WebProNews

Tag: open carry

  • Whataburger Stands Up for Frightened Customers, Bans Open Carry Guns

    Whataburger, a prominent Texas hamburger chain, has decided that it is bad for business to leave its customers frightened in a restaurant with someone openly carrying a gun. The decision is costing them the ire of Second Amendment enthusiasts, but they figure it’s the best move.

    Whataburger president and CEO Preston Atkinson said that too many employees and customers are “uncomfortable being around someone with a visible firearm.”

    Almost all of those people packing guns may have every right to carry that firearm openly in public, thanks to a new Texas law. But Whataburger recognizes that most people have no idea if that person may be the next rampaging shooter or not.

    Atkinson said he is an avid hunter and has a concealed-carry license himself. He also said that customers with a valid concealed carry license will still be welcome in Whataburger. But the same Texas law that allows open carry also gives private property owners the right to turn away folks openly carrying.

    Restaurant industry leaders in Texas expect that many other establishments will follow Whataburger’s example and prohibit open carry in their businesses.

    Open carry advocates say that Whataburger jumped the gun in making the announcement.

    “I think most gun owners that know this policy are simply not going to go to Whataburger, like me,” Open Carry Texas founder C.J. Grisham said.

    Concerned parents’ groups feel otherwise. Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America is one such group.

    Stephanie Lundy, spokeswoman for the Texas chapter, said parents whose children work in restaurants “do not feel that part of their job description should involve assessing the intention of armed folks.”

  • Target Politely Requests You Leave Your Guns at Home

    Target Politely Requests You Leave Your Guns at Home

    Target would be ever so grateful if you left your firearms at home before shopping for home goods.

    “As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry” should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law,” says CEO John Mulligan in a company press post.

    “This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.”

    Why the need for such a “request”? Why does Target CEO John Mulligan feel compelled to ask people not to carry semi-automatic rifles down the DVD aisle?

    Well, there’s a movement of sorts pushing the boundaries of Open Carry laws in this country. Probably the most notable group, Open Carry Texas, has staged rallies at businesses and other public places to demonstrate what they feel is their right to carry their weapons, unconcealed, wherever they please. They’ve issued a response to Target’s position, saying they will continue to refrain from taking “long arms” into Target stores.

    Post by Open Carry Texas.

    The debate isn’t the legality of Open Carry in states where it’s legal to openly carry. That’s a given. The argument from those opposed to this particular type of gun rights activism is that this frightens people, and even if it is legal and a “right”, is there really a reason to alarm the public at large?

    Here’s what I’m talking about, if you’re unfamiliar with the Open Carry activists.

    This behavior, mind you, has been denounced by the NRA (yes, that NRA) as “counterproductive.”

    Target is far from the first major retail chain to express this sentiment. Chipotle and Starbucks have also made public requests of this nature, just to name a couple.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Nevada Cattle Released to Cliven Bundy by Feds

    Federal land managers explained that “escalating tensions” forced the release of roughly 400 head of cattle that had been corralled on public land in southern Nevada. The cows belonged to rancher Cliven Bundy, who had refused to relent to federal authority over rights to land he doesn’t legally own. Hundreds of Nevada states’ rights activists, as well as various militia members congregated around corrals outside of Mesquite, demanding the return of Bundy’s animals. Some protesters were armed with rifles and pistols, prompting the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to hand the cattle over, to prevent any bloodshed.

    Bundy’s dispute with the government began in the mid 1990’s after he refused to pay the bill for his herd grazing on federal land near Bunkerville, Nevada. After a United States District Court for the District of Nevada trial in 1998, known as the United States v. Bundy, the rancher was prohibited from allowing his cows to eat government grass. Bundy failed to comply, and after years of multiple violations, the BLM rounded up Bundy’s trespassing cattle.

    With the “Bundy Standoff” looking to be ready erupt in violence, the BLM let Bundy’s stock go free on April 11. Bureau of Land Management Chief Neil Kornze stated, “Based on information about conditions on the ground and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concerns about the safety of employees and members of the public.” Kornze’s statement came after Bundy promised to “do whatever it takes” to protect his herd.

    No injuries were reported, though U.S. Senator Dean Heller, R-Nev. said in a statement, “The dispute is over, the BLM is leaving, but emotions and tensions are still near the boiling point, and we desperately need a peaceful conclusion to this conflict. I urge all the people involved to please return to your homes and allow the BLM officers to collect their equipment and depart without interference.”

    Various Twitter intrigue concerning the Bundy Standoff:

    Bundy, 67, has claimed that he has ancestral rights to the federal land under contention. Kornze on the other hand commented, “After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially.”

    Image via YouTube