Regarding the open carry laws, Fuddruckers decision not to allow guns in the restaurants is not a statement about gun rights or laws. It is however, a statement about the primary importance of creating and maintaining a comfortable environment for all of Fuddruckers guests.OK, fine. Fuddruck you, too.
Open carry laws are changing in various states. Therefore, restaurants are more clearly communicating their policies to guests. Fuddruckers has had a no weapons policy for several years but it wasn't being enforced in all locations. By enforcing its no-weapons policy, Fuddruckers is enforcing its rights as a private business to create the sort of dining environment we believe best suits and appeals to all or the majority of our guests.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Fuddruckers to Gun Owners: Fuddruck You
WarOnGuns Correspondent Mike S sent me the following policy and I have confirmed it with Fuddrucker's/KooKooRoo Chicken Bistro management:
As they are a private enterprise, I support their right to make policy on their own property.
ReplyDeleteI will not patronize Fuddruckers. I will encourage others to avoid Fuddruckers also.
As they are a private enterprise operating inside the USA, I don't support their volunteering to suppress the Constitutional values of the united states of America.
ReplyDeleteI concede Longbow's right to feel as he does.
I will not patronize Fuddruckers.
They have a feedback form at:
ReplyDeletefuddruckers.com/feedback.php
I left a little message that I will support their private property rights by patronizing their competitors. And pointed out their little self-fuilfilling prophecy: effectively ban anyone accepting of open carry, and by definition the (remaining) majority will be more comfortable in a helpless victim zone.
What was it they called them in that Mike Judge movie Idiocracy?
ReplyDeleteYeah, seems to be appropriate to me.
good for them: they made their position a public one.
ReplyDeletei look forward to seeing their competitors acquire their business locations with better policies, and hopefully at least as good food.
I also support Fuddrucker's decision to utilize their private property in any manner they wish without the government's or my interference.
ReplyDeleteI am also perfectly willing to allow them to operate their enterprise without my money or my assistance in the event someone takes illegal advantage of their self proclaimed free fire zone.
[W-III]
I will not ever patronize any of their establishments again. It is clearly there right to establish this policy. It is also my right to refuse to ever visit one of their establishments ever again, and also to encourage everyone I know not to patronize any of their establishments. There are pleny of competitors who respect the class of lawful concealed carry weapon holders who collectively are among the most lawful group of customers around, having been fingerprinted, had their lack of criminal backgrounds checked, and having undergone extensive training.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous #1 needs a lesson in property rights.
ReplyDeleteIf you own property you get the make the rules. If you don't like it, take your business somewhere else. Or if you are an aspiring entrepreneur, start your own that fills the market gap.
So on their property... They can enslave people (for example)? hmmmm
ReplyDeleteI'm sincerely not clear on the 'property' vs 'constitution' thing, big L or little l. Can they deny me my 'natural rights'? Or is property the right that trumps all others? I believe the right to live (the right to self defense) is primal. You must live to own propoerty. So life (and defense) trumps property.
Does slavery (freedom over your own body and freedom of movement) trump property? Can you enslave someone, just because they are on your property? Again, my freedom over myself trumps your property.
So I have property at #3, necessarily behind natural right to life, and control over one's own body (including movement). Beacuse #1 and #2 are necessary before #3 can come into effect.
There appears to be an order, a primacy to natural rights. And property is clearly not the primal right.
Help me see the error of my thinking.
Sofa,
ReplyDeleteGreat point, I like the way you described it. I have tried to explain this to others before, but never have been able to. Thank you for the very good analogy.
Has anyone shared that story about the McDonalds in Lubbock, TX a few years back with them?
ReplyDeleteNeither I nor my family will patronize any business that denies me my fundamental human right of self-defense.
I hope ALL gun owners, whether they regularly carry or not, will support a boycott of Fuddruckers.
So "Chef", if understand your reasoning correctly, in the NJ Walmart P.A. Announcement asking all black people to leave, if the announcer was, for example, a store employee working in an official capacity, it would have been within his rights, because they make the rules? The employee, in this case would not have been arrested and charged with harassment and bias intimidation, as the juvenile prankster was, that could cost him to spend 1 year in a correctional facility? What's your take on somehow restricting access to females, Jews, Hispanics, veterans, seniors or handicapped people? Property rights, right?
ReplyDeleteMile66
You have a choice whether to enter another person’s property. The owner of the property also has a choice as to whether to allow your entry onto his property.
ReplyDeleteThe owner of private property may establish behavior requirements (ie. smoking, consumption of alcoholic beverages, carrying weapons, possession of pornography) or dress codes (ie. “no shirt, no shoes, no service”, shirts with collars, or ties required) as conditions of entering or remaining upon the premises. Again, it is your choice to conform to the property owner’s requirements, or go on down the road to patronize another establishment.
