Uncategorized

What Do McDonalds And Dunkin Donuts Have To Say About Carry In Their Stores?

September 23, 2013 by 3 Comments

Howard Schultz’s letter requesting that customers refrain from carrying their lawfully owned firearms in Starbucks hit a nerve last week. It not only unleashed a tsunami of criticism from gun owners but it caused a number of introspective posts from gun bloggers regarding open carry. The tactics of some open carry activists were especially subject to criticism.

 All of this controversy led to questions about Starbucks’s competitors and their policies. Business Insider, a business website, reached out to both McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts to find out their policies.

In essence, they will abide by the local and state laws where their stores are located.

Here’s a statement from McDonald’s spokeswoman Lisa McComb:

“We recognize that there is a lot of emotion and passion surrounding the issue of firearms and open carry weapons laws.


While we respect the differing views of all our customers, McDonald’s company-owned restaurants follow local, state and federal laws as it relates to open carry weapons in our restaurants.


For franchisee-owned restaurants, operational decisions regarding open carry weapon laws are made by the independent franchisee.


That said, as with all aspects of operating a McDonald’s restaurant, we expect our franchisees and their crew to follow local, state and federal laws.”


And Dunkin’ Donuts spokeswoman Michelle King:

“Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin-Robbins restaurants are owned and operated by individual franchisees who are required to follow all federal, state and local laws with regard to firearms.”

While North Carolina has had open carry since 1921, I would hope that open carry activists would use some discretion. It is one thing to have a revolver or pistol on your hip; it is entirely another thing to carry an AR or shotgun on a sling. Let’s face it, when the average gun owner open carries, it is a handgun unless they are out in the woods.

Uncategorized

Bullet Trace

September 20, 2013 by 2 Comments

In the latest training tips video from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, NSSF’s Dave Miles discusses long range shooting with Rod Ryan of Storm Mountain Training. In particular, they discuss trace or the wake of a bullet as it pushes through the air. If you watch the video below carefully, you can see the actual trace or path of the bullet. Having a spotter watch the trace will allow you to make the necessary corrections for long range shooting.

Uncategorized

Distance

September 20, 2013 by 1 Comment

In the latest NRA video from Il Ling New of Gunsite, she talks about the importance of creating and maintaining distance. While this series of short videos is aimed at women and is sponsored by NRAWomen.tv, her advice applies for both men and women. Distance from a potential threat is good, more distance is better.

Uncategorized

That Reminds Me

September 20, 2013 by

I haven’t bought my NC Sportsmans License yet this year. Even if I don’t get out hunting I do try to buy one to help support the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In North Carolina, the Sportsmans License cover you for everything from fishing to big game hunting. The only thing it doesn’t cover is the Federal Duck Stamp and fishing in coastal waters.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation just published a new infographic that presents the economic impact of hunters and hunting. The estimated impact of hunting in America is greater than the revenue generated by Google – $38.3 billion versus $37.9 billion.

Uncategorized

CalGuns Sues California AG Kamala Harris Again Over Delays

September 20, 2013 by

The CalGuns Foundation has filed a Federal lawsuit against California Attorney General Kamala Harris for her policy of forbidding firearms purchasers to take possession of their lawfully-purchased firearms due to delays in the DROS background check. Current California law requires that a firearms purchaser receive their firearm at the end of a 10-day period unless they determine the purchaser is ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm. One of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit has been waiting 18 months!

CalGuns filed a similar lawsuit in state court back in April of this year.

From the CalGuns Foundation release on the lawsuit:

SAN CARLOS, CA – The Calguns Foundation filed a new federal civil rights lawsuit this morning on behalf of three California residents, naming Attorney General Kamala Harris and DOJ Bureau of Firearms Chief Stephen Lindley as defendants. The case challenges the California Department of Justice’s practice of denying individuals’ fundamental rights protected under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Department, through defendants Harris and Lindley, have been and continue to enforce a policy of forbidding many gun purchasers from taking possession of their lawfully-obtained firearms through what are commonly referred to as “DROS delays”, sometimes for over a year or indefinitely.

One plaintiff in the case, Darren Owen of Taft, California, has been denied his firearm for over 18 months.

“It’s the government’s responsibility to timely prove that someone has already been adjudicated and their Constitutional right to purchase and possess guns taken away through due process,” explained Gene Hoffman, the Foundation’s Chairman. “It’s not the individual’s job to prove that they have fundamental rights.”

“By shifting the burden to the individual, the DOJ is blatantly violating the Constitution and thumbing its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago decisions.”

Victor Otten, an attorney for the plaintiffs, agrees. “Our clients are not prohibited from owning guns under state and federal law,” noted Otten. “The bottom line is that if the DOJ cannot determine that someone is ineligible to possess firearms in a timely manner with all of the databases and law enforcement resources it has at its disposal, then they have no choice but to allow our clients and other similarly-situated gun owners to take possession of their firearms.”

