PM
Buckhorn is a horrible restaurant with crappy food. We throw them a bone and they bite the hand that feeds. They have royally messed up with this business decision. Rather than draw business, this will cause them to lose all business. It is now my policy to inform everyone about how Buckhorn, along with CPK and Pete's enjoy violating civil rights in order to remain PC.

THIS!!! /\/\/\

I drive from Shasta county to go to Irvington Arms, highly recommended by the way. I often went (past tense as of last year) to this place for food.

Recommendation...spend your money at Irvington arms, and go hungy for a meal....:chris:

Semper FI!!!

bigcalidave
02-12-2010, 7:13 PM
F em... Add it to the list of companies that NO GUN OWNER should go to. Doesn't matter if you like UOC or not, it's a statement brought about by pressure from the brady bunch and every gun owner should remember that. Please let them know how you feel as well, send an email to one of those addresses and remind them that there are a LOT of people who will ONLY know of their name because they banned guns.

hoffmang
02-12-2010, 7:15 PM
4 for 5...

-Gene

bigcalidave
02-12-2010, 7:20 PM
lol.

turbosbox
02-12-2010, 7:25 PM
4 for 5...

-Gene
what does this refer to?
I'm not surprised a not really well planned event that wasn't a good idea to begin with didn't turn out good :rolleyes: Anyone surprised?

Well I guess I shouldn't expect UOC folks to understand it's not a great idea to do this sort of thing.

ricochet
02-12-2010, 7:31 PM
It's been a long week; huh ?
4 for 5...

-Gene

mmbasser
02-12-2010, 7:32 PM
This was inevitable. The demographics are not in the UOCs favor...sorry to say!

Racefiend
02-12-2010, 7:34 PM
Well, I guess the upside to the UOC movement is it's saving everyone money. If we boycott every restaurant that bans guns we'll be eating our meals at home :)

On a side note, I regularly eat at the buckhorn in Napa, and there are always detectives eating there with their sidearms. Not much of a policy if you ask me.

OC4ME
02-12-2010, 7:39 PM
Missouri Carry has a Boycott List for businesses that are not supporters of 2A. Missouri Carry is a forum that promotes the lawful expression of our 2A right. The promotion of CCW is the main focus. Missouri has a preemption statute with political sub-divisions permitted to restrict OC. In other words, Missouri is a OC state with local restrictions permitted.

OC in MO permits loaded weapons to be openly carried where OC is not restricted.

You may not be able to persuade a business owner to permit you to carry CCW or OC but you can patronize businesses that are 2A friendly. Let businesses know that you will be placing them on a boycott list.

In this economy small businesses can not afford to lose customers. Even customers who lawfully exercise their 2A right.

6172crew
02-12-2010, 8:48 PM
I know we have a few restaurant owners her on calguns, why not go to the places you are welcome?

Or at least call the GM and ask them how they would feel about helping the cause. I have to admit I don't know what happened except that UOC is not welcome any longer.

russ69
02-12-2010, 8:57 PM
Don't flame me too hard but if Angeles Shooting Range won't allow open carry, don't you think a restaurant would be a little hesitant? I'm just saying?

Thanx, Russ

hoffmang
02-12-2010, 9:01 PM
Of 5 restaurants/coffee shop chains that have had major UOC events held at them only Starbucks hasn't responded by banning firearms as corporate policy.

-Gene

Lone_Gunman
02-12-2010, 9:07 PM
So I assume these bans apply to legally CCW'd guns as well. If that is the case though the worst they can do is ask you to leave if they somehow figure out you are CCWing correct? Would there be any legal reprecussions to CCWing in one of these establishments?

MT1
02-12-2010, 9:14 PM
100 people spent $12 each? no wonder they don't want you back... ;)

:iagree:

You get that many people tying up table space and all they order is a snack and a drink.

onedavetoomany
02-12-2010, 9:15 PM
Of 5 restaurants/coffee shop chains that have had major UOC events held at them only Starbucks hasn't responded by banning firearms as corporate policy.

-Gene

What restaurants are you counting?

Here's how I see it...

Panama Red Coffee and Starbucks have chosen to respect state laws.

Peet's Coffee, California Pizza Kitchen, and Buckhorn Grill have banned open carry.

Thats 2-3.

Kestryll
02-12-2010, 9:15 PM
4 for 5...

-Gene

Sometimes it sucks to be right doesn't it?

Stoner
02-12-2010, 9:17 PM
Of 5 restaurants/coffee shop chains that have had major UOC events held at them only Starbucks hasn't responded by banning firearms as corporate policy.

-Gene

I called it after their first outing; once they get a little press they are going to think they are famous. Guess they don’t understand the difference between “famous” and “infamous”

Some people will never learn………….

1911su16b870
02-12-2010, 9:19 PM
Sometimes it sucks to be right doesn't it?

I sincerely hope John and Jane Public agree with us. The battle of public opinion is ON!

Alaric
02-12-2010, 9:21 PM
Of 5 restaurants/coffee shop chains that have had major UOC events held at them only Starbucks hasn't responded by banning firearms as corporate policy.

-Gene

This is an important point not to be overlooked. What Gene is saying is that of the five chain businesses targeted for UOC events recently, of those, four out of five have now adopted "NO GUNS" as their policy in their establishments.

Now who wants to tell me that UOC can't/won't/ISN'T backfiring on us?

The Director
02-12-2010, 9:26 PM
This is an important point not to be overlooked. What Gene is saying is that of the five chain businesses targeted for UOC events recently, of those, four out of five have now adopted "NO GUNS" as their policy in their establishments.

Now who wants to tell me that UOC can't/won't/ISN'T backfiring on us?

Agreed.

curtisfong
02-12-2010, 9:29 PM
I sincerely hope John and Jane Public agree with us. The battle of public opinion is ON!

John and Jane Public (of California) will generally agree that businesses should ban guns. UOC won't be winning any hearts and minds any time soon. Your opinion *in this state* is that of a minority; minorities can only depend on the judicial system, not the populist legislature, to defend their rights.

Kestryll
02-12-2010, 9:30 PM
I sincerely hope John and Jane Public agree with us. The battle of public opinion is ON!

I'm not holding my breath on winning public opinion, I'm much more confident in winning in court.

I am very much concerned however that by the time we win in court we will be barred from the majority of businesses.

dantodd
02-12-2010, 9:31 PM
I am very much concerned however that by the time we win in court we will be barred from the majority of businesses.

I have no confidence that after we win in court businesses will be any less likely to hang "no guns" signs than they are now.

corrupt
02-12-2010, 9:31 PM
____ bans weapons after OC event... deja vu.

dustoff31
02-12-2010, 9:40 PM
So I assume these bans apply to legally CCW'd guns as well. If that is the case though the worst they can do is ask you to leave if they somehow figure out you are CCWing correct? Would there be any legal reprecussions to CCWing in one of these establishments?

For now, yes, all they can do is tell you to leave.

After incorporation and other pending cases, I wouldn't be surprized to see the laws changed to criminalize entering posted establishments while carrying.

For example in AZ, it's a crime (misd) to a enter bar/resturant that is posted. There are some affirmative defenses, but if convicted you'll loose your CCW.

wildhawker
02-12-2010, 9:40 PM
Just a thought: maybe we need to urge UOC events be held at places we don't like...

hoffmang
02-12-2010, 9:41 PM
I have no confidence that after we win in court businesses will be any less likely to hang "no guns" signs than they are now.

They don't ban what doesn't come to their attention. There are at least 40,000 people in California licensed to carry. Notice that there were 0 signs before UOC.

-Gene

Kestryll
02-12-2010, 9:53 PM
I have no confidence that after we win in court businesses will be any less likely to hang "no guns" signs than they are now.

I think they will be less likely because if we win most will be carrying with a CCW and the businesses won't know it.

ETA: Okay, I type slow and Gene beat me to it.

loather
02-12-2010, 9:53 PM
4 for 5...


Sometimes it sucks to be right doesn't it?

Indeed. The out-in-public OC meets were a lot less dangerous. Although I can sympathize with the cause I understand the prudency of not making this particular political statement at this time. It's a shame those among us are too blockheaded to do the same. Yes, I understand we shouldn't have to not exercise our rights. Yes, I don't like the man holding me down. Yes, people should be more tolerant. Yes, people should be more patient lest they risk ruining it for everyone else.

djm315
02-12-2010, 9:54 PM
Wonderful. At this rate, by the time the OC people get the law changed, it won't matter as every property owner in the state will have posted his property.

this ...

djm315
02-12-2010, 9:57 PM
They don't ban what doesn't come to their attention. There are at least 40,000 people in California licensed to carry. Notice that there were 0 signs before UOC.

-Gene



And This

Kestryll
02-12-2010, 9:57 PM
Just a thought: maybe we need to urge UOC events be held at places we don't like...

LOL!!! I like this idea!

Next UOC event is at the China Olive in Northridge!

