search
top

How Many More Losses Will it Take?

Jack-in-the-boxBy now most of you have probably heard the story of a Texas Open Carry incident involving long guns in a Jack-in-the-Box that reportedly came with an “enthusiastic” police response. It turns out the fact that employees were terrified and hid in the freezer appears to be a lie by the Bloomberg gun control organization, but a lie can often get around the world before The Truth has a chance to get its pants on. (This goes double when you have an unquestioning media that likes a good story and is institutionally hostile to civilian gun ownership and the Second Amendment.)

The actions of this local group have apparently caused a rift in the movement. In truth, I think rifle OC is a bad idea generally, but I appreciate statewide group is at least sensitive to not causing panics by making it policy to notify police. But you have to choose tactics understanding the limitations of your people, and one problem I’ve long had with OC activism, is even while many people are smart about how they do it, it’s a tactic that is inherently attractive to attention whores, and it only takes a small number of bozos to ruin things for everybody.

As to be expected, Moms Demand Action began immediately pressuring Jack-in-the-Box to ban firearms in their restaurants.  Yesterday, Jack-in-the-Box went full Starbucks, releasing a statement:

Creating a warm and inviting environment for all of our guests and employees is a top priority for Jack in the Box. The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences. While we respect the rights of all of our guests, we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurants.

To be equally expected, Moms Demand Action quickly declared victory. Maybe it’s a good time to bring up my post from September of last year: “What Can Starbucks Teach Us as a Community?”  So I’m now asking: how many more cracks and fissures in our gains in the culture wars are we going to see? How many more losses are we going to have to endure before these types of “activists” understand that they are only serving to erase gains we’ve made rather than build on them. I get that I’m one voice, on one blog, but I’m asking you rifle OCers, pretty please, with sugar on top, think before you act.

55 Responses to “How Many More Losses Will it Take?”

  1. RP says:

    I think its cool when people OC their pistols as they go about their business as normal. But God damn do I hate these retards.

    Groups like the Demanding Moms need victories to keep their membership motivated. Stop giving them excuses to claim victories. This also motivates them to continue doing this shit to business after business. If they get shut down repeatedly, they’ll stop.

    I used to think they were pro-gun people who were misguided and kinda stupid. But now I think they don’t really give a crap about gun rights, they just love the attention and controversy.

    • Fullauto556 says:

      They are only OCing their rifles (unloaded) because it’s legal while OC of a pistol is not. They are drawing attention to the stupidity of the current law.

      • mike says:

        Again, look at the outcome of their actions – not the intentions. They could have the best intentions in the world, but the outcome of rifle OC into a burger joint is predictable and very, very negative. People who can’t see that and continue to do this stuff hurt our cause.

        Say it with me. Outcome. Not intentions.

        • Will Brown says:

          This was an Open Carry Texas deliberate event to influence out-session legislative discussion of an Open Carry legislative agenda item being developed this year for consideration in next year’s session of the Texas legislature. The fact that local political action in support of the 2nd amendment in Texas makes residents of a state that refuses to acknowledge their citizens rights under the 5th amendment is only to be expected, I suppose. This is a Texas cause that is forced into compliance by the current silly laws we have inherited in this state. The admitted absurdity of the situation is both the point of the exercise and the message being sent to next years session of the legislature.

          There’s your outcome; how you deal with it is your decision, but sitting in place whining about it is a decision too.

          • Matthew Carberry says:

            The point is to examine possible outcomes so when you act you act in a way that is more likely to have positive outcomes than negative, not “sit on your hands” and do nothing.

            In this case, if the guys were on their way to a planned, well-thought-out OC event and were stopping in for lunch, leave the damn rifles in the car and go eat while CC-ing.

            A quick cost/benefit analysis would reveal that, even if the store employees and patrons didn’t mind, someone else might, and once the press and anti’s got a hold of it the outcome would certainly be negative. On the other hand, the only possible “positive” is a few folks in the restaurant might be unperturbed. Absent giving them context, like at an actual event, they will just be “not caring” about the odd sight of men with rifles eating lunch.

            Since eating with rifles is not (and likely never will, because it never has been) “normal, there can be little to no other meaningful “normalization” achieved.