Under current California law, the DOJ must permit a firearm purchaser to receive their firearm at the end of the 10-day DROS background check period unless it determines that the purchaser is not eligible to possess or purchase firearms. Earlier this year, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D – San Francisco) amended his bill AB 500 to allow the Department of Justice to deny the release of firearms for up to 30 days. AB 500 is presently awaiting California Governor Jerry Brown’s action.

“We’ve received hundreds of reports like those at issue in this case and it’s a virtual certainty that there are thousands of others like the individual plaintiffs out there,” said the Foundation’s Executive Director, Brandon Combs. “The DOJ’s policy is nothing short of outrageous.”

Continued Combs, “It’s time for the DOJ to respect the Second Amendment. If the Attorney General and her staff refuse to do it voluntarily, we will not hesitate to force it in the courts. In filing this case, we seek to ensure that the Constitutionally-enshrined fundamental rights of Californians to buy and possess firearms are respected no matter how far Ms. Harris or Assemblymember Ammiano might wish the DOJ’s powers extended.”

The new federal lawsuit is entitled Darrin Owen, et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al. and may be viewed or downloaded at http://ia601002.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.caed.259271/gov.uscourts.caed.259271.docket.html.

Uncategorized

Up, Up, And Away!

September 18, 2013 by 2 Comments

Today is the official birthday of the United States Air Force. It marks the day in 1947 that the Army Air Force was made its own branch of the armed services.

It is also, fittingly enough, the birthday of the Complementary Spouse whose father, brother, and sister-in-law have all served as US Air Force officers.

So happy 66th birthday to the USAF!

Uncategorized

So Freaked Out By Open Carry That He Gets Arrested

September 18, 2013 by 10 Comments

I’m neither a proponent nor opponent of open carry. I don’t tend to do it because I want to keep the bad guys guessing. That said, if you want to open carry that is your option. If you do, I promise I won’t be like Robert Gursky of Glastonbury, Connecticut.

According to this story in the Hartford Courant, Mr. Gursky was so freaked out by a gentleman legally open carrying at his local bank that he slid the teller a note that said “gun”. The teller did what he or she was trained to do – they hit the silent bank robbery alarm.

Mr. Gursky was arrested for breach of peace and has to appear in court next week. And the man open carrying? He was interviewed by the cops who determined that he possessed his firearm legally and that was that.

There is something to be said for poetic justice.

H/T BearingArms.com

Uncategorized

If I Wanted Waffles, I’d Have Gone To Waffle House

September 18, 2013 by 7 Comments

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, released an open letter yesterday requesting that Starbucks’ customers no longer carry when they visit Starbucks. It is a waffling statement meant to appease the gun prohibitionists while at the same time trying not to offend the gun culture too much. As Neville Chamberlain would ruefully attest, appeasement is never a good policy.

Mr. Schultz should realize that appeasement is never a good policy when dealing with those who would seek to curtail civil rights.

Schultz’s statement is below:

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

I, for one, will “respect” Mr. Schultz’s request – I won’t carry, concealed or openly, in his stores. I will even go one step further and no longer patronize his stores or his products.

By the way, open carry has been legal in North Carolina without a permit since 1921. That is when the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled it was legal in State v. Kerner saying that the right to keep and bear arms under the North Carolina Constitution was “a sacred right”.

Uncategorized

First Impact Of Illinois Supreme Court Ruling On Right To Carry

September 17, 2013 by 9 Comments

This past Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled unanimously in People v. Aguilar that the Illinois law that banned carry outside the home was illegal under the Second Amendment. Yesterday, this ruling caused Cook County Circuit Judge Ellen Mandeltort to reverse herself and drop charges against Deafalla Haddad. Mr. Haddad had been charged with the unlawful use of a weapon after he was found in possession of a handgun during a routine traffic stop.

Cook County Circuit Judge Ellen Mandeltort last week denied Deafalla Haddad’s request to drop the charges.

But the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that part of the state’s gun law was unconstitutional and advised prosecutors to drop charges in certain cases. That ruling fell in step with a federal court decision earlier this year declaring that the state’s gun laws violated the U.S. Constitution.

At Monday’s hearing, defense attorney Matt Fakhoury asked Mandeltort to reconsider the request in light of the Supreme Court decision. She agreed and found the case against Haddad violated his Second Amendment rights.

“This court finds that the charges (against Haddad) are unconstitutional,” Mandeltort said from the bench.

Fakhoury said it was the first case in Cook County to be dropped after last week’s ruling and that there could be more challenges filed.

“Basically the federal courts said one thing and the state court said another,” Fakhoury said. “But the state court is now following the federal ruling.”

Mr. Haddad, an IT professional and married father of three, obtained his FOID card and then a .45 caliber handgun after he was attacked while stopped at stop sign. Mr. Haddad also started carrying his pistol despite the general prohibition against carry by Illinois state law. This is what led to his arrest for unlawful use of a weapon.

His defense attorney, Matt Fakhoury, discusses the case in the video at this link.