Bastages tried to tow my dad's car out of their parking lot as a non-customer while he was eating there!

383green
02-12-2010, 9:59 PM
They don't ban what doesn't come to their attention. There are at least 40,000 people in California licensed to carry. Notice that there were 0 signs before UOC.

It almost sounds like you are implying that UOC events have caused at least 40,000 lawfully-armed Californians to become banned from 3 or 4 restaurant chains where they were previously welcome.

rero360
02-12-2010, 10:05 PM
Like I've always said, concealed means concealed. What others don't know about me can't hurt me.

"Excuse me? the bulge under my shirt? Why thats just my insuline pump/ colostomy bag" LOL

Of course I discovered from carrying concealed back in NY is that most people are so absorbed in their own little worlds that you can be open carrying and they wouldn't notice. I had my shirt pull up over the grip of my pistol once at a store, I walked around the store, stood in line at the register for like 45 minutes with my pistol showing with noone noticing, I didn't realize it until I reached for my wallet lol.

wildhawker
02-12-2010, 10:06 PM
Bastages tried to tow my dad's car out of their parking lot as a non-customer while he was eating there!

Wow; I've actually never encountered a restaurant that towed, let alone a Chinese place in N'Ridge.

383green
02-12-2010, 10:06 PM
"Excuse me? the bulge under my shirt? Why thats just my insuline pump/ colostomy bag" LOL

That just gave me an idea for a concealed-carry holster that nobody will check too carefully. :p

gotgunz
02-12-2010, 10:08 PM
Of 5 restaurants/coffee shop chains that have had major UOC events held at them only Starbucks hasn't responded by banning firearms as corporate policy.

-Gene

Sometimes it sucks to be right doesn't it?

I noticed that too; seems like a poor batting average to me.

I sincerely hope John and Jane Public agree with us. The battle of public opinion is ON!

May the force be with you misguided young Jedi. The scales of the court of public opinion are out of calibration.

This is an important point not to be overlooked. What Gene is saying is that of the five chain businesses targeted for UOC events recently, of those, four out of five have now adopted "NO GUNS" as their policy in their establishments.

Now who wants to tell me that UOC can't/won't/ISN'T backfiring on us?

Not me!

I have no confidence that after we win in court businesses will be any less likely to hang "no guns" signs than they are now.

If they keep this up and gain more negative attention I am convinced you will see nearly every business having "no guns" signs.

It almost sounds like you are implying that UOC events have caused at least 40,000 lawfully-armed Californians to become banned from 3 or 4 restaurant chains where they were previously welcome.

Yeah, that about sums it up.... thanks guys :rolleyes:, I really like California Pizza Kitchen. Your political statements are having a negative effect; good job!

curtisfong
02-12-2010, 10:09 PM
At risk of going way off topic


China Olive

Why the hell would you go there when there is an A&W and a Mandarin Deli right up the street?

ddestruel
02-12-2010, 10:25 PM
are tehy going to ban law enforcement agents from coming in with thier weapons?

Do not support establishments of this sort after incorporationa dn make your reasoning known to them.

Kestryll
02-12-2010, 10:26 PM
At risk of going way off topic



Why the hell would you go there when there is an A&W and a Mandarin Deli right up the street?

Don't look at me, my dad went there not me.

When I want Chinese I go to The Great Wall.

My375hp302
02-12-2010, 10:31 PM
What do you guys expect. It's a BUSINESS. Businesses are there to make MONEY. What percentage of their customer base do you think you UOC'ers are? So, if they have to choose between making you happy, or making all of their other customers happy, where do you think you will stand? The only thing that baffels me is why Starbucks hasn't kicked you guys out too.

You need to realise that these people are working to make money to put food on their tables. They are going to make what ever decision keeps the money coming in. Hell, I'm about as pro 2nd as you can get but I would kick you guys out too if I had a similar business. You need to understand that altho you are breaking no laws, you ARE scaring and intimidating people. I know you're not doing it intentionally, but in a soceity that demonises guns and gun ownership you have to expect that. You have to understand that not everyone is a gun nut like we are. Most people couldn't even tell you the difference between a auto and a revolver. All they know is that guns are bad and scary and they don't want to eat somewhere where people are carrying them out in the open.

crimtide
02-12-2010, 10:37 PM
They don't ban what doesn't come to their attention. There are at least 40,000 people in California licensed to carry. Notice that there were 0 signs before UOC.

-Gene

It is going to be hard to influence what is socially acceptable when CCW issuance is sitting at a tenth of a percent.

(40,000 / 36,961,664) * 100 = 0.10822023597206013235767740326842

California Current Population Estimate as of 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

The only way that it will be socially acceptable for someone to exercise there 2A rights outside of their home will be through winning the CCW court cases that the SAF and CGF have in the pipeline. Incorporation will be the turning point that will established the 2A as a right in California, once that is done the other cases will be taken off there current hold and will start making there way through the courts.

It takes time to do things right first time. Taking short cuts the first time around only leads to more work over the long term. Aggravating the opposition at this point will only make things more difficult to fix down the road and will take much more work and time.

My $.02

Crimtide

wildhawker
02-12-2010, 10:43 PM
When I want Chinese I go to The Great Wall.

That's an awfully long flight for chow mein.

Grakken
02-12-2010, 10:45 PM
I'm starting to be against UOC, but for different reasons than the average sheeple. I don't dislike the people that do but I feel it is as lex stated, grandstanding and only hurting perception at this time. Yeah, I know, your right to carry, and I agree, but only because guns don't scare me. Soccer moms can give 2 sheets about your rights to carry. They don't know you from Adam and you aren't going to be changing their minds anytime soon, while they are shocked they see your 1911 in your waist. If anything, will make them want to force a ban on UOC (you know, because of the children). They won't be running to the city council asking for its county wide acceptance (especially if you live in an urban area) It's Human nature to fear something we don't understand. We all know the majority of Californians don't understand the 2nd Amendment. Most of them stop at well regulated.

You might say tough and they need to learn to live with it. I'd agree in point but I'm a realist. All that will happen is you will continue to have firearms banned at places where you decide to mass meet at (like is happening now). I cant speak for anyone else but if I walk into a public place and I see 20 people and only 1 person is in their UOC, bet your last dollar i'll be keeping my eye on you, ESPECIALLY if I have my kid with me. Not because i fear your gun per se, but because I have no clue who or what type of person you are. Yeah, that sucks but i'm not taking any chances. You can't expect Johnny Ignorant to act any different. Most likely Johnny Public will act much more confused and scared.


To me, common sense would tell me (hypothetically of course)
If i'm a bad guy looking to rob/pillage/whatever and i'm armed and I see 20 people and you the only UOC, knowing you probably have a magazine at the ready in your other pocket, for sure you are numero uno on the "need to neutralize quickly list". Maybe i succeed, maybe i don't. However the odds are in my favor (surprise). Unless you are quick draw mcgr...errr I mean, quick draw, load, chamber a round, mcgraw...

However, the main reason I am starting to turn on the idea at least for now is seeing the almost obvious reactions by the public at large and the business's reactions to it. You are forcing businesses to make a decision. A decision that is pretty much going to be made by the folks who look at the company bottom line. Either allow UOC (in which you are the vast minority) and risk alienating or turning away the vast majority of their patrons or ban all firearms (CCW and UOC), piss you/us the minority off/turn you away and retain their normal business.

UOC at best breaks even, as in a place like starbucks where it says it is okay (for now) or a complete net loss like this place and the few others. So you either maintain the status quo, or you lose. If that were a game in Vegas, who the hell would play it?

Last I checked, no businesses were putting up signs that encouraged carry of any type. "Greetings, we at XYZ company encourage our customers to UOC we welcome you" It be nice, thats for sure, but we all know that would be the day.

hoffmang
02-12-2010, 10:49 PM
It is going to be hard to influence what is socially acceptable when CCW issuance is sitting at a tenth of a percent.

(40,000 / 36,961,664) * 100 = 0.10822023597206013235767740326842


And 100 UOCers make the math look better?

Here's the math as I see it.

Firearms bans per UOC event = 4 out of 5.

Firearms bans per 12050 licensee = 0 out of 40,000*365 or 0.

-Gene

Kestryll
02-12-2010, 10:57 PM
That's an awfully long flight for chow mein.

One does NOT compromise on quality Cashew Chicken.




;)

Silencer
02-12-2010, 10:58 PM
It's time all California businesses decide if they're for us, or against us. They must pick a side, "anti-con" or "Pro Constitution," "anti-gun" or "pro-gun."

I pledge, I will not support a business that wont support my rights!

wildhawker
02-12-2010, 11:02 PM
It's time all California businesses decide if they're for us, or against us. They must pick a side, "anti-con" or "Pro Constitution," "anti-gun" or "pro-gun."

I pledge, I will not support a business that wont support my rights!

If you get what it is you say you want you'll probably not be driving, eating, watching or wearing much.

