Panera Bread makes non-statement re: guns in their stores

[CitizenKain]

You can also wear a pink tutu and saw off your left leg. Why do something just because you can?

Because carrying a gun is the only thing that makes him feel less scared.

 

[WelshBloke]

Because carrying a gun is the only thing that makes him feel less scared.

There's nothing wrong with him carrying a gun when he's legally entitled to.

Its just plain rude to do it when asked politely not to by the property owner.

 

[kage69]

Sadly, too many CCW folks are bragging they pack. This is the problem.

In the past, it was an event if you were printed or got touched carrying you knew you failed. Today it's like, YO MUTHERF***KERS; I HAVE A GLOCK ON ME!

So sad.

Everyone get that? Mysty thinks attention seeking braggarts are sad. Good to know.

Fix your sig too. If you're going to quote a story like that, please get it right.

does anyone else find it funny that these people are petitioning about removing something that they don't know is even in the store in the first place?

a properly CCW'd firearm shouldn't be noticed. how many of these moms have noticed a properly/legally CCW'd firearm during their visit to any store?

quite frankly, it's stupid. they're worried about something that

1) they have no control over - you can bar CCWers from coming in the store legally, but that doesn't actually stop anyone from coming into the store with a gun (say...if you're bent on mass murder)

2) they have no knowledge of - a properly CCW'd firearm should not be noticeable. therefore, the petitioners have no way of verifying that anyone in the store is, or is not, in fact carrying a firearm

3) because of 1 & 2, the petitioners should theoretically be frightened everywhere they go because someone, somewhere, might be carrying a firearm.

Well said Fenix, although I doubt your points will matter to people who go frothy at the mere mention of people carrying guns, CCW or otherwise.

 

[Zargon]

yes, your stores are incredibly safer now that you have asked the section of the population that is the least likely to commit a crime to not come to your establishment

that's what I love about MDA, they are incredibly afraid of something that they know nothing about, that even the mere possibility of the presence o fan object makes them tremor in fear

that's a hell of a way to live!(its also the #1 attack of anti-carry/gun people against CCW holders, claiming they live in fear)

if you believe the news lately, you are way more likely to die via cop anyways, as long as you aren't white(well I suppose MDA is probably all middle aged white chicks anyways)

 

[xBiffx]

Can you say publicity stunt?

Didn't think Panera was doing that bad, apparently I was wrong.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Seems like a win for me. I'm going to carry at the local one tomorrow just because I legally can.

You are the exact reason we can't have nice things.

 

[WackyDan]

You are the exact reason we can't have nice things.

Why? Because I made a point on an internet forum in order to call out the utter idiocy of the CEO's statement in his interview?

 

[alzan]

Why? Because I made a point on an internet forum in order to call out the utter idiocy of the CEO's statement in his interview?

No, it's because as Welshbloke stated you and other CCW's have been asked politely not to carry into Panera Bread outlets.

Your utterly idiotic response is "I'm CCW, hear me roar!"

 

[surfsatwerk]

Why? Because I made a point on an internet forum in order to call out the utter idiocy of the CEO's statement in his interview?

There is no conflict between thinking the CEO's statement is stupid and that your response is stupid too.

 

[fskimospy]

Then they should be posting the prescribed signs at their entrances showing that they don't allow concealed carry. That is the prescribed way in most states that force a CCW holder to spend their money somewhere else or secure their weapon in their vehicle before entering.

* But first because you don't seem to understand... State law allows me to carry at a retail business unless otherwise posted... PERIOD.

So in other words you know that your actions are unwelcome but because they aren't explicitly stopping it you will engage in that unwanted behavior anyway.

What an asshole.

 

[bshole]

Suppose a patron of Panera's is carrying a concealed weapon. If that patron loses his temper with another patron and ends up shooting the other Panera patron to death.... what is Panera's legal liability?

