Chipotle says leave your guns at home

[Gman]

Then explain to me, if it's their "right", why can it be taken away by a private business entity? Doesn't the law allow this company to set the rules for carry on their premises?

The property owner can't deny you a right. They can however deny you access to their space or limit who can exercise their rights in their space, but to do this, they must follow the law explicitly by signage or they can ask you to leave. Anyone complying with their request to disarm is voluntarily agreeing to the arrangement. An individual can also choose to exercise their right and avoid that property.

[Bailey Guns]

So they can deny your "right" on their property. Got it.

[Gman]

Drop the emotion and break out the reason. You can agree to disarming or not. They can't deny you of your rights.

[Bailey Guns]

Now you're just talking in circles.

So let's say you go in armed, in violation of signage, and you get arrested by the po-po. Are they denying your rights? Are they violating your rights? Or, are they saying you had the right to carry your gun, but you do not have the right to violate the law?

[Gman]

You're the one not seeming to grasp even simple legal concepts. In your example, there was a choice made by someone with a gun to break the law. Having a right doesn't give one the ability to ignore the law.

Had the same individual not wanted to give up their rights and stay within the law, the choice would be to stay away from the property.

We have the right to free speech, but not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or to incite harm or violence.

[Ronin13]

Then explain to me, if it's their "right", why can it be taken away by a private business entity? Doesn't the law allow this company to set the rules for carry on their premises?

From my understanding, and don't quote me on this, it's free legal advice from a someone who never went to law school (you get what you pay for)- it's perfectly legal to enter an establishment open carrying if there is no signage prohibiting it. However, if the manager/staff/owner inform you that they do not allow firearms on their property and ask you to leave, you have to comply or you can be charged with criminal trespass. At least, that's how it is here in CO. TX may actually state in the statute that signs must be up or the business has no right to ask anyone to leave...

[Bailey Guns]

You can agree to disarming or not. They can't deny you of your rights.

I'm pretty sure I do have a grasp of simple legal concepts. Did you not say it was a right and one could agree to disarm or not? So if you don't agree to disarm, in violation of the signage you said needed to be posted, and you get arrested, have your rights been violated?

It's a pretty simple "yes" or "no" answer.

My position is pretty clear...a person does not have the right to carry on private property where the property owner has said he doesn't want firearms to be carried. Regardless of what you think your rights are, if you knowingly violate the owner's wishes you can be criminally charged. You do not have the right to carry a firearm where a private property owner has made it clear they do not want you to carry that firearm.

I'm not arguing that they violated any law with their stunt, if that's what you're saying. Though I think even that's debatable based on some of the pictures but I'm not an expert on TX law so I don't know for sure.

We all know "rights" are not absolute...I don't think there's any argument there.

ETA: There's a difference in something that's a "right" and something that's "lawful".

[3beansalad]

Interesting that no one in the background looks the slightest bit worried about these two douche nozzles.

But instead they said no guns except LEO. That by no means is fair or open-minded. That is 100% catering to the anti's.

^^^^^This is why I have a problem with Chipotle's statement. And their claim that they don't want to put employees in the position of asking people to leave leads me to believe they would prefer an outright ban, but instead will tip-toe around the issue so as attempt to avoid angering either side. Which they seem to have done. While I am in no way angry, but until they clarify their statement I will re-think my dining choices. Typically, I choose to avoid spending my money with establishments that do not fully support my rights. We can all agree to disagree about our future patronage because of differing interpretations of Chipotle's statement, but I imagine if you get caught printing in a Chipotle it will become an issue due to some ninny Anti.

[Chipotle Communications Director/Spokesman Chris Arnold sent the following statement -

“The issue of gun ownership or gun rights has become one of the most contentious debates in the country. Chipotle has never taken a position on this issue, as we focus instead on our mission to change the way people think about and eat fast food.
Recently participants from an “open carry” demonstration in Texas brought guns (including military-style assault rifles) into one of our restaurants, causing many of our customers anxiety and discomfort. Because of this, we are respectfully asking that customers not bring guns into our restaurants, unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.Historically, we felt it enough to simply comply with local laws regarding the open or concealed carrying of firearms, because we believe that it is not fair to put our team members in the uncomfortable position of asking that customers refrain from bringing guns into our restaurants. However, because the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers, we think it is time to make this request.
We acknowledge that there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue. We have seen those differing positions expressed in the wake of this event in Texas, where pro-gun customers have contacted us to applaud our support of the Second Amendment, and anti-gun customers have expressed concern over the visible display of military-style assault rifles in restaurants where families are eating. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens and we appreciate them honoring this request. And we hope that our customers who oppose the carrying of guns in public agree with us that it is the role of elected officials and the legislative process to set policy in this area, not the role of businesses like Chipotle.
We always welcome the exchange of ideas and opinions: it is one of the many things that make our country such a special place. But this issue is not central to the operation of our business, and we do not feel that our restaurants should be used as a platform for either side of the debate.”]

That being said, IBTL!

[theGinsue]

For those of you considering boycotting Chipotle becuase of this, I disagree with your decision as I feel Chipotle was prevoked into their decision. Perhaps you'd reconsider your choice - and then decide that maybe a better reason to boycott them is how they treat their employees who are victims of domestic violence.

Chipotle fired domestic violence victim for ‘too many issues’: suit

A Manhattan woman is suing Chipotle Mexican Grill saying she was callously fired by bosses at the fast food chain after being choked and pummeled by her ex-boyfriend and then having to miss work due to her injuries.

Natasha Velez socked Chipotle with the Manhattan federal court civil-rights suit, alleging she was fired last year from her food-preparer job at an Upper East Side branch on Third Avenue four weeks after returning to work following the alleged domestic violence attack.

The suit claims that her ex-boyfriend — who isn’t named — choked her and fractured her left index finger during a confrontation on New Year’s Day 2013.

Days later, she showed her bosses the police report for the incident and other related paperwork. The suit also says she showed them her injured finger in a splint and informed them she couldn’t work until it healed.

When she returned on Jan. 28, 2013, her manager said she had “too many issues outside work” and fired her on the spot, according to the suit.

“Chipotle discriminated against Ms. Velez on the basis of her actual and/or perceived status as a domestic violence victim, including by terminating her employment,” the suit says.

Velez’s lawyer and Chipotle did not immediately return messages.

[275RLTW]

#doyouevenopencarrybro?