          • mike says:

            So the intent was to motivate the legislature to legalize pistol OC, yet the outcome was to create lots of negative press for gun owners – and calls for “There Should Be A Law” types of actions that would outlaw rifle OC in addition to pistol OC. And it was all predictable.

            So who’s at fault? Why, it’s the rest of the world for not agreeing with these noble rifle-carrying gentlemen merely trying to get a burger. So, all you have to do is change the perceptions of almost everyone else, instead of convincing a small group of attention whores misguided activists that their actions are detrimental to gun rights. Good luck with that.

  2. Dave says:

    if the number of people in our community who “don’t like open carry” put pressure on Jack, Starbucks, etc. instead of complaining about it there wouldn’t be this kind of policy by business except for the truly die hard statists. If you’re going to preach community, how about starting a campaign to counter MDA and pressure Jack and starbucks to relent?

    Our community has the numbers to do this overwhelmingly if united. We see this repeated time and again via online polls, public comment efforts, legislative activism. It’s the doomsayer voices within our own ranks that doom us to these kinds of policies and it will only get worse the more we balkanize into tiny gun owning factions that hate one another.

    • RP says:

      I don’t think any of us are against open carry. We’re against open carry of rifles for no other purpose than to stir up shit.

      You want to carry your Glock or 1911 openly rather than IWB as you take care of your Saturday errands? Have at it. But if you want to take your AR into restaurants for your own entertainment you’re a retard and you should take your guns to the next police buy-back.

      • Dave says:

        That’s kind of my point. Using pejoratives & insults to describe others in our community is only making us weaker. Instead of mobilizing to help, we’re crabbing at each other while the other side is laughing at us.

        Maybe an analogy would help here – In an NRA class, there is a great emphasis on positive reinforcement. There’s a reason for this, it’s statistically more effective than negative reinforcement. Scoffing at and ridiculing the rifle open carriers here may deter them from future mistakes and it also may deter them from future activism and helping out when we might want them to.

        • Sebastian says:

          I usually try not to use pejoratives, but calls for unity ring hollow to me when there’s a certain very small segment of the “community” who keep handing the other side easy victories. When that starts to happen, we have to speak out against it. Unity only goes so far. Most people in the community know this is a bad idea.

          • KevinC says:

            a) I open carry, so yes, I support it, and I support others who do so responsibly and politely. Rights come with responsibilities. We pound that into the heads of our kids, and then we turn around and do @#$! like this that shows off our rights without regard to the feelings of others. How is that responsible?

            b) If you act in a manner designed to draw attention to yourself, don’t be shocked if some of that attention is negative. We will make carrying guns normal by carrying the guns that people are used to seeing. If ! saw a cop walk into Yak In Box in full battle rattle with an M4, I’d get nervous and pay VERY close attention to what’s going on because that sort o thing is out of the ordinary for a lousy restaurant. Why would we assume that civilians carrying M4geries would provoke a different response? Unless it’s a 2A rally, open carry a barbecue gun, not an AR.

            c) I’m trying to work through the thought processes of the young men who did this: “Hey, this sort of stuff got gun owners kicked out of Starbucks.” / “Cool, let’s try it in Jack In The Box and see what happens!” There’s a quote about the definition of insanity that applies here, I think…

            d) “Don’t interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” – Napoleon Bonaparte.
            “Yep.” – Michael Bloomberg.
            If we don’t interrupt the people on our side who are making a mistake, who will?

            • KevinC says:

              Point B was made before I realized that pistol OC is verboten in Texas. I would like to revise and extend my remarks then to say that a) OC’ing a 10/22 would make the same point and b) these guys could learn a LOT from how Open Carry Florida does their events. Stay outta private property (no one likes their place of business to be used for anything other than doing business) and let the cops know first.

              “Always be nice. Until it’s time to not be nice.” – Dalton.

              • Matthew Carberry says:

                Or granddad’s trap shotgun or deer rifle.

                If the intent is *truly* to point out the law is dumb, then using “visibly non-aggressive and inappropriate for defense” weapons as one’s alternate option really drives home the point you’d rather just tuck in your shirt behind your CCW and get on with your life.

      • mike w. says:

        OK, but keep in mind that in Texas you CAN’T OC a pistol, so while rifle OC might be more “in your face” is also their only legal choice.