My point is that if somebody carries a concealed weapon, they shoulde be forced by law to carry a minimum of 10 million dollars of liability insurance. If their weapon injures or kills somebody, THEY should be liable, not the poor vendor who had no choice in the douche carrying the lethal weapon.

 

[WackyDan]

No, it's because as Welshbloke stated you and other CCW's have been asked politely not to carry into Panera Bread outlets.

Your utterly idiotic response is "I'm CCW, hear me roar!"

No... My response was pretty fucking clear. You post signage as prescribed by your local municipality or the state on your place of business that specifically denotes concealed carry is not allowed on premises. That, whether you like it or not is the law in most places. So if I can make it a bit clearer....

1. The law in my state says I can carry concealed if I am properly permitted

2. The law in my state also allows that if a place of business does not want to allow concealed carry then they must post signage to that effect on premises and that it must be respected by CCW holders or they can face trespass charges and revoked CCW permits.

 

[WackyDan]

Suppose a patron of Panera's is carrying a concealed weapon. If that patron loses his temper with another patron and ends up shooting the other Panera patron to death.... what is Panera's legal liability?

My point is that if somebody carries a concealed weapon, they shoulde be forced by law to carry a minimum of 10 million dollars of liability insurance. If their weapon injures or kills somebody, THEY should be liable, not the poor vendor who had no choice in the douche carrying the lethal weapon.

First, CCW holders commit crime at a much lower rate than the rest of the population... The rub there is that yes, you have to have a fairly clean history to get a CCW to begin with so you probably have lived a pretty life. To add to that, anything you do that could be construed as a felony and even some misdemeanors can end up with your CCW revoked.

Your scenario is bullshit.

Second... I would argue that the statement by Panera Bread's CEO now puts them in greater legal liability than saying nothing if something happens in one of their stores.

Let me ask you... If a criminal enters a Panera and in the course of a robbery shoots a patron, is Panera liable for that patron's injuries? For compensating the family for their death? Why would it be any different for a CCW holder if by some remote chance they were involved in a shooting on premises? Shit, you can bring practically anything to civil court if you want to, but whether you win or not is a different story.

All of you here seem to be rewriting the laws ad hoc to suit your style of debate on an internet forum.

If he doesn't want firearms in his stores then the law in most cases allows for it by requiring him to post a sign on premises at each place of business denoting it.

 

[MixMasterTang]

No... My response was pretty fucking clear. You post signage as prescribed by your local municipality or the state on your place of business that specifically denotes concealed carry is not allowed on premises. That, whether you like it or not is the law in most places. So if I can make it a bit clearer....

1. The law in my state says I can carry concealed if I am properly permitted

2. The law in my state also allows that if a place of business does not want to allow concealed carry then they must post signage to that effect on premises and that it must be respected by CCW holders or they can face trespass charges and revoked CCW permits.

The law also allows Westboro Baptist church to picket the funerals of dead soldiers, are you suggesting we all go out and do that because we can?

 

[irishScott]

*sigh*

I think my ardent support of the 2nd is pretty well known here; I have zero problem with this or any other business doing likewise.

Businesses are around to make money. What probably happened was some gun control group lobbied them and offered endorsement if they came out against guns in some fashion, so Panera did and will reap the supposed benefits. If a robbery at a Panera Bread (or Starbucks, or Chile's, or Chipotle) was stopped by a CCW holder, does anyone honestly think Panera would prosecute or ban said person from their restaurants? Hell no, it would call down a shitstorm of negative attention and hurt their businesses.

Big restaurants don't care about your guns, they care about selling food. Dragging them into the debate on one side or the other is pretty fucking stupid. I will carry concealed wherever it's legal and there will be no negative consequences for anyone. No sign = I'll still be having a Bacon Turkey Bravo for lunch.


And on a related note, if this is the best the gun control lobbyists can drum up, good.

 

[z1ggy]

No, it's because as Welshbloke stated you and other CCW's have been asked politely not to carry into Panera Bread outlets.

Your utterly idiotic response is "I'm CCW, hear me roar!"

