Peet's and CPK tell Open Carry customers: No guns allowed

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Peet's and CPK tell Open Carry customers: No guns allowed


Open Carry gun advocates in the Bay Area are easy to spot. With unloaded firearms strapped to their sides, they meet at coffee shops and other places to protest exercise their right to bear arms, drawing plenty of attention from the media, cops and bystanders along the way. A group of proponents converged at a local Starbucks in November. Earlier this month, members of Bay Area Open Carry gathered at a Peet's Coffee & Tea in Livermore, triggering a 911 call. Cops responded and frisked one man during his interview with ABC7 (see video below). And last week's meeting at the Peet's in San Ramon caused quite a stir among customers who both disapproved and praised the heat-packing patrons, according to The Oakland Tribune.

..

The policies didn't exactly go over well with Open Carry proponents. On an online forum, they called for boycotts of Peet's and CPK. Someone even posted a protest sign (right).

Open Carry rules vary from state to state. In California, an open carrier's firearm must be unloaded and holstered. The ammo must be kept separate from the gun. Cops are allowed to inspect the weapon but cannot search for the gun's serial number. And as one recently San Jose man discovered, it is illegal to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of any public or private school.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=56281#ixzz0e6xlT8hl

i respect the right of the establishments to deny service, as i respect the rights of those to exercise their rights to bear arms. IMO, this is a negative way to exercise your rights and i believe will only bring negative reactions to gun rights.
 
With concealed carry basically not an option for most in this state, I suppose folks who support open carry see themselves as the last best hope.

If we had shall issue concealed carry, then open carry would not be practiced by very many because few responsible gun owners care about letting people know they're armed, as much as being prepared and armed in the event of a threat upon innocent lives.
 
Yurt said:
i respect the right of the establishments to deny service, as i respect the rights of those to exercise their rights to bear arms. IMO, this is a negative way to exercise your rights and i believe will only bring negative reactions to gun rights.
Click to expand...

I disagree Yurt. While the business can certainly set their own standard for their customers (and I'm not against this), the public has a right to peacefully demonstrate and protest.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
The demonstration isn't about their personal and private regulations. It's about CA's draconian carry laws and is intended to expose as large a group of people to it as possible.
Click to expand...

i understand that, however, owners of private property are not required to allow you to protest on their property. there are no first amendment requirements on private parties. in order to assert a constitutional right or grievance, you need a state actor, not a private party actor.

i'm sure you would love code pink to come and protest in your living room :)
 
Yurt said:
i understand that, however, owners of private property are not required to allow you to protest on their property. there are no first amendment requirements on private parties. in order to assert a constitutional right or grievance, you need a state actor, not a private party actor.

i'm sure you would love code pink to come and protest in your living room :)
Click to expand...
You're right, there is no explicit right to protest on private property. I'm pretty sure I agreed with that in my first post (actually, I'm sure I did). However, if a particular business does not view my rights in the same light that I do, then I will not give them my money and will more than likely call for a boycott of their product or business.

The nature of open carry protests necessitates that much of it takes place in private businesses and such. Those places that want my money will allow me in with my gun. Those that don't can do with my money.
 
There is an interesting issue with private property being a business open to the public. There is a factor known as implied invitation - if you are running a business that requires people to enter your private property to interact with your business, then there is an implies invitation to the general public to enter your property. In CHOOSING to do business directly with the public, you are inviting them onto your property in order to do business. By doing so, you are also choosing to place yourself under public constraints of conduct.

Now a business that does NOT do business with the general public - like a manufacturing plant, a wholesaler warehouse, etc. - is not under those constraints.

It's a legal theory that has, to date, only been tested - successfully I might add - in dealing with establishments refusing service to people due to race. But I would be interested to see if the precedent could be applied to other constitutionally guaranteed rights.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
You're right, there is no explicit right to protest on private property. I'm pretty sure I agreed with that in my first post (actually, I'm sure I did). However, if a particular business does not view my rights in the same light that I do, then I will not give them my money and will more than likely call for a boycott of their product or business.

The nature of open carry protests necessitates that much of it takes place in private businesses and such. Those places that want my money will allow me in with my gun. Those that don't can do with my money.
Click to expand...

Eva Angelina gets waaaaay to theatrical with her blow jobs. Its annoying.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
You're right, there is no explicit right to protest on private property. I'm pretty sure I agreed with that in my first post (actually, I'm sure I did). However, if a particular business does not view my rights in the same light that I do, then I will not give them my money and will more than likely call for a boycott of their product or business.

The nature of open carry protests necessitates that much of it takes place in private businesses and such. Those places that want my money will allow me in with my gun. Those that don't can do with my money.
Click to expand...

i don't see how you agreed with that in your first post:

I disagree Yurt. While the business can certainly set their own standard for their customers (and I'm not against this), the public has a right to peacefully demonstrate and protest.
Click to expand...

you said, 'disagree' and you said the 'public has a right to peacefully.....'

you seem to disagree, while saying that businesses can set their own standards, that is not the same thing as constitutional rights. you cannot deny someone based on race, religion etc.....but, you can deny someone based on the 1st amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top