Posted on 09/26/2010 5:24:25 PM PDT by marktwain
MADISON, Wis. -- The debate over openly carrying handguns could affect businesses, after two men wearing holstered firearms refused to show police identification at a Culver's restaurant on Madison's East Side Saturday night and were cited for obstruction.
Culver's Corp. was considering the need for a policy addressing the issue after a concerned customer called police. An executive at Culver's Corp. said Tuesday afternoon the restaurant will not create a new policy over the incident.
Some said they feel it's an issue local businesses shouldn't have to consider in the first place.
In 15 years, Bob Jonuzi said he has never seen a gun in his restaurant that wasn't accompanied by a badge.
"We never had to worry about that kind of thing here. Again, I was kind of surprised to hear what I heard today," said Jonuzi, owner of the Coppertop Restaurant on Madison's West Side.
He said he wouldn't expect to see a table of men carrying weapons and neither would his customers.
"We have a different kind of establishment. Everybody knows everybody. It's a family oriented thing we have," said Jonuzi.
A customer at a Culver's restaurant on Madison's East Side was concerned enough to call police when she saw that same situation.
"I personally don't think the issue is going away. I think there's a public policy debate that's coming, but I certainly would like to see that public policy debate happen up at the state Capitol instead of happening in restaurants across Wisconsin," said Pete Hanson, director of government relations for the Wisconsin Restaurant Association.
Hanson said that just as it is legal for someone to openly carry a handgun in Wisconsin, it's also legal for a business to refuse service to a customer carrying a weapon.
However, Hanson said that could come with consequences.
"There could be a negative repercussion either way. It's a highly contentious issue and they certainly could alienate people on each side if they create a policy," said Hanson.
Jonuzi said he doesn't have a stance on the issue, but he said he questions the need for a customer to be armed in his restaurant.
"Guns could be in many other places. But in a restaurant? I don't know. What's the use for it?" said Jonuzi.
Jonuzi said he's not sure how guns in his restaurant would affect business. He said he feels it's subjective and the reaction depends on the customer.
Part of the issue appears to be that people aren't used to seeing others carry guns, even legally, WISC-TV reported.
Some businesses said guns can scare some people, especially if they're not aware of open carry laws.
Exactly. Undercover cops carry openly. We were in a Chicago cafe for lunch one day, and these young men walked in with guns at their sides in holsters. I didn’t bat an eye, although my granddaughter said she wasn’t sure how nice the neighborhood was if people like that were allowed to carry their guns around. I had recognized them right away as undercover cops. I felt safe in there. By the way, it’s really a good neighborhood, but my granddaughter is from the suburbs and thinks all of Chicago is unsafe.
sorry but id rather the BG was lookin towards me rather than an innocent ...
Interesting assumption you have there that the BG would have their attention on a kid. Typically it would be the business owner or cashier not the kids because they are not a threat. You need to think about the situation before making a wild assumption like that.
If you honestly believe a carrier would sacrifice a kid before standing their ground I for one would prove you wrong.
Culvers is a local chain based out of Sauk City WI, still owned and run by the Culver family. The need to tell the Perpetually Offended in the Peoples Rebublik of Masistahn to piss up a rope.
Stay with the folks and stand by the 2nd Amendment, Craig Culver.
I much prefer concealed carry, because relatively speaking, it gives you a huge tactical advantage, from one to several seconds. Here are some of the variables.
An armed criminal (ac) brandishing his gun has to pay attention to everything around him. The cc holder only needs to focus on the armed criminal, and any problems that would occur by shooting him, like hitting a bystander or hostage.
Most of the time, the ac wants to do something other than shooting people. Because he doesn’t know the cc holder is armed, he will often look away, or even stare at something, not in the direction of the cc holder. What a gift.
Neurologically, it is harder and slower to initiate a gunfight than it is to react to a gunfight. There is also a big sense of hesitation in the ac that the cc holder doesn’t have.
The ac is often under the illusion that having a gun imparts control and domination of a situation, that other people must obey him, and that he will know who he wants to shoot, why and when.
The cc holder knows that he wants to shoot the ac, at the time of his choosing, when the ac is least likely to shoot back, and importantly, that he wants to put multiple rounds in his target.
As another poster has pointed out, Wisconsin has no concealed carry law. I believe that they managed to add a right to keep and bear arms to their state constitution just in 1998.
Similarly, Kalifornia has a "may issue" concealed carry law which means that the majority of citizens will not be granted a permit. The only legal carry otherwise is open and unloaded. There are groups exercising this very limited "right".
In the early days of the Republic, the common perception was that only a criminal would conceal his weapon. I think several states have RKBA in their constitutions but specifically exclude concealed carry. Your attitude toward open carry is a prejudice. Why would you fear the open carrying of a firearm by me any more than you would fear the open carrying of a firearm by a uniformed policeman? Don't you think that most criminals would rather hide their intentions until they attack? What advantage would a criminal get by carrying openly?
Dad was a cop, grew up with guns, don't have any prejudice toward them, have a couple of my own....if you read *fear* in my response, you read it wrong...
I have always been around guns, nothing to fear, my family are all hunters with both gun and bow and arrow...Hubby had quite a few. Sorry that you mistook my response as fear..
“Guns could be in many other places. But in a restaurant? I don’t know. What’s the use for it?” said Jonuzi.
