Chipotle: Don't bring guns in our stores

[BluesStringer]

Thanks for the pic. I guess low-ready dude was just posing for that pic, and we can't tell from the camera angle if anyone was being swept by his muzzle, but I seriously doubt he was walking around like that. Whatever....everybody's got to have somethin' to complain about when it comes to how folks carry.

I read through some comments at the OP link and couldn't resist replying. Here's what I had to say. Probably won't be very popular here either, but those that know my history here will recognize that I'm perfectly consistent:

Tom S said:

Tammy said: "The first smart thing that the NRA needs to do is make LaPierre disappear."

Nice of you to worry about what gun owners should do when you clearly don't support our rights to carry at all, but here's the dirty little secret that your leftist masters have inculcated in you to create a bogey man in your pea-brain: "The first smart thing that the NRA needs to do is make it's long-standing gun CONTROL history disappear." I know the NRA sycophants will rail even harder against that indisputable truth than gun-grabbers like Tammy, but it will do nothing but show their inability, or unwillingness, to find the truth for themselves.

It is disgusting to read all these comments from NRA members who swear there is "no greater 2nd Amendment supporter than me, but...." and then go on to slam somebody, or a group of people, for exercising their rights under the 2nd Amendment! Cognitive dissonance much, fellas?

And those who are saying, "If you want to open carry, why not just carry a handgun instead of a rifle?" Because this story is about Texas, that's why. It's against the law to OC a handgun in TX, but not a long gun. The demonstrators are trying to call attention to the idiocy of such a law. Most of them would much prefer to OC a handgun, and if they can get the law changed, seeing OC'ed long guns would become a much more rare occurrence. But the same lemmings who think CC with a PERMISSION SLIP is actually an exercise of 2nd Amendment rights will still b!tch and moan about the "in your face" practice of OC'ing a handgun too.

Those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it. This country was born because of tyrants attempting to disarm the citizenry. Never again. Not one more inch. Our rights derive from our Creator, not from government, and certainly not from a bunch of....well....YAHOOS! b!tchin' and moanin' because they can't control how others exercise their God-given rights.

 

[BUmmedic]

I live pretty far away from... everything. Tough to find a good burrito around here. Unlike when I lived in CA... lots there!

Sounds like a great opportunity for a little culinary self-education... become one with your ability to make a burrito

 

[BUmmedic]

There's tons of comments from pro-2A posers (yes, I like to call them that) that are arguing that they would be concerned if they saw someone holding a rifle in that position in a suburban establishment... hmm, wonder if they took the extra tenth of a second to recognize that they were having their picture taken. Last I read (and I always like to admit that I could be wrong), no one with a gun who was a threat to anyone... anywhere... ever stopped to post a Facebook update before shooting up the joint. People need to buy one-size larger underwear or keep their current-sized panties from getting in a wad. Just sayin'...

 

[Bikenut]

General comment...

What's worse than a rabid gun grabbing anti gunner?

Someone who says they support the right to keep and bear arms while expecting everyone else to only keep the kinds of arms they think are "reasonable" and to carry those reasonable arms in places that are "appropriate" in ways that are "acceptable".... yet those anti gunner "lites" never seem to understand that they are just as rabid about gun control as is the true gun control freak with the only difference being what kind, and how much, gun control is wanted.

Both the rabid anti gunner that wants to ban all guns and all methods of carry anywhere and everywhere and the anti gunner lite that only wants to ban guns they don't like and stop carry in places/for reasons/in ways they don't like stem from the desire to be in control of how other people exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

But, in my likely to not be very popular and probably will cause some nasty comments opinion, the anti gunner "lite" is much worse than the rabid anti gunner because at least the rabid anti gunner isn't a hypocrite.

 

[BUmmedic]

General comment...

What's worse than a rabid gun grabbing anti gunner?

Someone who says they support the right to keep and bear arms while expecting everyone else to only keep the kinds of arms they think are "reasonable" and to carry those reasonable arms in places that are "appropriate" in ways that are "acceptable".... yet those anti gunner "lites" never seem to understand that they are just as rabid about gun control as is the true gun control freak with the only difference being what kind, and how much, gun control is wanted.