There's no reason to die on this hill.

dirtnap
02-12-2010, 11:04 PM
Actually, the tally is 4 out of (# of buisness where it's not yet prohibited). I don't get where this 4/5 comes from. More than 5 stores have had a UOC'er at one time or another, so it can't be that.

My375hp302
02-12-2010, 11:08 PM
It's time all California businesses decide if they're for us, or against us. They must pick a side, "anti-con" or "Pro Constitution," "anti-gun" or "pro-gun."

I pledge, I will not support a business that wont support my rights!

How about anti-money or pro-money. Why do you insist on fighting a legal battle in private businesses? You people scare me. You make me wonder if it's even possible to gain any ground in this state with so much sabotage form within our own ranks.

crimtide
02-12-2010, 11:11 PM
And 100 UOCers make the math look better?

Here's the math as I see it.

Firearms bans per UOC event = 4 out of 5.

Firearms bans per 12050 licensee = 0 out of 40,000*365 or 0.

-Gene

100% Agree, but it seems that some don't understand the math. The longer this goes on the worse it is going to get for the people that have enough since about themselves to see that the right things are in motion to establish California's 2A rights and get people the ability to defend themselves once CCWs become attainable to the common man.

From reading this forum every day I get more and more frustrated when it seems some people are working against us and then justifying it by tossing out "I am exercising my 2A rights". ( FAIL on that logic since we do not have a RKBA in the CA constitution as it stands today and Heller will not establish the RKBA in CA until it is incorporated via McDonald v. Chicago ) All that the UOC movement is doing is hurting us at this point.

I know that I am preaching to the wrong guy on this one but I hope that someone that is thinking about joining in on one of these UOC demonstrations / meetings / group hugs will read this and figure it out. It really isn't that hard of logic from where I am sitting.

Crimtide

Theseus
02-12-2010, 11:27 PM
What about the open carry event at Bass Pro Shops? Not only did they not ban us, they welcomed our meeting and invited us to come back. Now, it wasn't a "major" event, but there were about a dozen of us plus family.

And according to this particular restaurant they made an exception to their already existing "no weapons" policy. This isn't the same.

If you look at many of the large corporations, many of them like Target, Best Buy, and more all allow carry if it is legal in their state.

I would be much more hurt if this was someone that was previously a supporter and that changed their mind based on the behavior of our group, but that isn't the case here.

hoffmang
02-12-2010, 11:29 PM
On the 4 versus 5 issue: I recall an additional coffee shop in SoCal that banned carry. I have looked for the thread but I could not find it on a quick review.

Let's say I'm wrong. We've at least lost 3 in less weeks.

-Gene

Vinz
02-12-2010, 11:29 PM
What do you guys expect. It's a BUSINESS. Businesses are there to make MONEY. What percentage of their customer base do you think you UOC'ers are? So, if they have to choose between making you happy, or making all of their other customers happy, where do you think you will stand? The only thing that baffels me is why Starbucks hasn't kicked you guys out too.

You need to realise that these people are working to make money to put food on their tables. They are going to make what ever decision keeps the money coming in. Hell, I'm about as pro 2nd as you can get but I would kick you guys out too if I had a similar business. You need to understand that altho you are breaking no laws, you ARE scaring and intimidating people. I know you're not doing it intentionally, but in a soceity that demonises guns and gun ownership you have to expect that. You have to understand that not everyone is a gun nut like we are. Most people couldn't even tell you the difference between a auto and a revolver. All they know is that guns are bad and scary and they don't want to eat somewhere where people are carrying them out in the open.

x2k thanks for saving me some typing time. Its funny how the food seemed good two weeks ago. :rolleyes:

LOL vinz

hoffmang
02-12-2010, 11:30 PM
What about the open carry event at Bass Pro Shops?

And sadly, you're serious.

You have a social tin ear.

-Gene

N6ATF
02-12-2010, 11:36 PM
When are we going to get retractions on the "100 armed men" BS? This number was rounded to the nearest one hundred, and they were not all men, or even all armed!

hoffmang
02-12-2010, 11:39 PM
When are we going to get retractions on the "100 armed men" BS? This number was rounded to the nearest one hundred, and they were not all men, or even all armed!

Congratulations. UOC is even less popular than reported in the media?

-Gene

Silencer
02-12-2010, 11:47 PM
Why do you insist on fighting a legal battle in private businesses?
Because it's just not a legal battle. It's a political and financial one, too. Why bother? You got to run from all angles. If you don't, they'll just think you're pissing up a rope.

You people scare me.
Boo!

You make me wonder if it's even possible to gain any ground in this state with so much sabotage form within our own ranks.
Sometimes drawing a line in the sand or building a wall does work. You don't know if it will work unless you try.

trashman
02-12-2010, 11:56 PM
When are we going to get retractions on the "100 armed men" BS? This number was rounded to the nearest one hundred, and they were not all men, or even all armed!

What does it matter? Does it really change the (lack of) risk analysis? Or the fact that the risk is being fully, and repeatedly, realized?

--Neill

trashman
02-12-2010, 11:59 PM
Sometimes drawing a line in the sand or building a wall does work. You don't know if it will work unless you try.

But sometimes there are tangible costs to knowing-by-trying. This was one of those cases. And a whole lotta folks who have done right by us cautioned us all beforehand.

--Neill

trashman
02-13-2010, 12:17 AM
Sometimes drawing a line in the sand or building a wall does work. You don't know if it will work unless you try.

Let me put it a different way: reasonable minds might disagree on the likelihood of the legal/political/social outcome of UOC; but that being said the costs of the negative outcome are not so debatable: UOC folks ought to start putting some serious money away to fund the legal challenges caused by UOC backlash.

That is how you manage risk: you set aside additional money to offset the consequences should they occur.

--Neill

N6ATF
02-13-2010, 12:23 AM
Congratulations. UOC is even less popular than reported in the media?

-Gene

Wouldn't you rather have lower truthful numbers so that less people are emboldened to go out and get arrested for failure to research the 2A/14A infringements?

What does it matter? Does it really change the (lack of) risk analysis? Or the fact that the risk is being fully, and repeatedly, realized?

--Neill

The risk analysis included businesses having super secret no guns policies, which they neglected to reveal in weeks of planning discussions, never displayed on any website, any sign, nor apparently any employees' handbook, then whipped out only after the largest (but not so large as erroneously reported) UOC event to date?

I need the name of this crystal ball supplier if that risk was EVER considered in the analysis.

trashman
02-13-2010, 12:31 AM
The risk analysis included businesses having super secret no guns policies, which they neglected to reveal in weeks of planning discussions, never displayed on any website, any sign, nor apparently any employees' handbook, then whipped out only after the largest (but not so large as erroneously reported) UOC event to date?

I need the name of this crystal ball supplier if that risk was EVER considered in the analysis.

You're missing the point -- the risk is clearly broader than one chain's bait-and-switch gun policies.

As for crystal balls -- care to share what WAS in the risk analysis? What did anybody think could go wrong, and how was it quantized? (that's not a rhetorical question)

--Neill

hoffmang
02-13-2010, 12:33 AM
Wouldn't you rather have lower truthful numbers so that less people are emboldened to go out and get arrested for failure to research the 2A/14A infringements?

Everyone ignores my wish to not embolden more to UOC without understanding the situation so why bother. The current support of UOC doesn't listen to anyone, including their natural allies. I though the goal was to show how popular and accepted UOC was?

I kind of want to know where the next UOC outing will be so I can find out which place I next can't carry in.

-Gene

Hopi
02-13-2010, 12:37 AM
This is sad.

That's all there is to say at this point.

ETA: I was wrong. This bears repeating again and again and again;

You're missing the point

--Neill

trashman
02-13-2010, 12:39 AM
The current support of UOC doesn't listen to anyone, including their natural allies. folks who have actually LOC for years in unincorporated areas while solo backpacking, etc.

Fixed it for ya...

--Neill

Alaric
02-13-2010, 12:42 AM
What about the open carry event at Bass Pro Shops? Not only did they not ban us, they welcomed our meeting and invited us to come back. Now, it wasn't a "major" event, but there were about a dozen of us plus family.

And according to this particular restaurant they made an exception to their already existing "no weapons" policy. This isn't the same.

If you look at many of the large corporations, many of them like Target, Best Buy, and more all allow carry if it is legal in their state.

I would be much more hurt if this was someone that was previously a supporter and that changed their mind based on the behavior of our group, but that isn't the case here.

Hold on. You're telling us that a hunting and fishing shop wasn't willing to offend the people it relies upon to buy it's products by banning them? Shocking! :eek:

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with coffee shops and restaurants creating policies banning guns though. These establishments are reading the writing on the wall and posting that writing on the wall literally.

