After some open carry protesters in Texas organized an open carry walk in Victory Park, near American Airlines Stadium in Dallas, Moms Demand took notice. From the organizers of the walk:
For those who want to eat after the walk, there is a Chipotle and an Italian place just down the road that are fine with Open Carry.
Accompanied by a picture, Shannon Watts immediately zeroed in to ChipotleÂ with the hash tag #BurritosNotBullets, and began bullying the company into following in the steps of Jack in the Box and Starbucks, presumably meaning, “Please make some vague statement about guns being icky, and not wanting them in your stores, so we can declare victory.”
But, to their credit, Chipotle isn’t budging so far. I say so farÂ becauseÂ the rifle OCers are doing their level best offer Shannon Watts another victory. This is exactly how OC activists “gave thanks” to Starbucks, and burned us. It wasn’t just in their stores, but all over social media as well. These companies don’t want their brands associated with open carry, gun rights, anti-gun hysteria, or gun control. Chipotle just wants to sell burritos and not be inserted into a contentious debate, just like Jack-in-the-Box wanted to sell burgers, and just like Starbucks just wanted to sell coffee. The problem is, many on “our side” don’t leave well enough alone, and keep taking actions that ignorantly draw the company further into a debate they want no part of.
Bitter and I went today and were sure to float a tweet that corporate would notice. I wore an NRA polo with a nice pair of khakis, but not AR-15. My pistol was concealed. The way to show Chipotle appreciation is to spend money there, and quietly let corporate know you did and why. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with sending them a tweet or two either (given that Chipotle markets organic, local food, to the kind of people who like that sort of thing, I couldn’t resist this tweet). But that’s going to be about the extent of our activism on this. I think we need to be very wary of attaching their brand to our cause.
Any reasonably high-profile company is well-acquainted with astroturf activist groups like Watts’s. That’s why they usually have the right instincts out of the gate in terms of telling them to get lost. Let us hope that Chipotle continues to stay out of the debate, but if they are to succeed in doing that, we have to let them out. If we show our “appreciation” by taking ARs and shotguns into their establishments, I think they will likely cave into Moms Demand, not because they really want to, but because they just want their branding nightmare to end.
37 thoughts on “Moms Demand Pressures Chipotle Mexican Grill”
You mean you didn’t stage an impromptu and unapproved rally inside the store, making speaches, taking photos, and crowding out other customers that chipotle depends on? And you say you support the second amendment.
Wow. OC activists generally aren’t helpful, but rifles? These people seem determined to make sure Texas never gets pistol OC.
What a bunch of clowns.
I agree with your point but in fairness, OC with anything BUT a long gun in TX is verboten.
And by doing dumb things, OC “Activists” will make sure that even that is prohibited. We do realize that doing dumb things in public is antithetical to actual legislative progress, right?
If we want Pistol OC in Texas, we don’t win when we come across as unreasonable asshats. Just sayin’.
Actually, OC activists ARE generally helpful. These rifle guys aren’t, but overall they are.
ORLY? Shall we go down the list of places OC activists have gotten to change their gun policies for the worse?
Off the top of my head:
– California Pizza Kitchen
– Peet’s Coffee
Oh, and then there’s this one:
– The State of California
Well Starbucks and Chipotle didn’t change anything. “Pretty please don’t carry” isn’t a change.
And California is California- they would’ve changed anyway. And guess what, because of that change, they got shall issue out of that. So I’d call that a win!
Um, wrong on both counts. California did not get Shall Issue, and Starbucks and Chipotle absolutely did change their gun policies. You can argue about degree, but you can’t argue they aren’t changed for the worse because of these rifle-toting idiots.
Apparently you haven’t heard of a case called Peruta. The court said that the “good cause” requirement (aka may issue) is not constitutional. And since open carry is banned, shall issue is required. And Starbucks and Chipotle absolutely did NOT change their policies. Nobody is banned. Nobody is kicked out. Nothing changed. Things are not for the worst.
That’s nonsense spin.
Prior to the OC “Thanks Starbucks” events by rifle OCers looking to attention whore, Starbucks had already told the anti’s to take a hike. After they just couldn’t leave well enough alone Starbuck’s put out their “plz don’t carry in our store” request. That they didn’t actually change their pllicy is -meaningless-, that they made the request, where prior they had said “all are welcome per state law”, handed the anti’s something to trumpet.