Both the rabid anti gunner that wants to ban all guns and all methods of carry anywhere and everywhere and the anti gunner lite that only wants to ban guns they don't like and stop carry in places/for reasons/in ways they don't like stem from the desire to be in control of how other people exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

But, in my likely to not be very popular and probably will cause some nasty comments opinion, the anti gunner "lite" is much worse than the rabid anti gunner because at least the rabid anti gunner isn't a hypocrite.

+1. Anyone who finds your opinion unpopular is already a "poser" or "lite" whether they realize it or not.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Of the two negative posters...
One is a retarded law enforcement offkisser and the other is a a "lite" poster from "self professed" Comifornia.
To those two I would only say this,

Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[chilipeppernorm]

Quick interwebs search netted this... dunno if this was what prompted it all, but here it is anyway...
Link Removed

I would like to pose a different perspective based on the photo. I don't know how many of you have been in a Chipotle, but they all follow a standardized (for them) corporate architectural format. Those placing orders are funneled past food prep and purchase by a low wall, lots of floor to ceiling posts, it is a somewhat choppy and constrained environment suggesting eat and get out as opposed to stay and relax. We can see they are carrying accessorized long arms of which they seem proud. Tactically speaking, the weapons the are carrying are the worst possible choice for the environment they're in, with the exception of bull pup type design, long guns are very awkward in constrained obstacle ridden indoor environments. While I cannot determine the caliber of each weapon from the photo, we all know any common battle rifle caliber (and by that I mean 5.56, 7.62x39, .308, 30-06) are designed for penetration and in this environment over penetration in a highly populated area. A handgun in OC or CC as is your preference loaded with any high quality man stopper round designed to penetrate the bad guy and not the next half a dozen walls would be a much wiser choice all around.

That being said, had one of us (being unknown to me) walked into that Chipotle in my presence with a handgun in OC or CC (showing a tell tale to the experienced eye), beyond an initial assessment I would not have given you a second thought. Had these two walked in like this they would have had my undivided attention the entire time, and obviously not out of gun or gun owner phobia. This would have been my assessment:
1) if their primary purpose is self defense, their tactical judgement is dismal at best and totally lacking at worst for reasons already stated.
2) if this isn't for self defense, then what is their purpose? Youthful bravado, making a 2A statement in public, or simply "hey, look at me". All perfectly legal and within their rights.
3) not knowing these two, and based on their lack of tactical judgement and lacking any other real information about them regarding skills and training, my threat assessment in their presence would be high vigilant.

Poor gun handling skills and safety practices as well as being sloppy and showing off will get innocent bystanders killed just as quickly as ill intent. I'm not accusing these two of any of that as I wasn't there, but in absence of any behaviors to the contrary I would be cautious and wary. If they provoke heightened awareness in someone skilled and experienced, then we'd have to expect this specific display would do the same if not more to the unknowing public. Again, they are perfectly within their rights in what they did, I'm just not sure what it accomplished beyond ensuring their 15 minutes of fame. I've found in life that there are times and circumstances where just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should.

Lastly, as to Chipotle I don't support businesses that oppose gun possession. I only ate there once and it wasn't worth a return. From a media standpoint this will fill the slow news days and die.

 

[dogshawred]

A political statement perhaps? Part of the right to free speech? Some folks carry signs as a visible means of expressing their political beliefs... and while people carry guns for many reasons some folks carry guns as a means of expressing their political beliefs.

Also... a concealed carry "permit" is NOT the right to bear arms but is the exact kind of infringement that "shall not be infringed" refers to because...

When you have to ask for permission (to be "allowed" to have a permit) from the government you do not have the unfettered ability to exercise a right... you only have the infringement of needing to be granted permission from the government in order to be allowed to exercise a right.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of things the government says we can do... it is a list of things "we the people" told the government it cannot do.

Along with all of these fine points, Texas where this picture and incident took place doesn't allow open carry of hand guns, yet open carry of long guns is permitted legally under the law. Giving a Texas citizen no other choice in exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to open carry a weapon. Just because a gun is used for a political statement doesn't make it dangerous or inappropriate.

