Sonic And Chili's Announce No-Gun Policies

[tulsanewb]

Oh. My. It's a good thing all I care about anymore when I go out to eat is the quality of food and the service. Neither of which are very good at the Sonic right down the street from my house, unfortunately.

"Intensive purposes" ... Autocorrect, maybe?? (I HATE F'NG AUTOCORRECT!!!! )

D'oh. Just saw this. Was typing from phone and having some Bourbon

"vehicle only restaurant for all intents and purposes" is what I was going for.

Or, better put, a damn drive in restaurant

 

[TallPrairie]

Didn't see this posted anywhere. Surprised to see it from an Oklahoma based chain.

http://newsok.com/sonic-asks-custom...o-drive-in-patios-restaurants/article/4868851

Thoughts:

1. Long gun open carry in urbanized areas is an incredibly poor advocacy tool.

2. A lot of these capitulating chains are issuing "policies" that are basically press releases to placate the anti-gun groups, but are not actually posting signs on their locations. This is an interesting move. Under Oklahoma law, if there's not a sign, then there is apparently no legal violation in carrying in that location. 21 O.S. 1290.22.C:

A property owner, tenant, employer, place of worship or business entity may prohibit any person from carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm on the property. If the building or property is open to the public, the property owner, tenant, employer, place of worship or business entity shall post signs on or about the property stating such prohibition.

The relevant statute: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=438588

Of course a property owner can always ask a customer to leave, and it could well be a trespass to decline to do so if asked.

3. There need to be economic and reputational consequences for chains that do this. Long guns are one thing, but "no guns" sweeps a lot broader than that. Given the excellent track record of concealed carry handgun license holders for safety and law-abidingness, a restaurant chain that proclaims such a policy reveals an ignorant and callous attitude toward its customers' safety.

* THIS POST IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE *

 

[O4L]

There is another thread on this, but I can't find it right now.

 

[TallPrairie]

One other important thing: I've seen news stories linking the new gun-carry "policy statements" by Chili's and Sonic. Actually, there seems to be a big difference between them.

The Chili's statement says (my emphasis) "we kindly ask that guests refrain from openly carrying firearms into our restaurants."

Sonic: "We're asking that customers refrain from bringing guns onto our patios or into our indoor dining areas. With respect to the storage of guns in vehicles, we ask that our customers continue to honor local laws."

Link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101719167

Big difference. Chili's is not showing a callous and ill-reasoned overreaction. They are still good guys in my book. Sonic is not. (This is probably a fair time to point out that I have never particularly enjoyed their food in any case.)

 

[O4L]

Two sides of the same coin.

Policy wise, and food wise.

 

[BadgeBunny]

It's in 2A ...

And I don't see anything wrong with what Chili's or Sonic is doing. Flame away, boys ...

I'm gonna merge the threads now ...

 

[TallPrairie]

There is another thread on this, but I can't find it right now.

Darn. I looked pretty hard. But then, I look hard for my socks in the morning, and miss them when they're right there on top of the pile of laundry ...

The search function seems to cut off some time in March.

 

[O4L]

Darn. I looked pretty hard. But then, I look hard for my socks in the morning, and miss them when they're right there on top of the pile of laundry ...

The search function seems to cut off some time in March.

Yeah, it doesn't help that the search function is broken.

 

[tulsanewb]

It's in 2A ...

And I don't see anything wrong with what Chili's or Sonic is doing. Flame away, boys ...

I'm gonna merge the threads now ...

No flaming here. I agree with what you say about Chili's. Sonic I think is just trying to make headlines and promote their business to the "anti-gun" demographic that I am guessing they get less of (if you think of the anti-gun demographic as being the Whole Foods demographic, as I often do in my head). My issue with Sonic is they are making a policy that has absolutely no need to be made. It would be like if I made a policy banning people over the age of 65 from my plane (I don't have a plane and Sonic doesn't have a dining area). It feels like Sonic is just saying (use a whiny voice to read this) "Me too! me too! We are relevant in the fast food industry too you guys!".

 

[BadgeBunny]

LOL at the "whiny voice" ... And you know, you may be right. I kinda see it as a pre-emptive strike at the "lower common denominator" that is out there ... The ones we keep reading about ... On BOTH sides ...