Chipotle is the same situation, rifle OCers took a neutral company, which is a win for us, who just wanted to be left alone, and drove them to make a publically anti-carry statement. That is grasping defeat from an accomplished victory in itself, the lack of a policy change is meaningless. The optics are what matter.
And I have no patience for the rifle OCers claiming victory for tripping over their own organs into accidentally and unintentionally sort of coinciding with Peruta’s appeal.
That a drunk trips and finds a dollar in the gutter doesn’t make them a savvy businessman.
In fact I have heard of Peruta, and am also aware that not only is California not Shall Issue now, but that San Diego County (of Peruta v. San Diego fame) isn’t Shall Issue either.
Wouldn’t you agree that they didn’t “get shall issue out of that”, if they don’t have Shall Issue?
Imagine if the NRA failed over and over and never had any victories to claim. The membership would become disillusioned very quickly. That’s what Watts is facing. That’s why she’s so quick to claim a victory when there isn’t one (the Slidefire billboard being Exhibit A). But these OC people give her easy “victories” to squawk about.
Just pack a God damn lunch and stay off of private property. Or find a small business owner who is sympathetic. Surely Texas has independent restaurant owners who are into guns and wouldn’t mind a bunch of like-minded paying customers.
If you’re more concerned with ideological purity and not compromising than you are with pragmatism and actual real-world results, go occupy something with the Obama voters.
Or find a small business owner who is sympathetic. Surely Texas has independent restaurant owners who are into guns and wouldnâ€™t mind a bunch of like-minded paying customers.
Yep. This is good advice. Notice they didn’t go after the Italian place down the street? There’s probably a reason they didn’t.
It doesn’t even have to be a small business. A regional chain that’s endemic to Texas or the South would be in a much better position to resist Watts’ demands. Its like they’re trying to pick the worst places possible.
Part of the “why can’t they get it” problem I didn’t realize until recently is that some OC activists don’t just dislike CC, or view it as a privilege, but that per Heller the right is, and only can be, OC.
It isn’t just a tactic, or convenience, it is the only goal. Any argument based on pragmatism, or working at getting Con Carry the AK/AZ way puts you on the same side and Bloomberg. They are true believers, zealots, with all that goes with it.
Part of the â€œwhy canâ€™t they get itâ€ problem I didnâ€™t realize until recently is that some OC activists donâ€™t just dislike CC, or view it as a privilege, but that per Heller the right is, and only can be, OC.
That’s one way to interpret it, but what the court said is that there’s a right to carry. They didn’t stipulate much other than that the states have historically been able to ban concealed carry as long as there’s open carry. That’s different than saying concealed carry is a privilege. It might not be if that’s the prescribed option.
You read it that way, I read it that way, but there is an unyielding minority that says since Heller looked at the right in a historical analysis, the right Federally, and in each state via McDonald, is what it was at the time of ratification of the Constitution.
If the given state banned CC at their ratification, then OC is the only protected right. To accept less than permitless OC is to betray the Constitution, regardless of arguments about tactics and incrementalism. :/
It’s funny how this site cannot even put the entire text of the 2nd amendment up at the top of the page…because the first few words “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA…” destroys your bullshit
If you really supported the 2nd amendment, you would not cower in fear of the first half of it.
I’m not cowering in fear of the first half of the Second Amendment, because the meaning of the Second Amendment has been well-explained in the academic literature which you are obviously completely unfamiliar. I would very much encourage you to read the Heller opinion in its entirety, which I have, and also all the briefs submitted in the Heller opinion, which I also have.
When you have done that, please come back, and then we can have a discussion about the first half of the Second Amendment. Then you will at least not be arguing your position from sheer ignorance.
Also, if you take a moment to educate yourself on the subject, then you might realize that the words at the top of this page aren’t from the Second Amendment at all. It actually quotes Article 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution – in its entirety.
But that would take research and knowing facts. We don’t have time for that!
Another troll has the drawbridge closed on his head. Slam, bang, boom.
Suggest you read the header at the top of the blog below the Title. You could have avoided your tirade.
