Panera to customers: Please leave your guns at home

[Brian4Liberty]

Another business joins the anti-gun cause. Except for law enforcement. And secret service. And bodyguards of the rich and famous. But you mundanes, no guns for you!

Panera Bread is joining Target Corp. and other big companies in asking customers to help make their businesses gun-free zones.

Ronald M. Shaich, chief executive officer of Sunset Hills-based Panera, said the company is requesting that customers at its 1,800 bakery-cafes in 40 states, including St. Louis Bread Co. locations in the St. Louis area, to keep their guns at home.

The company said it respects the rights of gun owners but doesn’t want firearms brought into its stores unless carried by “an authorized law enforcement officer.”

The move was applauded by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, an organization formed as a result of the Sandy Hook school shootings in Connecticut in 2012.
...
http://www.stltoday.com/business/loc...df4ba3725.html

[Christian Liberty]

What would happen if a storeowner did not allow "authorized law enforcement officers" to carry guns in the store?

[GunnyFreedom]

What would happen if a storeowner did not allow "authorized law enforcement officers" to carry guns in the store?

I'm not sure they have franchised. They may all be corporate stores. All the Panera's I have done break/fix and installs in have been corporate stores.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure they have franchised. They may all be corporate stores. All the Panera's I have done break/fix and installs in have been corporate stores.

Forget Panera. I mean a store anywhere.

[TheTexan]

What would happen if a storeowner did not allow "authorized law enforcement officers" to carry guns in the store?

They'd probably get sued when a shooting happened inside the store while a disarmed cop was there.

Because as we all know, that situation wouldn't happen to civilians. It's not like there has ever been a situation where a civilian woman was required to leave her gun in the truck and then was helpless to stop a shooter inside the restaurant. (But in such a purely hypothetical situation, I'm sure the cops would get there, eventually, and then save the day)

[GunnyFreedom]

What would happen if a storeowner did not allow "authorized law enforcement officers" to carry guns in the store?

And I do remember some story about....6-8 months ago?? Where a cafe owner in....California I think? Up North, maybe San Francisco? Banned the police from their establishment. Made the news a little and then went away. As far as i know they are still fine and police free.

[Christian Liberty]

And I do remember some story about....6-8 months ago?? Where a cafe owner in....California I think? Up North, maybe San Francisco? Banned the police from their establishment. Made the news a little and then went away. As far as i know they are still fine and police free.

Hmm... If freedom-lovers could collaborate to exclude police from their establishments, that might draw more attention than most other non-violent methods. Heck, throw in active-duty military and IRS workers while we're at it.

[TheTexan]

http://www.katu.com/news/investigato...259620851.html

SOUTHEAST PORTLAND, Ore. - A business co-owner called 911 about a potentially deadly situation at a restaurant, and told the dispatcher not to send police. It happened at the Red & Black Cafe on Southeast 12th Avenue Thursday afternoon.
...
"We don't allow police in here so we can totally accommodate the fire department and other emergency personnel,” Langley told a 911 dispatcher, “Not police, though."
“I'm required to send everybody," the dispatcher said.
“OK, well, if the police try and come in here,” Langley replied, “There's gonna be another problem."
...
“Definitely the EMTs and the ambulance driver could've handled it,” Langley said. “I kind of feel like I don't know what they were doing there except maybe waiting to see if they could bust the person on something, and I'm not down with that."
...
Langley describes himself as a homeless advocate and anarchist. He has a history of not allowing police into the restaurant. He made headlines back in 2010 for asking an officer to leave after he bought a cup of coffee.

[GunnyFreedom]

And I do remember some story about....6-8 months ago?? Where a cafe owner in....California I think? Up North, maybe San Francisco? Banned the police from their establishment. Made the news a little and then went away. As far as i know they are still fine and police free.

I was wrong, it was Portland Oregon, and it was June of 2010.



I can't find the original thread, on RPF's but here is a heartwarming update from May of 2014:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...to-send-police

[GunnyFreedom]

Hmm... If freedom-lovers could collaborate to exclude police from their establishments, that might draw more attention than most other non-violent methods. Heck, throw in active-duty military and IRS workers while we're at it.

No thank you, there are plenty of RPF members in good standing who are on active or reserve duty, and I have no desire to prevent them from enjoying my business.

[Christian Liberty]

No thank you, there are plenty of RPF members in good standing who are on active or reserve duty, and I have no desire to prevent them from enjoying my business.

Isn't there at least one cop here as well?