What this comes from is our (the 2A community) unfortunate inability to counteract the rule of thumb that states that most media coverage we get will reflect poorly on us. When news outlets are writing near-hysterical stories on dozens of people WITH GUNS (OMG!) showing up at restaurants, quotes of concerned police officers, shocked citizens, etc. then the restaurants are quite likely to go with what they perceive to be the mainstream flow (the media angle) and ban us.

The net effect is that we are getting our asses handed to us. We are winning in the courts and losing in the court of public opinion in this state, as usual. And whose fault is that? Is that the CGF (who is winning in the courts)? Or is it coming from people who irresponsibly go handing a media coup to our enemies?

Theseus
02-13-2010, 1:18 AM
Everyone ignores my wish to not embolden more to UOC without understanding the situation so why bother. The current support of UOC doesn't listen to anyone, including their natural allies. I though the goal was to show how popular and accepted UOC was?

I kind of want to know where the next UOC outing will be so I can find out which place I next can't carry in.

-Gene

I don't believe that any OC event has been formed with the purpose of showing how popular it is. If that were a goal I would admit that it would be an unrealized goal for quite some time.

Hold on. You're telling us that a hunting and fishing shop wasn't willing to offend the people it relies upon to buy it's products by banning them? Shocking! :eek:

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with coffee shops and restaurants creating policies banning guns though. These establishments are reading the writing on the wall and posting that writing on the wall literally.

What this comes from is our (the 2A community) unfortunate inability to counteract the rule of thumb that states that most media coverage we get will reflect poorly on us. When news outlets are writing near-hysterical stories on dozens of people WITH GUNS (OMG!) showing up at restaurants, quotes of concerned police officers, shocked citizens, etc. then the restaurants are quite likely to go with what they perceive to be the mainstream flow (the media angle) and ban us.

The net effect is that we are getting our asses handed to us. We are winning in the courts and losing in the court of public opinion in this state, as usual. And whose fault is that? Is that the CGF (who is winning in the courts)? Or is it coming from people who irresponsibly go handing a media coup to our enemies?

The point I was making is that not all of them end in disaster. Agreed we were in friendly territory but that doesn't, in my opinion, cheapen the value of a successful event. In fact, I believe that is the kind of place we should be holding our events, not in places where the outcome would be questionable or unpredictable.

I myself don't agree with the media attention for the events, but they aren't my events and no one asked me. I believed that we should fly low and use the events as a means to help educate and prepare us for post-incorporation growth.

In light of what is happening I believe that the issue we face now is the small splinters in the open carriers. We aren't all the same group with the same desires, but are all being bunched in as the same.

And I am not saying it is their fault or they are to blame for the outcome, but I would have preferred that the foundation, instead of asking for a stand down and leaving the open carriers to their own devices, that they used their superb leadership skills and helped guide them.

ErikTheRed
02-13-2010, 3:01 AM
The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree that the growing UOC trend is doing far more harm than good. Sure, its your right to UOC....... but its also the right of any business to simply say, "not in here". Seems the UOC supporters are beginning to toss around a fairly large monkey wrench.

pullnshoot25
02-13-2010, 3:12 AM
I don't believe that any OC event has been formed with the purpose of showing how popular it is. If that were a goal I would admit that it would be an unrealized goal for quite some time.

The point I was making is that not all of them end in disaster. Agreed we were in friendly territory but that doesn't, in my opinion, cheapen the value of a successful event. In fact, I believe that is the kind of place we should be holding our events, not in places where the outcome would be questionable or unpredictable.

I myself don't agree with the media attention for the events, but they aren't my events and no one asked me. I believed that we should fly low and use the events as a means to help educate and prepare us for post-incorporation growth.

In light of what is happening I believe that the issue we face now is the small splinters in the open carriers. We aren't all the same group with the same desires, but are all being bunched in as the same.

And I am not saying it is their fault or they are to blame for the outcome, but I would have preferred that the foundation, instead of asking for a stand down and leaving the open carriers to their own devices, that they used their superb leadership skills and helped guide them.

These are all issues that I have attempted to address on OCDO.

The main issues that I have are...

1) No one is listening.
2) Some guys seem to be SEEKING media contact.
3) Did I mention that no one is listening?
4) New guys with little to no experience are seeking to lead groups of people.
5) It seems like there is a lot of "mobbing" going on in regards to various business locations.
6) In addition to not listening, many bash CGF/CGN, in spite of the fact that CGF has saved more bacon than Jimmy Dean ever has.
7) Etc etc etc.

Time for bed.

ricochet
02-13-2010, 3:22 AM
I agree with Gene and others, and it has been said before, UOC right now, is not the best of ideas in that it's allowed by PRK but not yet a right ...

Regarding the comment ...
but I would have preferred that the foundation, instead of asking for a stand down and leaving the open carriers to their own devices, that they used their superb leadership skills and helped guide them.

I think I'm hearing those leadership skills giving out the marching orders to cease and dissist until we have secured our rights in the courts (I'm sure I spelled dissist wrong).

gbp
02-13-2010, 4:39 AM
at the rate this is going i believe that something will happen within the near future that will set us back years
jmt

Smokey510
02-13-2010, 6:05 AM
The buckhorn I a glorified taco bell. The plates are $8-12. So $12 a person is exactly on par for their prices. It's not a Chili's or a Mortons.

POINTMANDDT
02-13-2010, 7:13 AM
These are all issues that I have attempted to address on OCDO.

The main issues that I have are...

1) No one is listening.
2) Some guys seem to be SEEKING media contact.
3) Did I mention that no one is listening?
4) New guys with little to no experience are seeking to lead groups of people.
5) It seems like there is a lot of "mobbing" going on in regards to various business locations.
6) In addition to not listening, many bash CGF/CGN, in spite of the fact that CGF has saved more bacon than Jimmy Dean ever has.
7) Etc etc etc.

Time for bed.



I agree with all of your concerns, especially number four. I've expressed this concern and said they should try a more positive approach to open carry. Something the media would have a hard time putting a negative spin on. Such as, trash pick up in a public park, graffiti removal, etc. No more meets at businesses. If UOC (including myself) continue to go to small or even large businesses, I foresee businesses taking a proactive approach and banning all weapons prior to any event.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-13-2010, 7:52 AM
Like I've always said, concealed means concealed. What others don't know about me can't hurt me.

"Excuse me? the bulge under my shirt? Why thats just my insuline pump/ colostomy bag" LOL

Of course I discovered from carrying concealed back in NY is that most people are so absorbed in their own little worlds that you can be open carrying and they wouldn't notice. I had my shirt pull up over the grip of my pistol once at a store, I walked around the store, stood in line at the register for like 45 minutes with my pistol showing with noone noticing, I didn't realize it until I reached for my wallet lol.


Was that Peter Noone? Are Herman's Hermits getting back together? :)


Seriously though, while restaurants might not be the best place to have UOC events, the events should definitely continue. As Gene pointed out, the public perception of a thing changes once that thing is regarded as a Right. The public perception matters a great deal & I'm not seeing any other group doing anything to alter that in our favor.

Also, UOC here in the PRK had zero effect on all the businesses in Kansas that banned ALL carry (not just open) when the new CCW law went into effect there. The fact is, businesses will ban or not based on lots of things. UOC may have brought the matter to a head for CPK, etc NOW, but the reality is that they would have most likely banned CCW carry as well. IOW, we lost nothing.

But we may have gained quite a bit.



Originally Posted by rero360
"Excuse me? the bulge under my shirt? Why thats just my insuline pump/ colostomy bag" LOL


That just gave me an idea for a concealed-carry holster that nobody will check too carefully. :p

Me too!


The Raisuli

trashman
02-13-2010, 8:05 AM
Seriously though, while restaurants might not be the best place to have UOC events, the events should definitely continue. As Gene pointed out, the public perception of a thing changes once that thing is regarded as a Right. The public perception matters a great deal & I'm not seeing any other group doing anything to alter that in our favor.

[...]

IOW, we lost nothing.

[...]

But we may have gained quite a bit.

Can you express that non-qualitatively?


How many new Calgunners got signed up as a result of UOC events?
How many donations went into either the NRAs or CGFs coffers as a result of these events?
How many non-sensational (or positive) news stories were published as a result of these events?
How many legal strategies have been drafted with potential litigants?


If "public perception matters a great deal" how are you measuring


the current baseline of public perception (opinion)
the improvements to the public perception (opinion)

...because at this point simply hand-waving away CGF's concerns by saying "I disagree, the sky IS brown" is just that -- handwaving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving).

--Neill

cineski
02-13-2010, 8:12 AM
Why are some freaking out about the $12 per plate? If it were $20 that means people would be drinking with a gun on their hip, so I'd say it's a good thing people were only paying $12.

Centurion_D
02-13-2010, 8:36 AM
at the rate this is going i believe that something will happen within the near future that will set us back years
jmt

+1.

tenpercentfirearms
02-13-2010, 8:49 AM
That was the nice thing about having my CCW in California. Hardly anyone has no carry signs. They just assume you aren't carrying so they don't worry about it.