Lul, politely asked to not carry in their store. I'm sure that any person looking to rob a Panera (for whatever reason) is now going to politely decline from carrying their gun inside, too?

Give me a break. I don't care if a business doesn't want guns to be carried inside of it's walls, but if they really feel that way, they need to post the proper signs outside in accordance with federal/state law.

 

[irishScott]

Suppose a patron of Panera's is carrying a concealed weapon. If that patron loses his temper with another patron and ends up shooting the other Panera patron to death.... what is Panera's legal liability?

My point is that if somebody carries a concealed weapon, they shoulde be forced by law to carry a minimum of 10 million dollars of liability insurance. If their weapon injures or kills somebody, THEY should be liable, not the poor vendor who had no choice in the douche carrying the lethal weapon.

1. You're about as likely to be struck by lightening, and that's not just an expression. The statistics are in. The odds of being murdered by a concealed carry permit holder in Texas in 2012 were 1/584,850. The odds of being stuck by lightening in any given year are around 1/700,000 (according to national geographic).

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2012.pdf
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2012.pdf
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0623_040623_lightningfacts.html

2. Nice job putting a completely arbitrary value on a human life.

3. None of what you say is an issue. Under every law in every state that I'm aware of shooting an innocent person is murder. Restaurants have no legal liability for murders simply because said murders were committed on their premises. Would be like suing Sandy Hook Elementary for the shootings.

 

[bshole]

job putting a completely arbitrary value on a human life.

3. None of what you say is an issue. Under every law in every state that I'm aware of shooting an innocent person is murder. Restaurants have no legal liability for murders simply because said murders were committed on their premises. Would be like suing Sandy Hook Elementary for the shootings.

Like shooting fish in a barrel really.... Any other rebuttals?

A new lawsuit on behalf of victims of the July 20 Aurora theater shooting alleges that Cinemark Century 16 theater and its employees were negligent the night that a gunman propped open an exit door and returned with guns and ammunition for a shooting rampage.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/16/aurora-shooting-lawsuit-filed/1637459/

 

[alzan]

Lul, politely asked to not carry in their store. I'm sure that any person looking to rob a Panera (for whatever reason) is now going to politely decline from carrying their gun inside, too?

Give me a break. I don't care if a business doesn't want guns to be carried inside of it's walls, but if they really feel that way, they need to post the proper signs outside in accordance with federal/state law.

I think you know that a criminal intent on robbing a Panera's or any other store will carry their gun in so I'll dismiss your statement as a poor attempt at sarcasm.

I agree that ultimately Panera should put the proper and required signage outside their establishments though I have my doubts as to what percentage of CCW holders the signage would actually deter. The request made by Panera's CEO was both PR and an attempt at appealing to the more reasonable percentage of CCW holders that don't need signs to tell them that their guns are not desired within the establishment(s).

Do you always respond in a negative manner to polite requests?

 

[MrPickins]

Seems like a win for me. I'm going to carry at the local one tomorrow just because I legally can.

Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should...

 

[z1ggy]

I think you know that a criminal intent on robbing a Panera's or any other store will carry their gun in so I'll dismiss your statement as a poor attempt at sarcasm.

I agree that ultimately Panera should put the proper and required signage outside their establishments though I have my doubts as to what percentage of CCW holders the signage would actually deter. The request made by Panera's CEO was both PR and an attempt at appealing to the more reasonable percentage of CCW holders that don't need signs to tell them that their guns are not desired within the establishment(s).

Do you always respond in a negative manner to polite requests?

It was obviously sarcasm.

I'm trying to point out that while I have no real problems with businesses posting the correct legal signs outside their establishments to tell CCW holders to not bring in their firearms, that it's essentially pointless. Criminals intent on robbing the place will still bring in their concealed weapons, and CCW holders who are stubborn (and breaking the law) will still bring them in anyway.

The signs do nothing but stop the honest people who'd probably only use them in a back-against-the-wall type of life or death situation from carrying inside their stores. Thus, the signs really do nothing but hurt the people who actually follow the law.