    • Sebastian says:

      The community helped organize a number of days to encourage Starbucks to hold out from the Demanding Mommies and Brady. This blog participated in that effort. And it was all going well until people started OCing ARs into Starbucks for shits and giggles.

      • SPQR says:

        Exactly. The AR toting made for very bad visuals and its irritating when people can’t see that.

    • SPQR says:

      You are simply wrong, Dave. The open carry advocacy movement does not have those kind of numbers, if you think so, you are truly deluding yourself.

  3. rd says:

    I think many of you are missing the point.

    Open Carrying Pistols is ILLEGAL in Texas, period stop. Go to jail illegal. Permit or not, You CANNOT Open Carry Pistols in Texas.

    • rd says:

      Open Carry activists are trying to change the laws of Texas. So you can legally open carry pistols in Texas like the other civilized United States. You can supposedly LEGALLY open carry rifles in Texas. So they open carry rifles as part of their protests. I think they should remember their goal – Political change. That means making friends and influencing people by communicating to everyone why they have rifles in public, especially the police. Imagine if the 911 operator can tell the concerned citizen, “They are protesting to change the law to allow open carrying pistols, and yes we are aware of their rifles.”

      IMO effective protests do not involve scaring people and pissing of the cops. So letting the authorities know beforehand that you are demonstrating with rifles sounds like a good idea.

      Stomping your feet and yelling “Shall not be infringed!” is not effective protest. It does not make friends.

      • KevinC says:

        But it makes the people who do so feel good, and feel like they’re doing something!

        Oh wait, isn’t that what we say we hate about progressives who are trying to take away our guns? Then why oh why are we doing the same sort of actions?

    • Chris from AK says:

      ^— This.

      I generally disagree with rifle open carry. Exceptions would be when protesting laws that affect rifles (like SAFE Act in NY) or when OC of pistols is illegal.

      There is no legal way for an individual under 21 to carry in Texas other than a long gun. The courts have failed us. There is no way for an Army guy at Ft Hood to carry other than a long gun. That’s just one example of the problems with Texas’ restrictive gun laws. Yes, I just said “restrictive gun laws” and “TX” in the same sentence. TX law kind of sucks with regard to carrying compared to many other shall-issue states.

      I’d like to see the TX legislature fix this by allowing unlicensed open carry. It is an easy fix that would bring TX into line with the mainstream of the free states. I suspect most of the enthusiasm for long gun OC would then go away.

      • Sebastian says:

        I agree with the goal of legalizing OC of handguns in Texas, but people would be far better off writing their reps and keeping the pressure on. I actually think stuff like this is making legalizing OC in Texas harder than it really ought to be.

        • Bob S. says:

          Sebastian,

          This is an example of not being helpful and derogatory at the same time. What makes you think the people — like me and probably the OCT — aren’t already writing our reps and keeping the pressure on?

          It isn’t a binary solution set – write or OC demonstrations. We can, and do both and more.

          Each avenue has its benefits and its draw backs. Don’t forget that in Texas, the Legislature only meets every other year. They are less subjected to re-election pressure because most of them have full time jobs outside of being a politician.

          And I completely disagree with your characterization that Open Carry events like this are making legalization harder. Especially given that you are in PA and NOT Texas.

          This was one of many events the group puts on each month. Responses like this are few and far between; and each time we use the overreaction to point out how ridiculous the law is. We reach more people each time the press and the anti-rights advocates lie.

          And if OC events are making it harder; the responses of you and some of the others are part of that difficulty.
          Instead of calling names (retards) and allowing that to go unanswered — support the GOAL even if you don’t support the method. Please stop giving fodder to the antis by letting them point out “see even gun guys don’t like Open Carry events”.

          But that does require telling the cops about your protest, and generally doing some planning.

          So the goal is normalize Open Carry so the legislation can be changed but the method should be to a.) inform the police each and every time, b.) prominently wave banners and signs to make it look like a political protest instead of an every day event?

          HUH?
          That doesn’t make sense. Doesn’t it make a lot more sense to just do every day activities and let people see that?