Maybe he should ask one of the survivors of the Luby’s cafeteria massacre what the use is.
I didn't. I characterized it as "prejudice"; that is, pre-judging the intentions of another. Please tell me why you would think it inappropriate for me to carry openly, but perfectly alright for a uniformed officer?
From a tactical standpoint, I would prefer that OTHERS carry openly while I carry concealed, if an attack were to take place. As you point out, it is the others who are most likely to be targetted by a criminal. This of course assumes that the criminal has not already decided to do his business elsewhere; some place where nobody appears to be armed.
Assuming that SOMEBODY will be the first person targetted by a criminal, why do you care if it is somebody other than YOU?
*** Your attitude toward open carry is a prejudice. Why would you fear the open carrying of a firearm by me any more than you would fear the open carrying of a firearm by a uniformed policeman?***
I personally don't care if you open carry or not, it makes you a sitting duck and the one that will be taken out first in a confrontation...
“I don’t believe you.”
Starbucks is no bastion of conservatism, but they know there are a lot of gun owners and they buy coffee too.
http://news.starbucks.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=332
From Post #8: "Business owners around the country disagree. Not only to open carriers bring in revenue, they provide a higher level of security."
Because that's their right as free citizens according to the laws of their state. Past political correctness has caused suppression of the use of that right, though not to the point of illegality. They are simply reclaiming lost ground.
"I" say......good for them!
ok gutless, my wife is the cashier and business owner, does that make you willing to be the target instead ???
Seatbelts? I don't know. What's the use for them?
Helmets? I don't know. What's the use for them?
National defense? I don't know. What's the use for it?
Why are there American citizens who are so completely, utterly clueless?
I wont argue that Starbucks wanted the “higher level security” but I doubt that the decision to allow guns in their private establishments was due to love of our rights. Maybe I’m just a cynic but I saw a whole lot of information between the lines of their press release.
If they were undercover, they would have their guns concealed. What you saw was a plainclothes detail. If they were undercover and their weapons were even a little bit visible, they need to reevaluate what they are calling undercover.
Been in the business for fifteen years and never heard of a department allowing an officer to carry a firearm openly without their department issued badge openly displayed as well.
In fact, it’s in the general orders of police departments everywhere.
Every couple years a police officer is killed because he or she was displaying/brandishing a firearm and did not have their badge with them or openly displayed.
Anyone that thinks that criminal FEAR open carry has never dealt with the criminal mindset. They don’t fear the people who carry openly everyday in uniform, and they don’t fear an armed citizen. They may respect that their chances of being shot are better but criminals are not known for being reserved. You have an equal chance of being shot in the back of you heard by a bold thug as you do of scaring them off by an openly displayed firearm. Then they have two guns, something that is always street currency.
Holsters that citizens carry are notoriously easy to strip or rip off and if you never had any training in handgun retention, you can be easily disarmed. Remember, a uniformed police officers holster has multiple retention devices, is designed to be very difficult to rip off a belt and the duty belt is over engineered so that it won’t break by being jerked or pulled on.
Stay concealed, keep your element of surprise, no one gets upset because they don’t see the scary gun. Remember, there are some people (their numbers are not inconsequential) that you are NEVER going to convince that open carry is a good idea. What they can’t see, they can’t get upset and report on. Or vote against.
It seams like you have a deep issue my friend. If you wife is a potential target should you not be helping her learn how to carry?
Instead you are trying to agitate the very people that would give her another chance to survive. So you obviously do not understand the second amendment. I would suggest you read more on its purpose of which the primary was for the People to have the ability to stop a tyrannical government. The second purpose is for self protection.
So take your wife to a NRA class or some other Gun safety and accuracy classes, you might want to go too, and then do what is require for carry in your area and stand for your rights.
One other thing my friend you call me gutless. considering you do not know me please point out anything in my post that would lead you to have that thought?
“If you honestly believe a carrier would sacrifice a kid before standing their ground I for one would prove you wrong.”
Just need to see how you come to that conclusion.
this exercise is really pretty simple...everytime the topic of open vs concealed is posted, the majority of responses come in the form of 'i dont wanna be the first target'...
i dont think that is a very rational argument in the real world...
obviously the use of 'gutless' had an effect, as you recoiled from that 'slander' immediately...so I must assume that you would indeed [as would I] rather be the readily equipped focus of evil intent, instead an innocent whether it be man, woman or child...therefore i believe the whole 'i dont wanna be a target' argument loses validity, in practice...
there is that potential, from determined or organized BGs to 'secure' their environment, but most, i believe, will simply go on to greener pastures, because most are looking for an easy job...
retention is the only real biggie IMO...and that IS a responsibility for the OCer...but again, most BGs arent lookin to catch a murder charge, and any confrontaton with a visably armed 'victim' carries that possibilty at face value...
Ive never OCd out of fear of the ninny 9-11 caller and the response of oath-breakers...ive also been aggravated at the requirement to be 100% conscious of a gust of wind or printing too...i simply dont have the time and money today to be that kind of educator of the public at large...i believe that most of the 'anti-choice' opinion resides there, rather than the 'Im a target' words...
basically, *if* the bedwetting public at large treated their neighbors as the true *authority*, rather than depending on the uniformed servants, the OC 'land of plenty' would be a very large deterrent, along with CC, to any predators...
Im PRO CHOICE for the 2A...thugs and tyrants be afraid...very afraid...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.