Sebastian and Bitter have already addressed your concerns about the name of the blog.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA does not enter into the argument in this instance.
The Pennsylvania Constitution affirms the right of the Citizen to bear arms.
Well CSGV has a picture up on Twitter now that shows two of these OC activists. Of course both of them appear to be basement dwelling Dungeons and Dragons nerds who masturbate at least a dozen times a day while petting their AR’s. One of them is fat enough that he probably uses a swimming pool liner as underwear.
Why why why do we have so many imbeciles as our “spokesmen”?
They sure as hell don’t speak for me. If I’m in a restaurant, store, walking down the street, whatever, with my family and see something like that, I’m getting the hell out of there ASAP and calling the police to report exactly what I see.
So you’d call the police on your fellow gun owners who are doing nothing wrong nor illegal, and risk getting them killed? What a good “friend” of gun rights you are.
Riiiiight. I guess I’m anti gun rights because I’d take my loved ones away from folks who show up at a restaurant carrying rifles. I suppose you’d see nothing wrong with them showing up carrying rifles at a bank either?
What planet are you from?
The one where I can make rational decisions about a gun carrier, and I don’t freak out, and I certainly don’t call the cops on fellow, innocent gun owners.
I am not so naive as to assume every guy who walks into a restaurant with a rifle (remember, we’re talking about idiots with rifles here) is a fellow, innocent gun owner. Just like any rational person I’d see it as highly unusual and as a threat. Normal people don’t bring rifles into restaurants, so we’ve already established that they’re not normal. Add the rifle, and I’m primarily concerned with getting my family to safety, and then doing my civic duty and calling the cops to report a man (or men) with a gun.
There’s a very simple way to avoid having people call in “man with a gun” reports when you OC rifles to restaurants. Hint: it involves not OCing rifles to restaurants.
No you shouldn’t, but you should use your brain and see the way they are acting. You also shouldn’t be so naive to think that everybody with a gun is evil. Its not a threat, unless you are anti-gun. Normal people do bring rifles in, since they are doing it. ANd since they aren’t doing anything else criminal, you civic duty is to do nothing. Because you family is already save.
There is a very simple way not to harm fellow gun owners- don’t call the police.
As a gun owner, I’m educated enough to tell the difference between an organized OC event and a crazed gunman about to shoot everybody. But I don’t expect the average soccer mom to know the difference, and would absolutely expect them to call the police.
Hey Sparky, you missed part:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”
Believe it or not, when the Framers wrote the second amendment, they meant that the entire thing needed to be considered in context.
Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger (who was a lifelong Republican and conservative) had a view on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. “Insanity.”
Burger had never done any research or published anything on the Second Amendment. I would encourage you to read the modern scholarship on the issue, all of which was published after Burger made that statement.
Also, did you see the comment above? My blog title quotes the Pennsylvania RKBA provision in its entirety. Our provision, adopted in 1776, never said anything about the militia.
You might want to re-read Burger’s opinion piece.
First, note it was written in 1989, at the peak of violent crime rates, with and without firearms, in this country’s recent history. Well prior to the evidence now available that show expanded possession and public carry have proven absolutely benign. None of his concerns about public safety have come to fruition in the 25 years since he wrote, with those crime rates actually having fallen to the lows of the mid-’60s.
Second, he makes the common, and not really excusable given his education and experience, mistake of conflating the “militia” of the people in general with the “organized militia” of the National Guard. Title 10 of the US Code makes that error on his part clear.
Third, “Saturday Night Specials” – small, inexpensive, imported handguns of dubious manufacture – were banned for import in 1968, well prior to his essay; and “machine guns” were heavily regulated in 1934. Neither of his examples of guns that “don’t belong on the streets” were -on- the streets in 1989 or are today. Again, current data shows no statistically significant negative impact of expanded legal possession and use of century-old semi-auto technology on crime rates.
Finally, look at his list of proposed “common sense” restrictions:
“…to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
to have a “ballistic fingerprint” of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet “finding the culprit?”
The first, putting that personal info (minus employment, but what does that help?) on an application to help discover criminal history was already law at that time per the 1968 GCA, and remains so today. Waiting periods, the second suggestion, were law in many states at the time. Both became superseded by the far superior, Brady Bill mandated, NICS instant check in 1998. Once again, all available research (and a little “common sense” reflection) since his essay shows no statistical support for the efficacy of “waiting periods.”