It would be a bummer if the state passed laws to criminalize me for carrying in a business that had a sign. I guess we would all be more equal though. You can't carry, I can't carry.

Why is this a good idea again?

tyrist
02-13-2010, 9:05 AM
They don't ban what doesn't come to their attention. There are at least 40,000 people in California licensed to carry. Notice that there were 0 signs before UOC.

-Gene

This is not true. There are many places which have signs saying no firearms. If you look at the ticket booth of many places such as movie theaters there is a sticker on the window. I don't recall seeing any on restaurants or coffee shops unless that location was primarily a bar. They are very common though.

turbosbox
02-13-2010, 9:08 AM
The point I was making is that not all of them end in disaster. Agreed we were in friendly territory but that doesn't, in my opinion, cheapen the value of a successful event. In fact, I believe that is the kind of place we should be holding our events, not in places where the outcome would be questionable or unpredictable.


I was going to ask you how you based your comment of a successful event, but I found the answer in bold in the same para : It didn't end in disaster.

To many others of us, successful means it had a positive influence or gain, not successful because there was no immediate disaster.
Did the manager greet you on the way out asking that you all hurry up and come back and do it again? Anyone do a discreet polling of the customers opinions?

I had a customer come to me a while back saying "there is a [thug] over there with a gun in his pocket :eek:". So I immediately....did nothing.
I just kept an eye on him, I was armed too. He went about his purchases and left. Did I lose her as a customer because she will be afraid to return to the store? Will she not bring friends to repeat shop? Will she tell her friends it's not safe to shop there?

A private business is there to make money pay the bills in today's CA economy.

If I had one customer wearing a snake around their neck (or UOC), I might just let it go even if it scared another customer. If they kept coming back or tried to have a snake wearing mob scene at one of the biz's that I have interest in, they would be all be posted No Guns the next day.

But I guess to some people that negative impact to the public and the business would be considered a successful UOC event.

Why can't we go in a business our walk around everywhere with : No shirt, no shoes, drunk in public, with a pet, wearing a mask...

So if its 4 for 5, or 3 of 4 or whatever. It could now be 7 of 5, or 70 of 5 if business saw how this plays out, and now post as a result.

Kharn
02-13-2010, 9:09 AM
Why are some freaking out about the $12 per plate? If it were $20 that means people would be drinking with a gun on their hip, so I'd say it's a good thing people were only paying $12.Sandwiches are $6-8 each, but entres are $12+, add in sodas and extras and you have a very small take for such a large crowd. Maybe too many UOCers were bad tippers. ;)

tenpercentfirearms
02-13-2010, 9:31 AM
This is not true. There are many places which have signs saying no firearms. If you look at the ticket booth of many places such as movie theaters there is a sticker on the window. I don't recall seeing any on restaurants or coffee shops unless that location was primarily a bar. They are very common though.

Signs that are generally ignored with the only consequence being a trespassing charge, if refusal to leave.

If we push it too hard, will the CA legislature add teeth to that and make that a condition of permit loss and/or a criminal act to carry where a sign asks you not to?

I don't want to seem like I am afraid of the CA legislature, but I am. They are liberal, they clearly don't like guns, and quite often the only thing that saves us is the governor. Now you can see why I am legitimately afraid. This governor hasn't been much help.

GunNutz
02-13-2010, 9:34 AM
Yeah really. My parents are in the restaurant biz and 100 people spending $1200 is definitely not worth the hassle. That's an insanely low per head cost....even for drinks!


It's borderline fast food. $12 apiece at buckhorn is about average.

GunNutz
02-13-2010, 9:36 AM
Sandwiches are $6-8 each, but entres are $12+, add in sodas and extras and you have a very small take for such a large crowd. Maybe too many UOCers were bad tippers. ;)
You get a a number and pick up a tray. None of the buckhorns I've been to provide waitress service. It's borderline fast food.

pitchbaby
02-13-2010, 9:57 AM
To anyone that will care to listen.... I have to add my voice to say that UOC right now.... while a wonderful demonstration of 2A rights..... IT IS NOT GONNA' GET US ANYWHERE BUT INTO TROUBLE!!!

Listen to Alaric, Gene, Ricochet, and so many others here.... While I would personally welcome a UOC'er in my shop, I also don't see the good it will do when we are SO CLOSE TO SOMETHING BIGGER THAN A GLOCK ON YOUR HIP!!! Just a little patience at the very least!

If the worse happens in DC next month and the court goes against the will of the people, we can take another look, but a prudent look!

Let's not draw undue attention that may potentially ruin the good that we expect to come from SCOTUS.

halifax
02-13-2010, 9:59 AM
Signs that are generally ignored with the only consequence being a trespassing charge, if refusal to leave.

If we push it too hard, will the CA legislature add teeth to that and make that a condition of permit loss and/or a criminal act to carry where a sign asks you not to?

I don't want to seem like I am afraid of the CA legislature, but I am. They are liberal, they clearly don't like guns, and quite often the only thing that saves us is the governor. Now you can see why I am legitimately afraid. This governor hasn't been much help.

Like the Black Panthers when they exercised their rights in Sacramento, more harm than good will come of this.

hoffmang
02-13-2010, 10:36 AM
but I would have preferred that the foundation, instead of asking for a stand down and leaving the open carriers to their own devices, that they used their superb leadership skills and helped guide them.

We did. You'll notice that most of the first generation did stand down. The bigger problem is "lead them to do what?"

Most UOCing aren't thinking about (or believing) what the most likely outcome of their activism will be at this time.

Also, that has other costs. While we're busy dealing with UOC created drama, we're not pulling together lawsuits that expand gun rights in California.

We had to write that letter to EPA, however is that more or less important than invalidating AB-962?

-Gene

rero360
02-13-2010, 10:47 AM
The thing is wit the no carry signs at alot of establishments around the country is that they hold no weight. If you are carrying and are outed, they can ask you to leave, just as their right to do in any situation. If you refuse to leave then yeah, you can get hit with a trespassing charge, but again, its no different in any other situation, gun or not.

Like I said, concealed means concealed, when I was in NY I carried everywhere I went regardless of any signs. The only places I didn't carry were those that had metal detectors or where you'd get patted down at the door, i.e. sports arenas, airports, and court houses.

CAL.BAR
02-13-2010, 11:30 AM
what does this refer to?
I'm not surprised a not really well planned event that wasn't a good idea to begin with didn't turn out good :rolleyes: Anyone surprised?

Well I guess I shouldn't expect UOC folks to understand it's not a great idea to do this sort of thing.

Exactly! We HAVE to realize that guns SCARE THE HELL out of "regular" folk. Really. I can't say this enough. UOC is a bad idea. That is why we have CCW laws. If you want to change the CCW laws, do so, but UOC is not the way to do it.

Theseus
02-13-2010, 11:38 AM
I was going to ask you how you based your comment of a successful event, but I found the answer in bold in the same para : It didn't end in disaster.

To many others of us, successful means it had a positive influence or gain, not successful because there was no immediate disaster.
Did the manager greet you on the way out asking that you all hurry up and come back and do it again? Anyone do a discreet polling of the customers opinions?

I had a customer come to me a while back saying "there is a [thug] over there with a gun in his pocket :eek:". So I immediately....did nothing.
I just kept an eye on him, I was armed too. He went about his purchases and left. Did I lose her as a customer because she will be afraid to return to the store? Will she not bring friends to repeat shop? Will she tell her friends it's not safe to shop there?

A private business is there to make money pay the bills in today's CA economy.

If I had one customer wearing a snake around their neck (or UOC), I might just let it go even if it scared another customer. If they kept coming back or tried to have a snake wearing mob scene at one of the biz's that I have interest in, they would be all be posted No Guns the next day.

But I guess to some people that negative impact to the public and the business would be considered a successful UOC event.

Why can't we go in a business our walk around everywhere with : No shirt, no shoes, drunk in public, with a pet, wearing a mask...

So if its 4 for 5, or 3 of 4 or whatever. It could now be 7 of 5, or 70 of 5 if business saw how this plays out, and now post as a result.

So you presume to know how we determined it was successful. All I said is that just because it was at Bass Prop Shops doesn't make it any less successful.

We did. You'll notice that most of the first generation did stand down. The bigger problem is "lead them to do what?"

Most UOCing aren't thinking about (or believing) what the most likely outcome of their activism will be at this time.

Also, that has other costs. While we're busy dealing with UOC created drama, we're not pulling together lawsuits that expand gun rights in California.

We had to write that letter to EPA, however is that more or less important than invalidating AB-962?

-Gene

I agree that I wish the movement was more able to do its own dirty work if they aren't going to work with you.

I was the one that suggested CGF lead them instead of ask for a stand down. It doesn't matter now, and I am not even attempting to act as if it was their fault or they were to blame. That would be a ridiculous argument equal to blaming a gun for shooting a young mother.

I still believe there is value in the movement if the events and growth, for now, are kept low-key.