 

[telpinaro]

Sounds like a great opportunity for a little culinary self-education... become one with your ability to make a burrito

I do make some pretty darn good Spanish rice... :smile:

 

[BUmmedic]

I agree with the poor choice of self-defense weapons in that particular environment, but given what I know (and someone has already pointed out) regarding TX law, open carry of long-guns is pretty much what you're limited to, and these kids (especially the one on the left... I can say that because I carry around a few extra #, too... but how dare you skinny bastards laugh???) probably just wanted a burrito.

 

[gsim]

I saw this on a few other news outlets today, so I wrote them a polite letter. I basically told them I won't be eating in any of their locations until they reverse their position on allowing people to carry in store. Their reply can be seen below.

Thanks for writing us to express your concern. We recognize that this is a very sensitive issue, and respect all sides of the debate. Historically we've never taken a stance on the issue of gun ownership or rights, as we are pretty focused on building burritos, and changing the way people think about and eat fast food.

That said, because of the discomfort around the recent demonstration in Texas, we are asking customers to not bring guns into our restaurants, unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

We hope you agree that these issues should be worked out through the legislative process and with elected officials, as opposed to businesses like Chipotle.

It sounds to me like they had a slight bias to begin with, I'd be interested to see what form letter they are sending to people applauding their decision. Vote with your dollars and try Qdoba instead.

 

[BUmmedic]

I saw this on a few other news outlets today, so I wrote them a polite letter. I basically told them I won't be eating in any of their locations until they reverse their position on allowing people to carry in store. Their reply can be seen below.



It sounds to me like they had a slight bias to begin with, I'd be interested to see what form letter they are sending to people applauding their decision. Vote with your dollars and try Qdoba instead.

My response to them would be that these issues HAVE been worked out through the legislative process, and open carry of long-guns is LEGAL in the state of Texas. Your establishment, however, appears to have no interest in abiding by legislation and honoring the rights of the citizenry, instead caving to unpopular opinion and pressure. Good day and happy burrito sales.

 

[Punch]

When people on gun forums keep insinuating that the Second Amendment applies within private property, are they just stupid, or is there some part of the Constitution that I somehow missed when I read it? Now, I do not like supporting a business that does not allow me to protect myself while I am within their walls. However, having been required to write out the US Constitution, as well as all ammendments, by hand during my high school civics class, I do realize that a private property owner has more right to tell me not to carry on his property than I do under the Second Amendment to do so. So, this is NOT a Second Amendment issue. It is an issue of whether or not I choose to do business with someone who's beliefs are different than my own. In this case, the answer is no for me. However, it is a matter of choice, both on his part and mine, and not a matter of the Constitution.

 

[chilipeppernorm]

I agree with the poor choice of self-defense weapons in that particular environment, but given what I know (and someone has already pointed out) regarding TX law, open carry of long-guns is pretty much what you're limited to, and these kids (especially the one on the left... I can say that because I carry around a few extra #, too... but how dare you skinny bastards laugh???) probably just wanted a burrito.

I confess to an ignorance of a restriction on open handgun carry in Texas, I would have thought (all) OC was a given there. All my CC permits are recognized in Texas, so it's clearly an available option to native Texans and that would be my choice over lugging a long rifle around on routine daily activities. And you probably nailed it, they just wanted a burrito.

 

[telpinaro]

I saw this on a few other news outlets today, so I wrote them a polite letter. I basically told them I won't be eating in any of their locations until they reverse their position on allowing people to carry in store. Their reply can be seen below.



It sounds to me like they had a slight bias to begin with, I'd be interested to see what form letter they are sending to people applauding their decision. Vote with your dollars and try Qdoba instead.

But their commercials are SO OBNOXIOUS! :lol:

And actually, I agree with their last sentence... whoever screamed and cried about the scary guns had no business demanding that any private company take a stand on any legal issue. :biggrin: My reply (in addition to BUmmedic's) would be to ask why, if that is their position, did they make any kind of policy concerning "these issues?"