That's at least the logic I follow.

 

[WackyDan]

I have my doubts as to what percentage of CCW holders the signage would actually deter.

The vast majority of them. I don't think I've ever had one of my CCW peers that I know ignore the law like that. It simply isn't worth it becoming an issue. I've been making that point in this entire thread.

 

[WackyDan]

Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should...

Why not? It is my right to and law in NC that I can. Until they put signage up I am not potentially affront of any law. In fact, if you want to dissect things a bit more, the sign is a request, but has no legal bearing. If you enter a store and don't notice a sign ( it happens because in some cases they are small, posted poorly) and a store employee notices that you are carrying ( which they shouldn't be if you are properly carrying concealed) the only recourse they have is to ask you to leave and come back without your firearm. You have only broken the law if you refuse to comply with their request. I don't know a single CCW holder that would refuse that but hey there are idiots amid us too. Those idiots should be looking for signage, but also complying else they should lose their CCW permits.

Imagine me one day many years ago when I went to the local Home Depot to buy a few things. No signage detailing they don't allow CCW. However the plaza they are in doesn't allow them. They have signs posted on some of the brick columns near the store fronts. They aren't that big, are old and weathered, are about ten+ feet off the ground and aren't even facing out towards the parking lot where you would be entering from. I had gone to various stores in that plaza while armed and unarmed and never noticed them. Since then, I don't go to any of those stores if I'm carrying. As I said before, it is just not worth it to me. I also don't secure my firearm in my vehicle in that scenario as to me that is a firearm not under my control and should someone break into the vehicle or steal it, I view that as my liability.

 

[WackyDan]

and CCW holders who are stubborn (and breaking the law) will still bring them in anyway.

Except by bringing them in they are breaking the law... Least not in my state. They aren't breaking the law until they refuse to leave... ie; "just let me pay for my stuff first" or "let me finish my meal"... Those would be considered refusal and at that point the employees should call the police and have them charged with trespass.

LET ME BE CLEAR... I'm not advocating any CCW permit holder ignore signage like that or play dumb if they do. They shouldn't have permits if they enter said establishment intentionally carrying.

 

[irishScott]

Like shooting fish in a barrel really.... Any other rebuttals?



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/16/aurora-shooting-lawsuit-filed/1637459/

Yeah, only in your case you miss the fish anyway. From that article:

A new lawsuit on behalf of victims of the July 20 Aurora theater shooting alleges that Cinemark Century 16 theater and its employees were negligent the night that a gunman propped open an exit door and returned with guns and ammunition for a shooting rampage.

The lawsuit alleges the Cinemark failed to provide sufficient security and training for a theater where shootings had occurred in the past, failed to provide alarms on "emergency exits" that would have alerted staff to the open door and failed to evacuate customers once the shooting began.

Basically they're suing the theater for allowing an emergency exit door to be propped open without an alarm and allege that since prior shootings had occurred, the theater should have been better prepared. These circumstances do not apply to any restaurant I'm aware of, certainly not Panera, and it would be pathetically easy for a restaurant to provide some bullshit "training" to prevent such a lawsuit. Most already have alarm systems and clearly marked emergency exits (if applicable) due to code.

In any case that vulturous litigation is still ongoing and has yet to be decided, so no legal liability has yet been established. The most legal relevent opinion we have so far is a judge saying the case can go to Jury as the facts aren't "overwhelming and inarguable" in Cinemark's favor, so he can't render summary judgement under Colorado law. He specifically states "‘This Court is in no way holding as a matter of law that Cinemark should have known of the danger of someone entering one of its theaters through the back door and randomly shooting innocent patrons".
http://deadline.com/2014/08/cinemark-aurora-theater-shooting-lawsuit-jury-dark-knight-rises-820639/

So to summarize, you have no argument. You claim that restaurants would have legal liability, and you cite an undecided court case concerning a singular movie theater (completely different industry) as support. Sorry, that doesn't logic.