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 11:43 AM
How quickly we forget what was said on the way here.

ricochet
02-13-2010, 11:54 AM
pullnshoot ... Please read your own signature text.

"Letter to all OCers" - http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/08/update-and-revision.html

"
In spite of all that, I feel that it is necessary to direct this abundant energy into a more concerted effort and that is why I have, ironically, decided to stand down on open carry for now.
"

And please try to be little more respectful ...

QUOTE=pullnshoot25;3801512]Removed.[/QUOTE]

pullnshoot25
02-13-2010, 1:17 PM
pullnshoot ... Please read your own signature text.

"Letter to all OCers" - http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/08/update-and-revision.html

"
In spite of all that, I feel that it is necessary to direct this abundant energy into a more concerted effort and that is why I have, ironically, decided to stand down on open carry for now.
"

And please try to be little more respectful ...

QUOTE=pullnshoot25;3801512]Removed.[/QUOTE]

...and? I said I was standing down, not grandstanding for the Brady Campaign. There is a very big difference.

WokMaster1
02-13-2010, 4:18 PM
One does NOT compromise on quality Cashew Chicken.




;)

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p79/wokmaster1/Was_not_Chicken.jpg

Hopi
02-13-2010, 4:23 PM
How quickly we forget what was said on the way here.

What do you mean? I don't remember any previous threads on this subject. :rolleyes:


Brandon, shall we line up the links as exhibit "A"?

CHS
02-13-2010, 4:55 PM
REDACTED

odysseus
02-13-2010, 5:18 PM
They don't ban what doesn't come to their attention. There are at least 40,000 people in California licensed to carry. Notice that there were 0 signs before UOC.

-Gene

This in general is why I am getting upset about how things are being carried out. I have been watching from the sidelines at the whole UOC growth (not like the idea was a new one historically) and this has always been my essential concern. I prefer CCW for all Californians (not just legally but tactically it is better for individuals), and the general public actually knowingly or not prefers CCW as well. When a form of shall issue CCW arrives in California, will all this resistance growing to UOC make that more difficult?

I think it is essential for those pursuing organized UOC know that they are currently losing a bit in the "court of public opinion" and this has ramifications for everyone until true gun rights are validated in this state. It is giving ammunition to the enemies of the RKBAs as has been discussed here, and even though it is distasteful and wrong that it should, this is a game of chess currently in our environment.

POINTMANDDT
02-13-2010, 5:28 PM
Dude there is no need to call names (it shows your level of class), not every UOC likes the route this is going. I know many of them including myself that is looking for another my positive route to take. BTW, are you with the Brady Campain?

He edited his, I edited yours -6172crew :)

Seesm
02-13-2010, 6:27 PM
Ahh one less place that will get my money... They are only hurting law abiding citizens cuz bad folk will still carry illegally.

Hozr
02-13-2010, 6:54 PM
Yeah really. My parents are in the restaurant biz and 100 people spending $1200 is definitely not worth the hassle. That's an insanely low per head cost....even for drinks!

So you advocate a bunch of people carrying firearms to drink? Yeah, that will help the cause!

pitchbaby
02-13-2010, 7:04 PM
So you advocate a bunch of people carrying firearms to drink? Yeah, that will help the cause!

Good catch Hozr! LOL! I don't drink anyway, but I guess for some people.... avoiding a drink while wearing a gun would need to be a conscience effort.

dantodd
02-13-2010, 8:12 PM
They don't ban what doesn't come to their attention. There are at least 40,000 people in California licensed to carry. Notice that there were 0 signs before UOC.

-Gene

Funny you should mention that. Ikea, right in EPA has always had a no guns sign.

gotgunz
02-13-2010, 8:20 PM
I'm starting to be against UOC, but for different reasons than the average sheeple. I don't dislike the people that do but I feel it is as lex stated, grandstanding and only hurting perception at this time. Yeah, I know, your right to carry, and I agree, but only because guns don't scare me. Soccer moms can give 2 sheets about your rights to carry. They don't know you from Adam and you aren't going to be changing their minds anytime soon, while they are shocked they see your 1911 in your waist. If anything, will make them want to force a ban on UOC (you know, because of the children). They won't be running to the city council asking for its county wide acceptance (especially if you live in an urban area) It's Human nature to fear something we don't understand. We all know the majority of Californians don't understand the 2nd Amendment. Most of them stop at well regulated.

You might say tough and they need to learn to live with it. I'd agree in point but I'm a realist. All that will happen is you will continue to have firearms banned at places where you decide to mass meet at (like is happening now). I cant speak for anyone else but if I walk into a public place and I see 20 people and only 1 person is in their UOC, bet your last dollar i'll be keeping my eye on you, ESPECIALLY if I have my kid with me. Not because i fear your gun per se, but because I have no clue who or what type of person you are. Yeah, that sucks but i'm not taking any chances. You can't expect Johnny Ignorant to act any different. Most likely Johnny Public will act much more confused and scared.


To me, common sense would tell me (hypothetically of course)
If i'm a bad guy looking to rob/pillage/whatever and i'm armed and I see 20 people and you the only UOC, knowing you probably have a magazine at the ready in your other pocket, for sure you are numero uno on the "need to neutralize quickly list". Maybe i succeed, maybe i don't. However the odds are in my favor (surprise). Unless you are quick draw mcgr...errr I mean, quick draw, load, chamber a round, mcgraw...

However, the main reason I am starting to turn on the idea at least for now is seeing the almost obvious reactions by the public at large and the business's reactions to it. You are forcing businesses to make a decision. A decision that is pretty much going to be made by the folks who look at the company bottom line. Either allow UOC (in which you are the vast minority) and risk alienating or turning away the vast majority of their patrons or ban all firearms (CCW and UOC), piss you/us the minority off/turn you away and retain their normal business.

UOC at best breaks even, as in a place like starbucks where it says it is okay (for now) or a complete net loss like this place and the few others. So you either maintain the status quo, or you lose. If that were a game in Vegas, who the hell would play it?

Last I checked, no businesses were putting up signs that encouraged carry of any type. "Greetings, we at XYZ company encourage our customers to UOC we welcome you" It be nice, thats for sure, but we all know that would be the day.

Excellent post!

What about the open carry event at Bass Pro Shops? Not only did they not ban us, they welcomed our meeting and invited us to come back. Now, it wasn't a "major" event, but there were about a dozen of us plus family.

Bass Pro Shops? Don't they sell guns? I mean that would be like saying you had an UOC event at XYZ gun shop; its a "gimmie".


The point I was making is that not all of them end in disaster. Agreed we were in friendly territory but that doesn't, in my opinion, cheapen the value of a successful event. In fact, I believe that is the kind of place we should be holding our events, not in places where the outcome would be questionable or unpredictable.

They might not end in "disaster" but the lasting effects caused by all of the cowboys could end up creating a disaster.



The main issues that I have are...

2) Some guys seem to be SEEKING media contact.


Like this? http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2009/jul/15/cover/ :rolleyes:

dantodd
02-13-2010, 8:23 PM
If we push it too hard, will the CA legislature add teeth to that and make that a condition of permit loss and/or a criminal act to carry where a sign asks you not to?

I would predict that there is a greater than 90% chance that the legislature would enact such a bill if there had never been one single organized UOC event.

These laws are fairly common in shall-issue states and you can be confident that the CA Legislature will look around at other laws and try to limit our rights as much as possible once they are forced to go shall-issue. I don't believe there is any chance that they will allow the judge to merely remove CLEO discretion from the law without a major re-write.

Grakken
02-13-2010, 10:51 PM
Thanks Gunz, I just hope this, like the Peruta case doesnt bite us in the backside.

MT1
02-13-2010, 11:19 PM
There are too many potential negative points of contact with the media and general public due to the UOC movement. You guys may be able to control your actions and your words, you may conduct yourselves professionally and speak well to the media and members of the general public...so lets say that nothing goes wrong with any of the organized "UOC Club" events, but all it takes is one dumb redneck who has seen the clips on TV to go out and ruin everything, he does something illegal, says all the wrong things to the media, and scares all the kiddies because he is now a part of the UOC movement and is exercising his RKBA. You have done nothing wrong, but now we are all guilty by association, this UOC movement is too risky, plain and simple.

N6ATF
02-14-2010, 12:17 AM
I would predict that there is a greater than 99.9% chance that the legislature would enact such a bill if there had never been one single UOCer.

Fixed. :mad:

Theseus
02-14-2010, 12:24 AM
Excellent post!



Bass Pro Shops? Don't they sell guns? I mean that would be like saying you had an UOC event at XYZ gun shop; its a "gimmie".



They might not end in "disaster" but the lasting effects caused by all of the cowboys could end up creating a disaster.



Like this? http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2009/jul/15/cover/ :rolleyes:

And once again, what is wrong with having an event at a gun shop? If we held all, or at least a majority of our meetings in friendly places we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, would we?