Just out of curiosity, do you ever read Laurence Vance's LRC posts? On what issues do you disagree with him?

I'm also not TOTALLY sure how the military works, so maybe there are certain people who can't really be deployed overseas or have to fight overseas... those are the people I really have an issue with and I don't see how they are any less violating other people's rights than cops are here.

Why would a liberty minded person want to join the US Military? Honest question... and I know you were in so maybe you'd understand that more than I would.

[Dr.3D]

Now if people would just stop visiting their stores, they would learn an important lesson.

[GunnyFreedom]

Isn't there at least one cop here as well?

Just out of curiosity, do you ever read Laurence Vance's LRC posts? On what issues do you disagree with him?

I'm also not TOTALLY sure how the military works, so maybe there are certain people who can't really be deployed overseas or have to fight overseas... those are the people I really have an issue with and I don't see how they are any less violating other people's rights than cops are here.

Why would a liberty minded person want to join the US Military? Honest question... and I know you were in so maybe you'd understand that more than I would.

In 1992, when I joined, the military was a lot less likely to be used in offense than they are today. So the primary rationale of making one's self available int he unlikely event that a serious defense is needed made a lot more sense. The secondary reason that also makes sense, makes a lot more sense today than it did in 1992: "regardless of where they send me today or what they order me to do now, America is going to a very dangerous place, and this is the best place to learn how to handle that day when it comes." I imagine most liberty minded folks join for some combination of both.

Ignoring all the ignorant interventions for a moment, should America ever be seriously attacked, the military is the first line of defense; so a lot of people with ingrained "watchman on the wall" personalities will be drawn to the services no matter what else is going on. Then you have the people who want to join for the training and the experience "training their hands to war" not because they support what is happening out in the world, but because they know it's eventually coming home and they want to be prepared for it when it does.

[TheTexan]

should America ever be seriously attacked, the military is the first line of defense

Unless the military was the one attacking America, then they would be the first line of offense.

Absurd notion, I know. That wouldn't happen here

[GunnyFreedom]

Unless the military was the one attacking America, then they would be the first line of offense.

Absurd notion, I know. That wouldn't happen here

That highlights yet another reason why it is a good thing to have sincere liberty-loving Constitution-defending Americans in as many spots as they can tolerate inside that machine.

[GunnyFreedom]

Isn't there at least one cop here as well?

We'll sneak him in the back door. As long as he leaves his uniform at home. And comes armed to encourage others to do the same.

[GunnyFreedom]

That highlights yet another reason why it is a good thing to have sincere liberty-loving Constitution-defending Americans in as many spots as they can tolerate inside that machine.

FF: Same effect as 'salt' ie Christians are the salt of the Earth, acting as a preservative. Doesn't mean we approve of all the fallen nonsense around us. Liberty loving Constitutionalists also act as the 'salt' of the military, and their presence would have a dramatic effect should Uncle Sugar try to turn the military against the people of the United States.

[TheTexan]

That highlights yet another reason why it is a good thing to have sincere liberty-loving Constitution-defending Americans in as many spots as they can tolerate inside that machine.

I'd have to assume they would continue defending our freedoms then, about as well as they are now...

Assuming they are in fact against the interventions, they are apparently still willing to kill people in the name of those interventions. Does that willingness to kill, in spite of personal morality, somehow change based on their physical location?

[GunnyFreedom]

I'd have to assume they would continue defending our freedoms then, about as well as they are now...

Assuming they are in fact against the interventions, they are apparently still willing to kill people in the name of those interventions. Does that willingness to kill, in spite of personal morality, somehow change based on their physical location?

It is affected by whatever motivates them, personally. If their primary motive is "defending America" (even if that image is built on ignorance) then yes, they will probably have a lot of trouble with firing on American citizens inside the United States. Even the borderline ones will probably have problems with that, because it would be a violation of the propaganda they have been fed for decades trying to motivate them to war on foreign shores. "We have the fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." They will have no problem firing on import "hajis" (their perspective) in Chicago, but laying sights on Joe Tea Party is gonna put a big hitch in most of their getalongs. Yes, absolutely.

[TheTexan]

It is affected by whatever motivates them, personally. If their primary motive is "defending America" (even if that image is built on ignorance) then yes, they will probably have a lot of trouble with firing on American citizens inside the United States. Even the borderline ones will probably have problems with that, because it would be a violation of the propaganda they have been fed for decades trying to motivate them to war on foreign shores. "We have the fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." They will have no problem firing on import "hajis" (their perspective) in Chicago, but laying sights on Joe Tea Party is gonna put a big hitch in most of their getalongs. Yes, absolutely.

