TexasCHLforum.com

How to resolve the No Open Carry issue at Whataburger:

1. Untuck shirt.
2. Cover weapon.
3. Enter Whataburger

Problem solved.

I don't understand how concealing the same weapon you've been concealing up until Jan 1 becomes so difficult once Open Carry happens. This is exactly the problem that some of us have been concerned about - people have been given the ability to open carry, so they're actively going after anyone who dares to ban it for personal or business reasons.

If you don't like it, eat elsewhere. The rest of us will be inside enjoying a tasty burger with our weapons concealed from the sheep.

I think some folks forget it's technically private property.

jmra wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:I have a problem here.

Im not a fan of OC & dont plan to ever OC - but the reality is Whataburger is infringing on 2A rights - and some here are ok with it cuz it doesnt directly affect them....AT THIS TIME...

"Then they came for me"

You may have a problem, but I see it as your understanding of the 2nd amendment and property rights. ...not the stance of a burger joint.

You have a right to own a weapon, and if licensed carry it concealed.. you have NO right to a mediocre burger .. so feel free to carry your weapon .. you can carry it at home on your property, and in many public places, and on others private property unless they inform you otherwise. But the same as you can tell someone to stay off your property, others, even burger joint owners can tell you to stay off thiers.
Personally I would want it no other way.

I never have understood how some 2nd amendment supporters can fail to understand property rights

My opinion is that if you choose to open your doors to the public, you give up some of your property rights. Nobody is making these businesses open their doors to the public. Again if you want invite the public in you must accept the consequences. Just my .02 right or wrong.

This is consistent with the laws for handicapped access & parking. There is a difference between private property and private property intended for public access.

It's ironic to see a small drive in store with 4 parking spaces having to give up 25% of it's parking for the occasional handicapped customer & a big box (Walmart, Lowes) only having to reserve less than 5%.

The handicapped fall into a protected class.

And therein lies the rub....with actual private property rights there wouldn't be any protected classes. If you ran a business that didn't provide access to the handicapped you'd just be out whatever business that caused you to miss. We live in a country with limited property rights so the issue isn't really property rights. That battle has already been lost and the government can tell property owners what they can and cannot do with their property. Now it's just a matter of what the limits are.

So because property rights were wrongfully diminished that makes it ok to diminish them more? That sounds a lot like two wrongs make a right.

I want to reply with a short pithy answer because I don't feel like dealing with all the complexities....but I'm not sure I can. I believe in the principles embodied in the Constitution, one of them being equal protection under the law. What the government has done is create a kind of Animal Farm where some animals are more equal than others. I'd prefer to see a restoration of property rights and the elimination of protected classes (collectivism) in favor of individual rights, as originally conceived in the language of the Constitution. But I'm a realist and I know that just isn't going to happen. So the question is, how far you're willing to be denied what I'll just call for brevity, equal treatment, and accept diminished freedom for yourself in favor of others? I get it with the open carry and CC prohibitions allowed to businesses...it's a political compromise and I accept it (not that I have a choice). I'm just pointing out that the theoretical property rights referenced here are just that...theoretical...and while they may have once existed in this country they no longer do, so accepting the selectively applied limits is self-disadvantaging (again, though there isn't anything we can do about it).

The ironic thing is, I have no intention of open carrying.....I just object to basing acceptance on a concept that doesn't exist....that private property rights in this country are sacrosanct....they're not.

I'm a little disappointed in Whataburger, but not surprised. It probably won't affect me much because I don't plan on OCing much at all if I do at all. I rarely go inside a fast food place and only occasionally hit the drive thru.

For those that only think this will apply to rifles or that only a sign will prohibit OC, I hope you don't find out the truth. If you are told they don't allow OC and then refuse to leave you deserve what comes next. I don't know why WB does not state or imply that they will also call the police if someone refuses to leave or put their gun in their vehicle.

The Wall, I agree.

I wonder what DQ thinks of all this OC stuff?

If this turns out to be true, then I will open carry into Whataburger just to be told to leave so I can remind them of the money they are losing. I don't plan on ever open carrying anywhere else. Concealed is what I will continue to do, but if they don't want open carry, post the required sign on the door as the law says. Otherwise expect the protests and headaches.

It's pretty simple. Just choose a side. Krogers did and it didn't seem to hurt them. Sad to think a Texas icon burger joint would possibly do this.

F350-6 wrote:If this turns out to be true, then I will open carry into Whataburger just to be told to leave so I can remind them of the money they are losing. I don't plan on ever open carrying anywhere else. Concealed is what I will continue to do, but if they don't want open carry, post the required sign on the door as the law says. Otherwise expect the protests and headaches.

It's pretty simple. Just choose a side. Krogers did and it didn't seem to hurt them. Sad to think a Texas icon burger joint would possibly do this.

Sounds like an OCT tactic.

Not a valid 30.06 sign. I will not OC. Therefore I do not care.

jmra wrote:

F350-6 wrote:If this turns out to be true, then I will open carry into Whataburger just to be told to leave so I can remind them of the money they are losing. I don't plan on ever open carrying anywhere else. Concealed is what I will continue to do, but if they don't want open carry, post the required sign on the door as the law says. Otherwise expect the protests and headaches.

It's pretty simple. Just choose a side. Krogers did and it didn't seem to hurt them. Sad to think a Texas icon burger joint would possibly do this.

Sounds like an OCT tactic.

And will cause more harm than good.

kragluver wrote:Not a valid 30.06 sign. I will not OC. Therefore I do not care.

Let's just hope people don't start acting like fools to the point that we see both 30.07 and 30.06 signs going up.

mojo84 wrote:

jmra wrote:

F350-6 wrote:If this turns out to be true, then I will open carry into Whataburger just to be told to leave so I can remind them of the money they are losing. I don't plan on ever open carrying anywhere else. Concealed is what I will continue to do, but if they don't want open carry, post the required sign on the door as the law says. Otherwise expect the protests and headaches.

It's pretty simple. Just choose a side. Krogers did and it didn't seem to hurt them. Sad to think a Texas icon burger joint would possibly do this.

Sounds like an OCT tactic.

And will cause more harm than good.

100%

Middle Age Russ wrote:Their logic is that a customer (not a uniformed police/peace officer) open carrying a firearm represents a risk to a "safe environment" for team members and customers.

And, of course, the best way to deal with someone you consider a threat is to annoy them.

So walking into a place that is not posted and then leaving when being asked to leave and letting them know you won't spend money there is a bad tactic? Should we be obeying the gunbuster signs too?

I remember when 30.06 was new and all the places that posted signs for fear of all the massacres. Many of those signs came down when management was informed about lost customers and the big shoot outs never came to be.

I've never slung a rifle and walked into any business. Don't agree with what OCT did. But if, (big if) the story is true, Whataburger needs to pick a side. Either post the proper sign or keep their mouth shut. The law is clearly spelled out for them.

Doing it for the purpose of drawing a response so you can tell them off is the problem. Sometimes it the purpose and motivation that matters most.