Open carry events, when done with proper consideration, could be constructive and helpful. Because some of them are ill-conceived does not detract from the success of the ones that were not ill-conceived.

livermoron
02-14-2010, 12:44 AM
Hi All,

Some of the comments claiming that each person spending "only $12" was in some way not worth it - let me break it down.

I averaged what I thought was a median dollar amount spent. I personally spent about $55 for me and my 2 kids + a $10 tip in the jar. THIS IS A GRILL. You place your order at a counter and take your food to a table. This is NOT a "full service" restaurant. $12 a head as a conservative estimate per person was just that, conservative.

The numbers of people who attended were also "estimated". I counted about 60 folks participating in UOC. Many more attended in support. There may have well been over 100 folks, there wasn't an official head count by anyone.

The fact that we planned in advance for weeks, kept in communication with management and police, were never informed of ANY firearms policy, they invited us in, took our money, got some static from the Brady Campaign and caved in while pushing a knife into our backs to save face. Sad.

Everyone take care. Keep up the good fight for our 2A rights.

Jon

tenpercentfirearms
02-14-2010, 6:46 AM
I would predict that there is a greater than 90% chance that the legislature would enact such a bill if there had never been one single organized UOC event.

These laws are fairly common in shall-issue states and you can be confident that the CA Legislature will look around at other laws and try to limit our rights as much as possible once they are forced to go shall-issue. I don't believe there is any chance that they will allow the judge to merely remove CLEO discretion from the law without a major re-write.

Are you serious? If that were the case then they would have done it by now. Some of you don't know how the CA legislature works. They don't waste their time the little things unless they have to. Second, there are still plenty of liberals who do get their CCWs and they get them from being big time liberal supporters. They have a certain amount of pressure to apply to make sure that CCW isn't screwed with, because it is an elitist thing in most counties.

Only if it becomes a problem will the masses get them to screw with it.

Seriously, if you leave them alone, a lot of the time they let issues stay off the radar. UOC is definitely on their radar now. We know it wasn't for the last 20-40 years until we started carrying guns around in urban centers where the liberals live.

I mean I get carrying UOC for protection. That makes sense. I just don't get what flaunting it in front of urban, gunaphobes faces is when you do not have a right to do so. You have legislative permission. Why does history repeat itself? Didn't any of you learn from the Black Panthers? I suppose not.

OC4ME
02-14-2010, 9:17 AM
Like the Black Panthers when they exercised their rights in Sacramento, more harm than good will come of this.

....now UOC'ers are being likened to the Black Panthers....kind of like not wanting that country cousin to show up at Thanksgiving.;)

6172crew
02-14-2010, 9:56 AM
....now UOC'ers are being likened to the Black Panthers....kind of like not wanting that country cousin to show up at Thanksgiving.;)

One point of view would be that the BPs claimed they were not protected by Police and therefore they were taking things into their own hands.

So yea, the UOC group has some of the same claims as the BPs. Now this might freak you out a bit but the FBI watched the BPs very closely. I have no doubt some of the main guys who advocate UOC publicly have the same 3 letter guys watching them as domestic terrorist.

Back in the day a phone tap had to be placed at a premises in order to work, now you would never know unless they were looking to get video which has to have a technician involved.

gotgunz
02-14-2010, 11:12 AM
And once again, what is wrong with having an event at a gun shop? If we held all, or at least a majority of our meetings in friendly places we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, would we?


True, but it is somewhat of a "gimmie" for a successful event when compared to a restaurant wouldn't you agree?

I mean you're probably not going to have people in a gun store that are afraid of guns and calling the police because of the presence of guns. Its a safe environment for a gun event when compared to say.... In & Out or Olive Garden (just as an example).

wildhawker
02-14-2010, 11:43 AM
True, but it is somewhat of a "gimmie" for a successful event when compared to a restaurant wouldn't you agree?

I mean you're probably not going to have people in a gun store that are afraid of guns and calling the police because of the presence of guns. Its a safe environment for a gun event when compared to say.... In & Out or Olive Garden (just as an example).

I think this goes dangerously close to making their argument for them. Let me state it this way:

Advocating to uneducated gun owners is not a useless endeavor. We know this from much experience doing the same. The fact is that most CA gun owners have no clue as to the current laws and political environment. It is equally important and useful to bring our culture into a state of educated awareness, as well as to reinvigorate those most easily swayed into actively supporting the shooting sports and movement. A growing active base is a force multiplier, and brings gun issues back to the top in the minds of voting Californians. I'll liken it to some Mormon friends who both went on missions: one went to Saipan, the other New York City. Why NYC? Because there was (is) a local need and an opportunity to strengthen the foundation of future evangelistic endeavors.

Now, to the important aspect of what message we take to our base of current or likely sympathizers. Since sex sells, I think UOC has the advantage of drawing those with a propensity to participate in same with the sexiness of empowerment. We use OLLs and fun toys at our events for the same purpose (educate and promulgate). However, as we've discussed in the past, there is a difference between the OLL movement and the UOC movement, not the least of which is a substantially different legal position. So, what do we do knowing all this?

I'm perfectly fine with advocating to the non-active but invested components of our culture with sexy tools and education. However, the closer we are to approaching the ambivalent/anti components of the spectrum, especially in "their" home territory, we must adapt the message to suit. As we gain ground (socially, politically, legally; these are not mutually exclusive), and it becomes more "our" territory, sexier messages and tools can be effectively leveraged. In order to reach this point, however, we must first take the ground. The fatal flaw in UOC outreach theory is the assumption that they will take more foreign ground than they will lose in the process. I believe that the UOC movement failed to perform an honest analysis prior to initiating their campaign, and their efforts (and results) reflect this.

We have known, and current events bear this out, that ours is a multigenerational battle between liberty and statism. More, this is probably the most acute and publicly contentious issue that can be fought in CA at this time. If we are to succeed in the long term, we must apply only the social pressure that can be sustained in the socio-political and legal environment in which we operate. As such, we must temper our desires and, instead, look towards careful analysis of each audience to which we'll present our message. It will not, and must not, be the same in all cases. To do so is to ignore the realities and focus purely on our personal motivators based on an idealist worldview that holds no practical water.

Activism is hard work, and it's even harder to do wisely. If we are to be successful at creating a gun-friendly California, it is important to focus on the low-hanging fruit and apply our energies in a manner consistent with our individual skillsets and the capacity of the market.

CavTrooper
02-14-2010, 11:51 AM
but all it takes is one dumb redneck who has seen the clips on TV to go out and ruin everything...

I would just like to point out that it doesnt take one "dumb redneck" to ruin anything, the elitist, holier-than-thou, 2A hobbyists are doing just fine ruining things on thier own. Places where "dumb rednecks" are the majority generally dont have problems holding on thier RKBA.

MT1
02-14-2010, 12:32 PM
I would just like to point out that it doesnt take one "dumb redneck" to ruin anything, the elitist, holier-than-thou, 2A hobbyists are doing just fine ruining things on thier own. Places where "dumb rednecks" are the majority generally dont have problems holding on thier RKBA.

True - I should have put that in quotes or worded it differently. I have been called a redneck on more than one occasion, so it wasn't an attack, I'm sorry to any rednecks that I may have offended. :p

OC4ME
02-14-2010, 12:40 PM
One point of view would be that the BPs claimed they were not protected by Police and therefore they were taking things into their own hands.

So yea, the UOC group has some of the same claims as the BPs. Now this might freak you out a bit but the FBI watched the BPs very closely. I have no doubt some of the main guys who advocate UOC publicly have the same 3 letter guys watching them as domestic terrorist.

Back in the day a phone tap had to be placed at a premises in order to work, now you would never know unless they were looking to get video which has to have a technician involved.

...I guess not close enough to stop/prevent obvious to all who watched video of voter intimidation back in 2008. If you think there is a surveillance operation in progress, call the locals. I did, had my neighbors call too. The cops left, busted their stake-out. Used the ole "some man sitting in his car near a school bus stop, can you send a car around?" The last couple of callers were told they were authorized to be there. I called and said "not in my neighbor hood", so I parked my truck right behind the cop." he got out and asked me to move along, I said, handing him my cell phone, talk to my lawyer and explain to him why I can not park here when parking here is legal.

When you push the issue in a respectful manner the cops will get the message. Take the issue to the cops each and every day. Turning without using a turn signal, cell phone use while driving, any infraction they can get you on, you can get them on too. To get the law to change in our favor, you have to get the law on the street to change.

ErikTheRed
02-14-2010, 3:46 PM
True - I should have put that in quotes or worded it differently. I have been called a redneck on more than one occasion, so it wasn't an attack, I'm sorry to any rednecks that I may have offended. :p

I'm a PROUD redneck. Not in the sense the leftist elites and the MSM would like to describe, but yes, I'm a redneck in the honest red-white-&-blue patriotic American form. And damn proud to be so.