          • Sebastian says:

            OK, if you’re writing your reps and keeping the pressure on, then please stop OCing rifles into fast food joints. It’s not helping. When these companies start distancing themselves from gun owners, for now, thankfully, stopping just shy of banning guns, that affects everyone, including people who are not from Texas.

          • Matthew Carberry says:

            Wait, are you implying these maroons are planning on OC-ing -rifles- regularly when the TX leg finally passes it, in spite of their nonsense?

            OC-ing rifles, for self-defense, is.not.normal and -hasn’t been- in this country since prior to Colonial times in most urban areas.

            The point of OC activism is to point out that an openly carried weapon /= scary absent any signs of criminal intent.

            That you have to do it with rifles doesn’t make it particularly helpful to do it with rifles -in places you would not normally go with a rifle were it legal-. Normal people leave their long guns secured in their vehicles and carry handguns for immediate protection in businesses and such. That is what needs to be “re-normalized.”

            If the public get the idea that people will be regularly carrying rifles into fast food joints after passage, OC will never be legalized. In fact, your actual OC goal should be minimalized and “sold” as simply “not having to worry if your normally and responsibly carried handgun is exposed or not.”

            Frame the debate in a way that nervous moms can swallow, not in the terms preferred by 2A stalwarts.

      • Sebastian says:

        I’m sympathetic to the argument that 18-21 year olds have no alternative, but that’s the case in a number of states, and what lost that issue in court is that the age of majority under common law was 21 rather than 18, so the argument went that 18 years old wasn’t necessarily where it needed to be as a matter of constitutional law.

        As it is, I think the court’s reasoning on that matter is sound, because that is the case, and it’s hard to argue with historically. There’s also a pretty significant number of states where 18-21 year olds are restricted from carrying, period, so it’s not just Texas.

        But like I said, I think the rifle OCing is probably making it harder than it needs to be, because it’s bringing a negative reputation to open carry in general. I do think we’ll eventually get handgun OC in Texas, but this shouldn’t be so hard.

    • Zermoid says:

      Really? Of all places I’d think Texas would allow open carry of pistols…..

      • Matthew Carberry says:

        Texas has long been all hat and no cattle when it comes to gun rights. Florida started the “shall-issue” wave but has been stagnant* on improving carry to include OC since.

        * pre-emption and SYG got press in FL due to the old “Gunshine State” nonsense but they weren’t “Florida generated” trends.

        Florida carry is doing yeoman’s work on OC but is fighting a recalcitrant Legislature.

    • RP says:

      These knuckleheads willfully ignored the guidelines of Open Carry Texas (a group that seems to be having success, even getting committed leftist Wendy Davis to pretend she supports OC): http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Open-Carry-Texas-distances-itself-from-Tarrant-County-followers-258611871.html

      • Sebastian says:

        Yeah… I’m not sure rifle OCing to a protest is all that effective, to be honest, but I don’t think it amounts to great harm in most circumstances. But that does require telling the cops about your protest, and generally doing some planning.

        • RP says:

          In addition, KevinC made an excellent point:

          Stay outta private property (no one likes their place of business to be used for anything other than doing business)

          Why did these guys think a fast food place is a good location for a political demonstration?

          Go to city hall, the state capitol building, the town square, a congressman’s office, the governor’s mansion, etc. There are lots of places you could do this. Anywhere but the private property of a completely uninvolved third party.

          • Bob S. says:

            Why did these guys think a fast food place is a good location for a political demonstration?

            Because it wasn’t a ‘political demonstration’!
            No signs, no banners, just regular people getting food and coffee before starting a walk.

            The idea is to show normal people doing normal things armed.

            By the way, the OCT group days before had an Open Carry political demonstration on the corner of Cooper and Division in Arlington Texas — the same corner a Jack in the Box resides on. On the other side of the street is the Arlington Police department.

            No media, no 911 calls, no muss no fuss.

            Why aren’t we calling out the Fort Worth Police department for their over reaction ?

            • Sebastian says:

              “Regular people” don’t carry AR-15s for self-defense. It’s very unusual even for uniformed police officers.

            • Sebastian says:

              We aren’t calling out the Fort Worth police because normal people do not carry AR-15s for self-defense, so it was reasonable for the cops to come in heavy not knowing whether this was someone OCing, or whether it was a potential robbery. These clowns also violated OCT’s policy of making sure the police know.