 

[BUmmedic]

Punch... I'm going to assume that you're firing back (at least partly) at some or all of my comments. Negative... I completely understand that a private party (person, business, or other entity) is well within their right to regulate what happens on their property. My contestation is against their public commentary about legislation. If they were to come out and say that they are exercising their right purely as a private entity, no comment from me (except to go elsewhere), but they are somehow insinuating that the legislative process is at fault for their decision here. Long-gun carry is legal... what else does Chipotle want? Legislation forcing them to allow armed citizens inside their boundaries? Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but it seems like their hiding behind something that isn't there.

 

[Axeanda45]

When people on gun forums keep insinuating that the Second Amendment applies within private property, are they just stupid, or is there some part of the Constitution that I somehow missed when I read it? Now, I do not like supporting a business that does not allow me to protect myself while I am within their walls. However, having been required to write out the US Constitution, as well as all ammendments, by hand during my high school civics class, I do realize that a private property owner has more right to tell me not to carry on his property than I do under the Second Amendment to do so. So, this is NOT a Second Amendment issue. It is an issue of whether or not I choose to do business with someone who's beliefs are different than my own. In this case, the answer is no for me. However, it is a matter of choice, both on his part and mine, and not a matter of the Constitution.

So your right to life is non-existent when you are on someone elses property? Does your right to defend yourself disappear too? Are property owners free to rape your wife or your kids just because you happen to be on their property?

Dont want the public ON YOUR PROPERTY?, OPEN A MEMBERS ONLY BUSINESS........... Otherwise shut the phuk up when the PUBLIC shows up when you INVITE them...

 

[BluesStringer]

When people on gun forums keep insinuating that the Second Amendment applies within private property, are they just stupid, or is there some part of the Constitution that I somehow missed when I read it?

I just went over the previous posts in the thread and didn't see a single reference to 2nd Amendment rights inside of private property. The only thing I saw was in reference to TX's idiotic law that allows OC of long guns, but not of handguns, and one person made the argument that a state should either allow "constitutional carry" or not, but that trying to split the baby like TX does is, well, stupid.

What is it with people who go on a rant about how other people are too stupid to understand the 2nd Amendment vs. private property rights when no such argument is going on in the thread they're ranting about? Are they too stupid to just read the thread before going off?

Now, I do not like supporting a business that does not allow me to protect myself while I am within their walls. However, having been required to write out the US Constitution, as well as all ammendments, by hand during my high school civics class, I do realize that a private property owner has more right to tell me not to carry on his property than I do under the Second Amendment to do so.

Not that I disagree with the meme necessarily, but since you put it the way you did and seem to know exactly what text within the Constitution and 27 amendments makes it so, would you mind citing the Article, Section and Clause, and/or the amendment(s) you say gives a property owner more rights than the 2nd Amendment affords people who carry weapons? You're welcome to use whatever you learned in your high school civics class, just as long as you cite/quote what led you to such an unequivocal conclusion based only on the Constitution and amendments. Thanks.

So, this is NOT a Second Amendment issue. It is an issue of whether or not I choose to do business with someone who's beliefs are different than my own. In this case, the answer is no for me. However, it is a matter of choice, both on his part and mine, and not a matter of the Constitution.

Do you argue with yourself often, or is this a rare occasion?

Blues

ETA: Without wishing to invite a reply about this particular subject from Axeanda45, his post was not here when I started writing the above.

 

[Firefighterchen]

So your right to life is non-existent when you are on someone elses property? Does your right to defend yourself disappear too? Are property owners free to rape your wife or your kids just because you happen to be on their property?

Dont want the public ON YOUR PROPERTY?, OPEN A MEMBERS ONLY BUSINESS........... Otherwise shut the phuk up when the PUBLIC shows up when you INVITE them...

There is a difference between rape and willingly going into someone's property knowing that sexual intercourse is a requirement. It's easy to not have sex with a property owner with that requirement, it's easy to not risk your life on private property, it's easy to keep your Right to defend yourself, DON'T GO ON THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BUmmedic]

Man... all this talking about Chipotle... anyone else getting a hankerin' for a burrito???