So they wouldnt for example confiscate guns in the name of keeping the peace? (Or is that just the National Guard?)

[tod evans]

What would happen if a storeowner did not allow "authorized law enforcement officers" to carry guns in the store?

I do not permit government employees in my place of business.

It's just a woodshop but still.


[edit]

Unlike FF I do not consider military personnel government employees.

[Christian Liberty]

In 1992, when I joined, the military was a lot less likely to be used in offense than they are today. So the primary rationale of making one's self available int he unlikely event that a serious defense is needed made a lot more sense. The secondary reason that also makes sense, makes a lot more sense today than it did in 1992: "regardless of where they send me today or what they order me to do now, America is going to a very dangerous place, and this is the best place to learn how to handle that day when it comes." I imagine most liberty minded folks join for some combination of both.

Ignoring all the ignorant interventions for a moment, should America ever be seriously attacked, the military is the first line of defense; so a lot of people with ingrained "watchman on the wall" personalities will be drawn to the services no matter what else is going on. Then you have the people who want to join for the training and the experience "training their hands to war" not because they support what is happening out in the world, but because they know it's eventually coming home and they want to be prepared for it when it does.

OK, I can understand the second reason, but isn't it still wrong to fight in foreign wars even if you are ordered to do so and even if you have some good motivation for doing so? (Such as preparing oneself for when the country goes to Hell?)

The first reason seems to border on insanity at this point, but I'm sure it was more sane in '92. For one thing, you didn't have the internet, and for two, there wasn't nearly as much war. I really don't even see how the United States of America could legitimately defend itself at this point. At this point I think pretty much any other country in the world has at least a semi legitimate casus beli to go to war with "us" considering the high likelihood that the US would attack their country.

[GunnyFreedom]

So they wouldnt for example confiscate guns in the name of keeping the peace? (Or is that just the National Guard?)

I am sure TPTB could selectively 'collect' people who would be willing to do that, but by and large no. The Active Duty military would not be willing to do that. The National Guard, being more accustomed to being used in a 'police' capacity, would be more comfortable in that role, however even there you had whole units in Katrina telling their Chain of Command to piss off if that's what they were asked to do. Yes, it happened in Katrina, but the untold story is some 25%-30% of the National Guard units totally refused to participate. And the National Guard is WAY more likely to participate in such a thing than the Active Duty military.

[Christian Liberty]

I do not permit government employees in my place of business.

It's just a woodshop but still.


[edit]

Unlike FF I do not consider military personnel government employees.

I could be convinced. Why aren't they?

[GunnyFreedom]

OK, I can understand the second reason, but isn't it still wrong to fight in foreign wars even if you are ordered to do so and even if you have some good motivation for doing so? (Such as preparing oneself for when the country goes to Hell?)

It's not as though your absence is going to hurt the war effort. Also, if you are there with your sensibilities, that automatically means there is less chance of collateral damage and dead innocents, because with your morals you have no intention on harming innocents. So your presence in that war then makes it slightly less evil than had you stayed home and some brainless killer took your place. Maybe only one single innocent lives because you took on the role of a soldier, that would not have lived if someone else went instead of you. What is the value of a single innocent life?

Maybe even a good soul was placed by God, into that specific position for that specific day when the Lieutenant loses his marbles and wants to raze whole villages and their noncombatant populations, and you are the one to step up and say "no." It does happen. I also admit that such dissent is more likely in the Marines than any other branch, contrary to popular understanding.

The first reason seems to border on insanity at this point, but I'm sure it was more sane in '92.

It may have been more rational in 1992 than it is in 2014, but it doesn't have to be rational at all to be truth. If God builds a soul in his heart to be a watchman on the wall, then the motivation is lodged deep in the core of his being and goes beyond rationale. Even if the militaries in our day are all hopelessly corrupt, God is still building watchmen. It is not uncommon for a watchman type to serve before he comes to know Christ. It is not unknown for a Christian watchman to be drawn intot he service anyway, so that they can stop the next Mỹ Lai Massacre, or simply to refrain from pulling the trigger on that one innocent soul.

For one thing, you didn't have the internet, and for two, there wasn't nearly as much war. I really don't even see how the United States of America could legitimately defend itself at this point. At this point I think pretty much any other country in the world has at least a semi legitimate casus beli to go to war with "us" considering the high likelihood that the US would attack their country.