  4. Clay says:

    I’m actually supportive of open carry but every time these faggots do something like this I wish they all get hit with a taser.

  5. mike says:

    The Clown Militia strikes again!

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clown%20Militia

    They’re probably planning to hold another rifle OC rally at the local playground.

  6. TS says:

    Jack is a well known thug, so it’s no surprise that he supports disarmament.

    (Actually, I think this commercial is great):

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gYwgmAO_C4A

  7. P.M. says:

    The response is real simple and effective, though. And I confidently predict it will start becoming law in a number of states if the Demanding Moms try this much further.

    State passes a law saying that a business establishment that bans lawful handgun carry on its premises thereby assumes a special duty of care to protect the physical safety of patrons, and failure to provide visible armed security is prima facie evidence of a violation of this duty.

    DONE.

    Corporations are driven by litigation. They will fold instantly when confronted by this. Starbucks and Jack in the Box would issue chastened, re-worded policies before the week was out.

    Notice that this law would impose no extra tort risk on businesses that announce “no OPEN carry” policies –which is what Jack in the Box and Starbucks should have done. Like a dress code.

    I’m laying down a marker: this is coming in a lot of pro-gun states if this crap continues. And it will solve the problem.

    • P.M. says:

      And if even 1-2 states go this route, it will start to chill the gun-haters from these “Two Minutes Corporate Hate” campaigns. They’ll be the ones putting up fingernail-chewing posts about whether they should sacrifice another state in order to make a feel good point.

      These corporate cave-ins are also a good reason for state RKBA activists to prioritize legislation (already in existence in several states) that deprives no-carry signs of the force of law, leaving it as a trespass issue.

      None of which suggests that the rifle OC dudes aren’t foolish. I agree with you, that is bad tactics pretty much anywhere. But you know what? In any mass movement, some followers will use bad tactics. In addition to working (hard) to message-discipline and smarten them up, we should also plan our next counterpunch. OODA loop and all that.

      • RP says:

        I can’t get on board with using the law to force private businesses to accept us. That’s something our opponents would do. Like suing someone for not baking you a cake.

        We can stop this campaign of theirs by not acting like jackasses. Staples told MDA to stuff it. Starbucks and Jack’s might have done so as well if it wasn’t for the dumbassery of the AR OCers.

    • A better option is to provide a presumption that if a business allows lawful carry, they are NOT acting negligently. If a business chooses to prohibit carry then they lose that presumption and roll the dice.

      The presumption basically provides an initial layer of legal armor if someone tries to sue the business. It can be overcome with sufficient evidence but protects the establishment from most liability concerns.

      Many states already do this. It is a lot less coercive and flashy but gets the point across in a way that lawyers and insurance people can figure out.

      • Sebastian says:

        I agree that’s a much better approach. Most companies have policies to shield themselves from liability and really no other reason.

        • P.M. says:

          Sure, that’s Step One, and it should be the law everywhere.

          What I described is Step Two. Why — on earth — would you rule it out?

          It’s a safety regulation for public accommodations. The law does this all the time. That ship has sailed.

  8. I will also say, it is shocking but not surprising that our political enemies can manufacture a complete lie which is unquestioningly published by their allies in the media with just about zero shame or impact to their credibility.

    I hope folks are writing scathing letters to the editor and slamming the media for publishing this bullshit without an ounce of fact checking.

  9. Beatbox says:

    I like how these knuckleheads actually thing they have a “right” to carry in a private business

  10. Dano says:

    You’re all missing the bigger issue. Texas OC decided to disrupt a business by staging a rally and photo op inside a restaurant. This is the same nonsense that went on at Starbucks. The OC crowd took a non-siding corporate statement and interpreted it as a corporate policy that welcomed its stores to be used as demonstration grounds and media events. Can you blame any business owner for saying “GTFO” to any group that thinks they can disrupt and takeover a retail location?

    The actions of Texas OC are overly shortsighted and are backfiring. Why not get the approval of the store manager before taking over the dining room? Why not cook out in a park? It would seem there were no lessons learned from Starbucks, and the OC antics are only getting worse with more damage being left behind.