The final suggestion, that of providing a fired bullet, is obviously the opinion of a layman not educated on the subject. Actual forensic techs (not tv CSI’s) will testify that under ideal conditions a comparison is only possible, within a minimal amount of time, between fired bullets when the actual suspect firearm is already in hand. The confirming match is recently fired bullet to recently fired bullet, not to a firearm, as firearm’s wear marks change a bit with every shot, and, further, *deliberately* changing the markings is as simple as swiping the appropriate areas with sandpaper.
The third suggestion is the most ironic, as, currently, transferring a firearm from person to person is essentially identical to transferring a car, you simply find a willing buyer and make the sale under your state’s laws.
So, Burger, for all his good intentions, was simply listing existing and/or useless regulations. He certainly has nothing useful to add to the discussion today.
Matthew: Reading the entirety of Burger’s piece, it is clear that he believed (as have many other Justices) that the 2nd Amendment applies only to guns kept as part of one’s participation in a militia. Second, in comparing guns to cars, he isn’t really talking about just the transfer of the vehicle but also the regulations regarding its use. All transfers–even if you want to give your car to your child or friend–take place under the auspices of the state DMV. A permanent record of every sale or transfer is kept. To use the car, you must be licensed and the vehicle must be insured or you must provide a bond in lieu of insurance.
“Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.”
Sebastian: Point taken on the PA constitution. That said, “shall not be questioned” allows for much narrower interpretation than “shall not be infringed” as does the absence of the word “keep.”
You *really* need to now read the historian’s amici brief to Heller to learn exactly what the Founding idea of the Right was vis a vis the militia per the latest scholarship on the subject and where the current tenor of scholarship lies. You should also read 10 USC 311 to see what the “militia” comprises in Federal law. It describes people by age and sex, not constraints or requirements on activity or equipment (and the age and sex requirements are now probably iffy given the Civil Rights Act).
Burger didn’t have that modern scholarship readily available as scholarship on the issue was in its infancy in ’89. The seminal work of the period was Levinson’s “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” also published in 1989. You should read it as well, and then chase some of his footnoted sources such as Kates, and then move forward in time. Sticking with 25 year old opinions when modern research is available not intellectually sound.
As to cars. Vehicle Titling, ownership papers, does not directly impact an explicit Federal civil rights issue but falls under the states’ individual police powers. In 1989 there wasn’t even a central Federal electronic repository of Title information. What Burger was talking about was -state- level regulations, nothing extant in Federal law, thus he was speaking of creating new Federal powers out of whole cloth. And just like firearm regulations, the Feds only got involved in automobile regulations at all in the last century through expanded interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, not through any direct Constitutional authority. This is all new territory.
As with Title (ownership or “keeping”) which has traditionally been a state area of regulation, not Federal, vehicle registration and licensing (using or “bearing”) are justified by a state’s police powers and are generally only required to operate a vehicle in public, not on one’s own property.
Further, not all states require insurance, and not to the same degree, some allow the posting of a bond or payment of a nominal fee based on their own decisions of need, yet all state’s insurance regimes are recognized in all others while travelling.
Similarly all state’s licenses, which are similar in requirements but not exact, are recognized in every other state.
To apply that situation to firearms, in Burger’s time or today, no states currently require liability insurance to keep -or- bear firearms (even assuming it is not an unConstitutional infringement on the free peaceable exercise of a fundamental civil right). By parallel to autos, even if they did in one state, that state would not force that on out of state visitors.
The state of licensing is similar. All states currently recognize the visiting non-resident’s auto license without question, while requiring local traffic code be followed. That is exactly what National Carry Reciprocity would provide.
In any event, you cannot simply ignore that the only justification for infringement of fundamental rights is an overwhelming public safety necessity, and then only to the most limited degree possible to achieve that distinct public safety goal.
Given that accidents and crimes involving firearms have continued to decrease from the time Burger was writing, to a low not seen for 50 years, without -any- of the restrictions he called for coming into being and, in fact, with steadily decreasing restrictions on purchase and increasing public carry nationwide, there is simply no legal or logical justification for such regulations and restrictions now.
Comments are closed.