Demanding Moms Get Booted From Chipotle

As Uncle mentioned, I guess our side isn’t the only ones whose overly aggressive tactics can backfire. Apparently a group of open carriers in Oklahoma were visiting a local Chipotle after a protest by demanding mommies. Apparently because of their huge victory and all, their group decided on Chipotle. Unfortunately for them so did the open carriers. The Moms Demand folks began harassing the group, taking pictures, and generally being obnoxious. Apparently Chipotle has a policy against this kind of harassment of their customers by other customers:

I conducted an interview with the manager, and while I asked him if I could quote him directly, he asked that I do not. He said that he wasn’t going to have people treating paying customers rudely in his store. They simply do not allow customers to take pictures of other customers; it’s a “zero tolerance” policy if you will.

He also said that he has no position on open carry, and he understands that it is legal to carry in the state. Finally, he acknowledged that people behaving in the manner as MDA had in his store was actually more harmful to people than the act of lawfully carrying a firearm.

My bet is that Shannon Watts will completely ignore this. She already got what she wanted out of Chipotle, which is a positive press release and energy to feed back into her group. She’s not going to want to highlight her own people being jackasses, nor is she going to want to highlight the fact that her victories against all these fast food chains is a hollow one. The last thing Shannon Watts wants is her followers questioning whether these are really victories if people can actually still not only carry there, but do so openly.

7 thoughts on “Demanding Moms Get Booted From Chipotle”

  1. But it is a lesson for us in how easilly the worm can turn (especially when you act like a jackwagon in someone else’s building).

    And that the antis don’t do victory (even hollow ones) gracefully.

  2. But I thought Chipotle was a gun free zone? That’s what mike and many other haters have been saying.

    (And note, I don’t condone the actions of OCT, but I also don’t condone lying).

    1. They aren’t posting. But when a property holder tells me “Don’t come on my property and do X,” I generally think that’s something that ought to be complied with. In this case, the individual manager seems to have exercised some discretion, but I have no idea whether this represents the company’s actual policy.

      1. I think legally unless it is posted, or they tell you personally, it carries no weight in court.
        Even if the company makes a public statement they can not prove you ever saw or heard it, and as far as I understand trespass laws they have to be able to prove you Knew you were trespassing to make it stand in court.
        I’m no legal expert, so correct me if I’m wrong there….

        1. I don’t believe a press release would constitute actual notice even if they could prove you read it. It has to be posted in a manner reasonably likely to be seen, or they have to tell you personally to leave.

        2. Legally, I believe it is correct to say the places aren’t banning guns. The question is how much more can you tweak these companies before they just say fuck it and start posting? I don’t agree with people who suggest this isn’t any big deal just because they aren’t giving legal notice. These are bad for two reasons, one is that it’s apparent the culture is turning against us. Two, it’s helping Shannon Watts build her organization and build her reputation. Three, it’s laying groundwork for businesses to start posting with real consequences, which is to say signs, which would constitute notice for the purpose of trespass laws.

Comments are closed.