  11. Bubblehead Les says:

    I live in an OC State (Ohio). I sometimes OC with a Handgun, but I never OC with a Long Gun. It gets in the way too much, scares the Natives, gets me Hassled by the Cops, and the Zombie Apocalypse hasn’t started yet. But one thing does annoy me. So you can’t OC a Pistol w/o a Permit? Get the Permit. “But I’m not 21!” Guess what? MOST states won’t give you a Permit until you turn 21 anyway, not just Texas. Just like you can’t get served Hard Liquor, or buy Cigarettes, or enter into some Contracts. I’m old enough to remember when one couldn’t do SQUAT until they were 21, except get Drafted. And right now, probably the easiest Handgun Permit to get is Arizona’s. Check out the various Reciprocity Websites. That thing is like a Willy Wonka Golden Ticket. Mine’s on order.

  12. Sprocket says:

    Another win for the dim-witted attention whores. Fail, after fail, after fail these guys persist in the delusion that wandering into a fast food joint with an AR on their shoulder is an effective form of political action. These people are not our friends, they hand victories to our enemies and make it easy to portray gun owners as weirdos with poor judgement. It’s time for them to go sit at the children’s table and be quiet.

  13. Brian says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…OC “protests” of rifles are counterproductive. I liken it to walking down the street with your middle fingers in the air to advance first amendment rights. It may be legal, and whether you agree with it or not, a lot of people will find it offensive and it will make the news.

    If these guys keep it up, it will attract the attention of lawmakers.

  14. BB says:

    The “Moms Demand Action” group has been shown to be nothing but an astroturf organization run by a phony with very deep marketing campaign experience hired by Bloomberg with direct monetary support from Bloomberg. There is nothing genuine about that group, it only exists to create a marketing message for the anti-gun Mr. Bloomberg. There are no actual Moms, and thus no reason to offer any sort of response but rather instead pro-gun people should take every opportunity to attack MDA’s credibility–there is no “they” there, and thus no faction with political standing to speak to.

  15. mike says:

    What these people refuse to do is look at the results of their actions, rather than the intentions. They do more favors for the anti-gun crowd than themselves (or the rest of us).

    • RP says:

      Seriously. These people got guns banned from 2,200 restaurants in 21 states and people are arguing that they didn’t screw up.

    • tkdkerry says:

      What these people refuse to do is look at the results of their actions, rather than the intentions.

      Rather like the antis in that regard, aren’t they?

  16. Gun Lawyer says:

    There are TWO (2) OC advocacy groups in Texas.

    I don’t know which is which but I do know this. One of they always provides the police with a courtesy “notification” several hours before one of their demonstrations. They have never had a negative police response. And they get GOOD media.

    The other organization shows up without advance and surprises everyone because “It’s our right.” They did the Jack-in-the-box routine and popped up out of nowhere. Surprise leads to 911 calls to an off-guard police department. For all the police know, it IS a potential mass shooting and they respond in force with red light and sirens. Perhaps giving the demonstrators the adrenaline surge they desire. This is a stupid PR tactic and it lets the anti’s stir the pot and never gains good media. It’s the anti’s right to play on gun owner arrogance and stupidity, and the will and do. Maybe these open carry supporters are so needful of attention that they pulled false fire alarms in High School. In any case, their “surprise tactic” always results in bad press and moves the ball backwards by PROVING to the public that they can’t be a part of polite society (the OC movement’s supposed goal).

    It my state, we always call the police an hour ahead. They tell callers “Yes, we know. It’s a legal demonstration. Thank you for calling.” Usually a car discretely drives by once. And we get GOOD publicity.

    Luckily, our fools are not organized. Poor Texas gun owners.

  17. Gun Lawyer says:

    BTW, in my state we do demonstrations INSIDE restaurants too. We always notify the management several days before and we don’t go where we aren’t welcome. We encourage payment in cash with $2 bills (banks have them). There are so many welcoming restaurants that we have a large choice.

    Occasionally, we picket an unwelcoming restaurant (always legally on the public sidewalk with prior notice to the police) but that seems to gets us less press than going where we are welcome.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Sharp as a Marble - Sometimes it’s not worth chewing through the restraints in the morning* - […] Not everyone shares that philosophy. […]
top