Got into an argument with a business owner...<sigh>

[tRidiot]

Maybe it wasn't the best thing to do, but I despise ignorance and cowardice.

Walked into a liquor store today to pick up a few things so we could experiment with some cocktails tonight.

Guy behind the register sees my OC'd Glock and says, "I'm sorry sir, but you can't have that gun in here."

My reply, "Oh, ok, no problem, I'll go put it up in my truck, I didn't see a sign on the door prohibiting carrying weapons, so I assumed it was ok."

Clerk (owner?) - "Actually, it's state law, it prohibits any firearms in a liquor store."

Here's where it starts to go downhill, as you can imagine.

As I'm heading for the door to put my gun in the truck, "Actually, the state statute says firearms are prohibited in places where liquor is consumed, not sold. It's illegal to consume alcohol on the premises of a liquor store."

"Actually, no sir, the law prohibits firearms specifically in a liquor store."

I'm actually leaning back in the door at this point to ask him to repeat his 'parting shot' at me, which he does. I say, "You really should read the law about it. If you don't want guns in here, that's fine with me, and that's your right, but it's not the law, as you claim. The law specifically forbids carry in places where liquor is consumed, but that doesn't include liquor stores."

Clerk - "I have read the law, and I know what it says, you're not allowed to carry a gun in a liquor store."

At this point, I just called to my wife who was grabbing a cart, and decided to leave. I told him I'd bring him a copy of the law to show him if he liked, he said he's read the law and knows what it says.

Relevant section:

TITLE 21 § 1272.1 CARRYING FIREARMS WHERE LIQUOR IS CONSUMED
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or possess any weapon designated in Section 1272 of this title in any
establishment where low-point beer, as defined by Section 163.2 of Title 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or
alcoholic beverages, as defined by Section 506 of Title 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes, are consumed. This
provision shall not apply to a peace officer, as defined in Section 99 of this title, or to private investigators with a
firearms authorization when acting in the scope and course of employment, and shall not apply to an owner or
proprietor of the establishment having a pistol, rifle, or shotgun on the premises. Provided however, a person
possessing a valid handgun license pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act may carry the
concealed or unconcealed handgun into any restaurant or other establishment licensed to dispense low-point
beer or alcoholic beverages where the sale of low-point beer or alcoholic beverages does not constitute the
primary purpose of the business.
Provided further, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize any peace officer in actual physical
possession of a weapon to consume low-point beer or alcoholic beverages, except in the authorized line of duty
as an undercover officer.
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize any private investigator with a firearms authorization in
actual physical possession of a weapon to consume low-point beer or alcoholic beverages in any establishment
where low-point beer or alcoholic beverages are consumed.
B. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1272.2 of this title.
TITLE 21 § 1272.2 PENALTY FOR FIREARM IN LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT
Any person who intentionally or knowingly carries on his or her person any weapon in violation of Section 1272.1 of
this title, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00),
or imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a period not to exceed two (2) years, or by both such
fine and imprisonment.
Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section after having been issued a handgun license pursuant
to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall have the license revoked by the Oklahoma State Bureau of
Investigation after a hearing and determination that the person is in violation of Section 1272.1 of this title.

I'm wondering... should I bother to print this section and politely deliver it to this guy to educate him on the law? I have no problem if you don't want guns in your establishment, that's fine. Post it, and if you see someone carrying, ask them to leave because you don't allow them on the premises, but don't hide behind the law if you don't know what the law says. Stand up and say it, don't be a chickenshit coward and try to foist the responsibility off on some nameless state legislature, as if you don't have a say.

So? Should I let him know, or let it go? And find another liquor store for my business?

 

[Shadowrider]

Don't waste your time. You can't educate those who are already "educated".

But then again, printing off a copy and taking it back, you could rub his face in his ignorance, there's something to be said for that. Don't forget the obligatory healthy dose of sarcasm.

 

[120 Acres]

That depends on if you want to frequent that establishment. If its a place where you would go often, sure, take it to him. If not, take it to him anyway and call him a dumbass.

 

[tRidiot]

I do go there often, but it's not a big deal to change to another liquor store. There are several, probably cheaper ones, and ones with better selection. Just that one is a little closer to my house - but that isn't a major issue. If I took him the paper and he admitted he was wrong, but would still prefer I didn't OC in his store, I might consider still frequenting there. But if he continued to act like it was state law, I would certainly go elsewhere and never darken his door again.

Again, like I said, I despise ignorance, but cowardice is a whole 'nother level.

 

[aviator41]

As has been said. Even if you showed said douchebagger that he was wrong by taking him a copy of the law, he'd just dig his heels in further. Teaching a pig to dance, you know.

Lots of other businesses want your money.

 

[120 Acres]

 

[SMS]

Print it off and shove in his b$tch mouth....

Woops, sorry. It's Friday and I'm a little frisky.

Maybe, just maybe, he's not anti-gun and is just confused about the law. I suppose, after you enlighten him, he might change his mind. Just depends on how much time you want to invest in the deal...

 

[tRidiot]

My guess is he's gonna claim "dispense" is equivalent to selling. Not in my book.


<edit> And again, I support a business owner's right to forbid firearms in their business, just as I support patrons taking their business elsewhere to send the message to those who hate/fear guns.


My issue is being too much of a coward to just stand up and say you don't want guns in your business. Hiding behind a non-existent law is cowardice, trying to blame someone else for your own prejudices and fears.

 

[aviator41]

I see where you're coming from. It chaps me too. idiots!!! (of the non-tr kind, of course)

In the end though, is it worth the trouble, time, effort and end result of getting nowhere with Señor toolbag?

my answer is "nope" - yours may be different though.

 

[excat]

Print it off and shove in his b$tch mouth....

Woops, sorry. It's Friday and I'm a little frisky.

Maybe, just maybe, he's not anti-gun and is just confused about the law. I suppose, after you enlighten him, he might change his mind. Just depends on how much time you want to invest in the deal...

That made me LOL....




I would think it would all depend on the delivery of the information. If you went in acting just as arrogant and hot headed as he sounded as to being, it's just going to be a rinse and repeat as he will have already written you off.

If you went in slightly apologetic (even though you did nothing wrong, it's a psychology tactic), and told him that your conversation with him caused you to doubt yourself so you wanted to verify your information, and share your findings with him, he "may" be more perceptive to the information you have to share with him.

I don't think it would be a waste of time though. Everyone deserves the benefit of doubt at least once.