I have personally observed, on many occasions, people (mostly, admittedly intoxicated) go to jail for demanding to stay where they weren’t wanted.
The laws as to trespass aren’t exactly uniform across the nation however, Texas makes it a criminal trespass if one enters or remains on property of another after having received notice that entry is forbidden or fails to leave after receiving notice to leave the property. I would guess that other states have similar statutes.
Those of us who truly believe in maintaining our freedoms and abhor the idea of those freedoms being infringed by the state, and who want to be left alone to exercise those freedoms as long as that exercise does not initiate harm to others should not begrudge another person’s free exercise of his rights.
It has been said that our rights end at the other person’s nose.
[W-III]
Most of these businesses are franchises. The mother company does not "own" the local business. Every franchise must register a Uniform Franchise Offering Circular with each state they wish to do business in. The UFOC (know everywhere as a "U-Fock", no kidding) lays out the operations, proceedures, and policies of the company. For a franchise company to come out with this type of policy change means either all franchisees are on board (almost never happens) or the mother company is stepping out on a limb. This is why Starbucks has stuck with their policy of following state law. For a franchise company this is a no-brainer as it does not have to be addressed in the UFOC. McDonalds has an extremely broad UFOC which allows for the extreme uniform look and feel that you get there but it does not mean that McDonalds owns the business and can set gun policy without addressing it in the UFOC.
ReplyDeleteIs "Fuddrucker's" gonna kick cop's out, they're carrying guns?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWWW, you fail to take into consideration that a business has INVITED the public onto their property, they also had to register and or get permits for said business with the city/county/state.... in order to operate said business. As a business, they need to follow the laws/regulations that the city/county/state/federal governments set in place. This is quite different than going over to someones house for a visit. Private property and business property are NOT the same thing.
ReplyDeleteTry this....
Open a business and put a sign on the door or gate that say's: "NO Blacks or Hispanics Allowed", and see how well that goes for you. (Business property)
Now do the same thing on your front door or gate at home, you might catch some flack for it, but the gov't wont be coming after you to force you to remove the sign and comply with the law, you can deny entrance to anyone you want at your home (private property).
WWW, FAIL! To use your own example, the no shoes, no shirt, no service thing is almost always because the law forbids barefoot patrons for supposed health reasons. What the Hell happened to property rights should an entrepeneur wish to serve barefoot patrons?
ReplyDeleteHe cannot! The state forbids it, no matter the property owners' thoughts on the subject.
Sorry, but I am a whole person. Accept me, all of me, or none of me. I try to avoid places where that is not their pleasure, but I do it out of courtesy. Not because I believe they have the right to demand I become less a human or citizen on their property.
Property rights do not trump the natural born rights of a free man. Else, I could demand sex from my mail lady as she drives onto my property every damn day, my property my rules, right?
Not only NO, but Hell NO! And my mail lady is very happy about that.
So a business cannot enslave people or behave 'illegally', just because you are on their property. A business does or does not have the right to put up a sign that says "NO (fill in the blank)"?
ReplyDeleteIf it a business cannot keep people from an ethnic or religious group off their property, the why do they presume to keep gun owners off their property. 14th talks to race, but 2nd talks to guns. The reasoning that keep gun owners off business is the same as what denies other groups the right to frequent their business.
Gun owners are more polite. Gun owners respect property rights. And yet - Gun owners do themselves a diservice by accepting second class citizenship, by being told where they may go and what they may do. OUr natural rights are acknowledged in 2A. Any business that does not accept that is in violation of the laws of the United States of America. imho.
"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I claim that equal protection under the law.
There is something seriously wrong when you tell me I can't go into a business, or I cannot sit amongst other people because they want to treat me different. They want to make us second class citizens, and tell us to drink at the other drinking fountains, and frequent other businesses. Why do we let our enemies frame the discussion and paint us as 'uppity slaves'? We yearn to be free and equal.
This too shall pass. We shall overcome.
"...to create the sort of dining environment we believe best suits and appeals to all or the majority of our guests."
ReplyDeleteAnd this puts Fuddruckers squarely in step with their moral forebears, who posted NO NEGROES signs for exactly the same reason.
Chef is right. He's not in compliance with contemporary laws, but he is right and those laws are wrong. Property is no longer property if the rules about what you can and cannot do with/on it are under someone else's control. You should be able to do anything that doesn't injure another, damage their property, or commit fraud.
I agree with most of the posted comments above.
ReplyDeleteSofa, you are incorrect. Any business has the right to determine who it will serve. For example, do you disagree with a very classy restaurant having a dress code? It is the perogative of the owner. It is also OUR perogative to NOT patronize the business. This is what freedom is about. We have the right to CHOOSE where to spend our money at. I choose NOT to patronize Fuddruckers as well as other "left-wing" businesses.