Hozr
02-14-2010, 4:22 PM
Was "alcoholic" drinks mentioned? I must have missed something:o

So you think spending that extra $1.75 on a soda would have change Buckhorn's opinion? The argument was about the lack of money spent in the restaurant for 100 or so people; what is the logical conclusion ot the point being made?

Buy more expensive drinks. Doesn't matter. The UOC'ers made enough of a nuisance so as to draw negative media attention that isn't needed right now. To each his own.

Smokeybehr
02-15-2010, 12:17 AM
And once again, what is wrong with having an event at a gun shop? If we held all, or at least a majority of our meetings in friendly places we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, would we?

Open carry events, when done with proper consideration, could be constructive and helpful. Because some of them are ill-conceived does not detract from the success of the ones that were not ill-conceived.


In Fresno, that takes are of the 626.9/GFSZ issue, as the city ordinance prohibits gun sales within 1000' of a school.

nicki
02-15-2010, 1:41 AM
Corporate businesses are already hostile toward us, all it takes is one event for a corporate executive to ban carry in the restaurants.

IMHO, unless you can draw and load your firearm in 3 seconds or less, UOC does not provide for real personal security.

Even when I score a CCW post Sykes, I personally wouldn't carry unless I can draw and fire on close range targets in under 1 second.

To me, the only real use for UOC is to make a "political statement".

Back in Ohio, gun rights activists had large open carry marches not to promote open carry, but to push the Governor to stop stonewalling on a CCW bill that he held up for over 8 years.

When Ohio finally did pass a shall issue CCW bill, the open carry marches stopped and while LOC is legal in Ohio, few people do it.

People often refer to the "Black Panthers" and how they screwed up things.

The "Black Panthers" were a byproduct of a racist society.

According to their website, they started carrying guns because they were being attacked by the police when they tried to document police civil rights violations of Blacks.

I believe that we need to take a look at events that caused the formation of the "Black Panthers" in the first place.

Of course it will bring up issues many would just soon try to bury.

Nicki

N6ATF
02-15-2010, 10:00 AM
IMHO, unless you can draw and load your firearm in 3 seconds or less, UOC does not provide for real personal security.

DkbE70mXSGQ
_B8WEPRaNX8

Less than 3 seconds. Closer to 2.

pitchbaby
02-15-2010, 11:03 AM
DkbE70mXSGQ
_B8WEPRaNX8

Less than 3 seconds. Closer to 2.

Is it just me, or do all of us just like watching that stuff over and over again.... makes me want to hit the range!

Merle
02-15-2010, 11:18 AM
What is the difference, to a private business, between UOC and OC post incorporation?

These signs are going up because the business owner feels threatened one way or another. They may be approached by customers who are expressing fear, or they may be receiving news that 100 armed men are partaking a meal in their establishment.

The fear from unarmed citizens is still going to be there and day 1 after incorporation, that fear will not have changed.

The news report of 100 armed men will still happen at the next OC event post incorporation. It will still be UOC and not LOC because the CA law has not been challenged nor changed.

So arguing "just wait 5 more months" does nothing. The law on the CA books and the exposure to unarmed folks will remain exactly the same as today.

Do we really expect restaurants to react differently post the SCOTUS decision?

OC, LoC or UoC is going to be met with the exact same response in the forseeable future.

pullnshoot25
02-15-2010, 11:19 AM
Is it just me, or do all of us just like watching that stuff over and over again.... makes me want to hit the range!

Chyeah, seriously... :)

Silencer
02-15-2010, 5:57 PM
Let me put it a different way: reasonable minds might disagree on the likelihood of the legal/political/social outcome of UOC; but that being said the costs of the negative outcome are not so debatable: UOC folks ought to start putting some serious money away to fund the legal challenges caused by UOC backlash.

That is how you manage risk: you set aside additional money to offset the consequences should they occur.

--Neill

Uh? Wha?

I could give a rat's fat *** about UOC. In fact, I think it's a stupid idea. I see it as a 'bully' tactic and everybody hates bullies.

I'm talking about not visiting any store that post signs or lets their policy be known about firearms. I'm not involving open carry, or concealed carry. I'm only about the money.

If a company is anti-con and financially supports anti-gun laws, I don't give them the resources to do it! That's just stupid!

wildhawker
02-15-2010, 6:19 PM
Silencer, I bet you give those companies money, directly and indirectly, every day. Should we boycot your employer for employing someone who contributes to anti-gun companies?

A bit of practical realism is needed here.

trashman
02-15-2010, 7:39 PM
Uh? Wha?

I could give a rat's fat *** about UOC. In fact, I think it's a stupid idea. I see it as a 'bully' tactic and everybody hates bullies.


If the guys at the CGF can't convince UOC-ers to stand down, what makes you think you can?

At this point it's all about getting the UOC-ers to put some money behind their actions to offset the potentials costs to us non-UOC gunnies (hence the rant about risk).

--Neill

G17GUY
02-15-2010, 8:37 PM
Can we get this banned already?

G17GUY
02-15-2010, 8:43 PM
http://www.bradycampaign.org/starbucks/

While we are getting other stores on board let not forget this one.

Silencer
02-16-2010, 11:23 PM
Silencer, I bet you give those companies money, directly and indirectly, every day. Should we boycot your employer for employing someone who contributes to anti-gun companies?

A bit of practical realism is needed here.

Oh yes, all mighty grasper of all that is real and practical! Let's just all write personal checks to the Brady campaign, since they're going to get our money anyway, right?

Jebus. :rolleyes:

Knowingly supporting companies who are anti-con and anti-gun is no different than signing personal checks to folks like the Brady campaign. Indirectly contributing to these companies are beyond my control. However, I haven't lost complete control, now have I?

Silencer
02-16-2010, 11:25 PM
If the guys at the CGF can't convince UOC-ers to stand down, what makes you think you can?


Who said I was trying? All I did was pointed out my feelings and corrected your wrong assumptions of me.

corrupt
02-17-2010, 1:45 AM
I don't UOC for many reasons, even though I think it would be cool to do it in the twisties on my motorcycle... But that's about as far as that idea goes, haha. I'm holding my breath for CCW.

I just don't buy the idea that it will positively sway popular opinion. At least not how it's being done now, anyway.

Rob454
02-17-2010, 4:49 AM
100 people spent $12 each? no wonder they don't want you back... ;)

Thats what I came up with. LOL thats nothign for basically a party of 100 people. What did they order finger foods and a coke?

S. When I've been there, the service was below par, and the food was mediocre.

.
Then why go there in the first place? Was it simly because it was the only place that allowed it or simply the only place that would actually serve you?


Personally I think that OC groups are getting too controversial. We all know what happens when you get too controversial. Lets face it lots of people dont care about guns and carrying guns etc.

iRIGHTi
02-17-2010, 10:04 AM
found this interesting about Brady vs Starbucks


Maybe Brady Campaign Should Switch To Decaf

Friday, February 05, 2010

The hand-wringers at the Brady Campaign must have figured out what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Having been rendered all but entirely irrelevant, at least for the time being, the group is resorting to weird publicity stunts, in a vain attempt to again be taken seriously by its former not-so-secret admirers in the national anti-gun news media.

Last month, the group gave President Obama an “F” for “failed leadership” on gun control, accusing him of “squandering” the opportunity to push for tighter gun control laws. Now it’s attacking Starbucks for allowing people to carry firearms in its stores as provided for by state law.

Get this doozie: “It’s everyone’s right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns,” the Brady Campaign says, in its modern rendition of FDR’s famous “freedom from fear” quote.

Not surprisingly, while the Brady Campaign easily fabricates a “right” to feel free from fear, it angrily scoffs at the right to self-protection by encouraging its minions to sign a petition demanding that Starbucks establish a gun policy more restrictive than state law. “I demand that Starbucks stand up for the safety of its customers and prohibit guns in your [sic] retail establishments,” the petition reads.

A call to Starbucks has confirmed what was pretty obvious on its face. The company is in the business to sell coffee, not jump in the middle of a Brady-generated squabble that state law has already resolved in favor of the right to carry firearms, in certain circumstances. Starbucks also isn’t in business to help Brady get its name in the paper.

The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable. It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit” for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon” ban between 1994 and 2004.

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history. The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system. The 1994 gun ban has expired. The number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise. The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level. And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

And today, the media’s gun control darling is not the Brady Campaign’s leader, former Fort Wayne, Indiana mayor Paul Helmke, who spends his time blogging about gun control on the Huffington Post website, where members on the fringe gather to rant about mainstream America. Today, the leader of the gun control movement is billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spends his time (and money) as mayor of America’s most influential city.

Gun owners who like coffee ought to drop Starbucks a line and respectfully encourage the company to stay above the fray into which anti-gun activists are trying to drag them. Click here to do so. As for the Brady Campaign, let’s hope things continue at the present rate. If they do, before too long we’ll have to explain who the group was, before it was forced to close its doors for lack of interest.

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683