Posts Tagged ‘Chili’s Grill & Bar’

"Gun-free" Zone Fiction Flatters Carriers; Insults the Public

Tuesday, April 28th, 2015

 It has only been two years since Chris Kyle, the “American Sniper,” was killed on a shooting range in Erath County, Texas. His murder was followed by the shooting death in Georgia of Keith Ratliff of the YouTube gun show FPSRussia, who was surrounded by his own guns, and Frank Petro, owner of Frank’s Gun & Taxidermy Shop in Tunnelton, PA who was killed in his shop with his own gun.

 

Also shot and killed in 2013 were Kaufman County, Texas District Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife, despite the DA being “well-armed and so well-versed in guns,” according to his son, and other key law enforcement figures.

 

NGVAC Tell and Compel InitiativeStill it is the absence of guns–“gun-free” zones–that explains most shootings, say gun advocates, because bad guys know that good guys “have been disarmed!”

 

Under this self-flattering reasoning, armed guards are no replacement for armed citizens and Ford Hood, the Navy Yard and LAX airport are actually soft targets. “Let’s attack a military installation,” the bad guys say, according to gun advocates. “They won’t fight back.”

 

The gun-free zone fiction was rolled out by the gun advocacy movement as businesses have increasingly shunned belligerent and self-righteous “carriers” on their premises.

 

Just as Pepsi recently renounced the artificial sweetener aspartame and Chipotle renounced genetically modified food ingredients, top restaurant chains like Panera Bread, Starbucks, Sonic Drive-In, Chili’s Grill & Bar, Chipotle, Jack in the Box and Target have renounced guns on their property. Why? They hear their customers!

 

But of course, there is another reason property and building owners do not want guns on their property. If they fail to post No Guns Allowed signs and gun violence, injury or death occurs on their property they “face the argument that it was entirely foreseeable” advises top real estate, finance and litigation law firm Mayer Brown LLP.

 

Mishaps that could expose such property owners to lawsuits include faulty holsters, someone bumping a carrier, a carrier bumping someone else, a carrier falling or a carrier “mistaking a situation for one in which he is legally entitled to use a gun for self-defense or to save others,” says Mayer Brown. Their legal memo, found here, may well be the first property owner guidance on liability from guns on their property. Certainly, the toddler who killed his mother with her own gun in a Washington Walmart in December would pose liability to property owners under this guidance.

 

Of course militant “carriers” who are afraid to go where normal people go without their lethal weapons usually transmute their cowardice into a public service. We are protecting the public they yell–if a “bad guy” shows up you’ll be glad we are around.

 

But the legal memo from Mayer Brown begs to differ. Not only are sheriff-wannabes unlikely to “defend” anyone in a gun violence situation they are likely to cause more bloodshed. Nor would a property owner be faulted for disallowing such armed enforcers. “A court could hardly claim that a duty of care was violated because a property owner put up signs to help prevent this additional danger posed by would-be heroes,” says the memo.

 

The truth is the presence of guns makes an environment less safe not more safe. Exhibit A is all major corporations/companies which ban guns from their headquarter buildings. Corporations don’t want a shoot out between bad guys and good guys in their offices–they want no guns to begin with.  Needless to say, there aren’t too many shootings in their “gun-free zones.”

 

 

Join our action to tell corporate America to get off the “sidelines” and take a stand against gun violence including the “can’t miss” sniper rifle sold to civilians. When corporations want sane gun laws, we will have sane gun laws. Follow us at @GunVictimsAct

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are You Patronizing A Gun-Friendly Business?

Friday, December 19th, 2014

Corporations know how dangerous guns are. Why else do they ban guns in their boardrooms and corporate headquarters?

Yet the same corporations that know guns are dangerous and protect their officers are okay with their customers and employees exposed to gun risks. They don’t even put up signs warning customers they are entering a gun zone.

As the “carrier” movement has taken hold, many businesses simply cave to the belligerent gun lobby, afraid of its well-demonstrated wrath. After concealed carry became legal in Illinois earlier this year, NGVAC asked top businesses on Chicago’s Michigan avenue if they would now allow guns and most said they would follow “local laws,” implying that they would not block guns under the new law. The answer was disingenuous since property owners and businesses can always pre-empt local laws.

The truth is businesses want to stay on the sidelines and not get involved. But to not get “involved” in the NRA’s guns-everywhere-all-the-time agenda is to support it. It is appeasement. It is like the joke about how to escape an alligator that is chasing you and your friend–you don’t have to run faster than the alligator, just your friend.

SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE USED BY THE SANDY HOOK KILLER

If an Illinois business does not put up a gun ban sign, chances are “carriers” are lurking among moms and children doing their Christmas shopping. Nice. These are the same businesses that ban cigarettes.

Being able to walk around with their guns is creepily important to gun lovers who are either scared to go where normal people go unarmed, devoid of an identity unless they can play a tough guy sheriff wannabe or both. “They’re not getting my money if they violate my rights” write gun lovers on NGVAC’s Facebook as if the public doesn’t have the “right” to be safe from lethal force when shopping or in a restaurant. And as if the Second Amendment protects “carrying” which it does not.

Yet when it comes to economic threats, gun advocates are all hat and no horse. In 2005, the NRA declared a boycott of ConocoPhillips because it dared to challenge the Oklahoma law preventing companies from banning loaded guns in employee cars.

“ConocoPhillips went to federal court to attack your freedom,” thundered Wayne LaPierre. “We’re going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights. If you are a corporation that’s anti-gun, anti-gun owner, or anti-Second Amendment, we will spare no effort or expense to work against you, to protect the rights of your law-abiding employees.”

The NRA did make ConocoPhillips an example of what happens when a business stands up to the gun lobby: Nothing. Sales did not fall and there was no contrite ConocoPhillips statement–not even a mention on the web site. The consumer power of gun extremists was a joke. Three years earlier, a gun lover boycott of H&R Block was similarly underwhelming.

Gun extremists bellow loudly but they don’t have the money or the numbers to sway corporate America. That is why in the last few months Starbucks, Sonic Drive-In, Chili’s Grill & Bar, Chipotle, Jack in the Box and Target disinvited guns, joining other businesses like Peet’s, California Pizza Kitchen and Ikea.

There will be more as companies realize risking customer safety for the alleged “rights” of gun carriers doesn’t make much business sense.

 

Join our action to tell corporate America to get off the “sidelines” and take a stand against gun violence including the “can’t miss” sniper rifle sold to civilians. When corporations want sane gun laws, we will have sane gun laws.