Yes, our government does wrong, and our government uses the military to do wrong. The thing is the military, it's machine, and these wars will exists with or without 'the good souls' who for whatever reason join. Their presence makes things a little less bad. Until people who think like we do approach a supermajority, we will not have the power to deprive the military of manpower philosophically, and once we do achieve a supermajority, then the military will no longer be used for evil.

[tod evans]

I could be convinced. Why aren't they?

I've read your opinions and don't really feel like typing one fingered (I really do!) for paragraphs to try to validate what you find offensive...

Honorable men who volunteer for a constitutionally authorized job/duty are not, in my opinion, the same as a tax collector or any type of domestic enforcer.

That government uses them as a cudgel in global politics does not lessen or obfuscate the their position.

All other government employees that are not voted into position fall into my classification of "government employee" from the streetsweeper to the black-robed bastards in DC.

[heavenlyboy34]

I've read your opinions and don't really feel like typing one fingered (I really do!) for paragraphs to try to validate what you find offensive...

Honorable men who volunteer for a constitutionally authorized job/duty are not, in my opinion, the same as a tax collector or any type of domestic enforcer.

That government uses them as a cudgel in global politics does not lessen or obfuscate the their position.

All other government employees that are not voted into position fall into my classification of "government employee" from the streetsweeper to the black-robed bastards in DC.

Aside from the navy and national guard (arguably the Coast Guard and AF, but not IMHO), none of them are serving in a Constitutional manner. Until there is a declaration of war, they are just "government employees".

[DamianTV]

Might as well hold up an advertisement saying "please rob us instead of Walmart or other stores that do allow customers to exercise their Constitutionally protected Rights".

[Christian Liberty]

It's not as though your absence is going to hurt the war effort. Also, if you are there with your sensibilities, that automatically means there is less chance of collateral damage and dead innocents, because with your morals you have no intention on harming innocents. So your presence in that war then makes it slightly less evil than had you stayed home and some brainless killer took your place. Maybe only one single innocent lives because you took on the role of a soldier, that would not have lived if someone else went instead of you. What is the value of a single innocent life?

Maybe even a good soul was placed by God, into that specific position for that specific day when the Lieutenant loses his marbles and wants to raze whole villages and their noncombatant populations, and you are the one to step up and say "no." It does happen. I also admit that such dissent is more likely in the Marines than any other branch, contrary to popular understanding.



It may have been more rational in 1992 than it is in 2014, but it doesn't have to be rational at all to be truth. If God builds a soul in his heart to be a watchman on the wall, then the motivation is lodged deep in the core of his being and goes beyond rationale. Even if the militaries in our day are all hopelessly corrupt, God is still building watchmen. It is not uncommon for a watchman type to serve before he comes to know Christ. It is not unknown for a Christian watchman to be drawn intot he service anyway, so that they can stop the next Mỹ Lai Massacre, or simply to refrain from pulling the trigger on that one innocent soul.



Yes, our government does wrong, and our government uses the military to do wrong. The thing is the military, it's machine, and these wars will exists with or without 'the good souls' who for whatever reason join. Their presence makes things a little less bad. Until people who think like we do approach a supermajority, we will not have the power to deprive the military of manpower philosophically, and once we do achieve a supermajority, then the military will no longer be used for evil.

Whether this is true or not (I feel that its somewhat utilitarian, though I do understand it) doesn't it equally apply to police?

I've read your opinions and don't really feel like typing one fingered (I really do!) for paragraphs to try to validate what you find offensive...

Honorable men who volunteer for a constitutionally authorized job/duty are not, in my opinion, the same as a tax collector or any type of domestic enforcer.

That government uses them as a cudgel in global politics does not lessen or obfuscate the their position.

All other government employees that are not voted into position fall into my classification of "government employee" from the streetsweeper to the black-robed bastards in DC.

They're still government employees though.

[FindLiberty]

...recalling a "shoot 'em up" incident at some "no gunz policy" movie theatre.

Was/is there a lingering liability issue for having that ignorant, "sorry, you've
got no way to even defend yourself here - so, if something bad goes down,
just turn your cell phone back on, dial 9ii and then die" anti-safety policy?

Maybe it's those posted "no gunz" color graphic warning signs that somehow
unintentionally appeal to prescription medicated near-brain-drained crazies!

+++

Q: Are ex-military still on the "welcome customers" list?

Even if they later become cops? Maybe some fine-tuning is needed there.

WANTED: Peace Officers

WELCOME PEACE OFFICERS AND ARMED CUSTOMERS TOO!