Culver's goes the Starbucks route, will not ban open carry

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.channel3000.com/money/25106816/detail.html

Open Carry Debate Could Affect Businesses
Culver's Decides Not To Create New Policy On Openly Carrying Handguns
Updated: 7:12 pm CDT September 21, 2010

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.

Bravo to Culver's. Next time I'm in cheesehead territory, I'll be sure to stop in for a burger and shake.

[harun]

1. You aren't allowed to openly carry them in your vehicles in WI.

So what? People are getting out of their vehicle, putting on their holsters, and going inside to get a burger?

[lutefisk]

2. Can't wait to sit with my kids in a Culvers eating ice cream...

...with 20 teabaggers with their wannabe SWAT team holsters and extra magazines strapped on sitting on our right, and 20 heavily armed gangbangers on our left.

Sounds like a fun family night out at Culvers.

With opportunities in Iraq winding down, there should be plenty of mercenaries available to provide security at Culvers, Chuck-e-Cheese, ...

[TheWraith]

3. Come on. Open carry is legal in huge parts of the country, including California, Vermont, PA, MA...

None of the predictions of horrible things happening have yet come true.

[lutefisk]

11. True, I agree. I'm not taking an anti-gun position here.

Just see a family restaurant as a stupid place to make a point on this issue. I'm not going to trust children's safety to unknown gun carriers...

[TheWraith]

16. But you do that every single day.

The people on the street, who may or may not be carrying concealed. Police officers, who you don't know if they're a disciplined veteran or the police chief's incompetent nephew. Private security guards at schools, malls, etcetera.

I'm not trying to berate you, just pointing out the assumption most people seem to have that a gun which you notice is somehow more dangerous than ones you don't.

[PavePusher]

17. You put your kids lives in the hands of much more dangerous people...

every day.

Car drivers.

Look at the stats..

Your fears are wholly contrived against the evidence.

Please note that even when under violent threat of restriction of Civil Rights, these armed Citizens did not draw and shoot, or endanger anyone inany way. The police, however....

[merqz]

34. The police should be sued. Heavily...

If the case law in that state supports concealed carry, they deserve to lose. Bigtime. I support cops when they do the right thing. Here in my state, open carry is legal on a state basis, and several cities and counties have passed laws banning it. Cops, to their credit, have NOT cited people for violating these "laws". It seems in this case, we have a similar situation. The citation isn't a BIG DEAL, but putting these people in handcuffs for expressing their rights IS.

[PavePusher]

20. Luby's Cafe says you are wrong. Just sayin'.... n/t

[cleanhippie]

24. Ahh, the CHIIIILLLLDREEEN!

You not trusting your childrens safety to anyone but yourself.

[merqz]

33. Why is your children's safety compromised by open carriers

vs. concealed carriers? Any statistics to back this up? I thought not.

[lawodevolution]

4. The reason why they do it is to...

People like you are against it otherwise people would conceal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. And if someone *did* happen to be in a Culver's with some armed gangbangers...

....most probably wouldn't know it, as they rarely, if ever, openly carry guns. Yeesh.


NOTE: Changed on edit, as I was responding to the wrong poster

[lutefisk]

10. "ganbangers... rarely, if ever, openly carry guns"

But as long as they aren't felons, they have a right to, and law enforcement shouldn't be able to ask for identification?

I'm just seeing the absurd and undesirable direction this could take. I'm hardly a gun-hater (just trust me on that one), but people carrying firearms around Madison, WI, just isn't right... There are many things we "can" do, but shit like this just isn't necessary... umm...

...umm... by the way, did I accidental wander into the wrong forum? Never been here before...

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. It's necessary to show that what is not forbidden by law is allowed.

I'm just seeing the absurd and undesirable direction this could take. I'm hardly a gun-hater (just trust me on that one), but people carrying firearms around Madison, WI, just isn't right... There are many things we "can" do, but shit like this just isn't necessary... umm...

Yeah, it could- but (for example) your Internet access could take an 'undesireable direction'. Should it be removed on

the basis of what might happen? It's the police department, not the Department of Precrime.

[Euromutt]

22. The point that f_i is making...

...is that the government has no legitimate authority to hassle you while engaging in a lethal activity on the off chance that you might do something illegal with the items in your possession at some unspecified later date.

For example, you can use a digital camera to make child pornography, and an internet-connected computer to disseminate it. Does that mean the cops have the authority to stop and search you, or demand ID, just because they see you carrying a camera or a netbook? No. In fact, hell no.

Look, this has been thrashed out before in, among other cases, Terry v. Ohio (1968). Law enforcement may briefly detain an individual if they can articulate a reasonable suspicion that said individual is involved in criminal activity, and additionally search him if there is reasonable suspicion that he is armed and dangerous (note that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is a prerequisite to the search). "Reasonable suspicion" falls short of "probable cause," which is what would be required actually arrest the individual in question, so the police are far from powerless. But they do have to able to say what illegal activity they thought the individual was involved in, and why, before they can stop and search him.

Moreover, carrying openly almost invariably requires a holster; there are very few ways to shove a handgun in your clothing without some cop being able to argue you were trying to conceal it. But people given to engaging in criminal activity don't like wearing holsters, because holsters are evidence you were carrying a gun, even if you aren't carrying it now because you tossed it in the bushes two blocks away. And if and when that gun you tossed is found, and forensics ties it to a shooting, and the holster you were caught wearing happens to be made to fit that particular model of handgun...

[cleanhippie]

25. On what grounds do they need to produce identification?

What right does law enforcement have?

but people carrying firearms around Madison, WI, just isn't right


Why do you say that? What is not right about it?

[RSillsbee]

28. as long as they aren't felons

But as long as they aren't felons, they have a right to, and law enforcement shouldn't be able to ask for identification?

Just as it should be in a Constitutional Republic

[AtheistCrusader]

32. If you see a sub-21 year old with a pistol on his hip

I think you would have probable cause to check ID.

[merqz]

36. You don't need probable cause

(or the cops don't). They need REASONABLE SUSPICION. PC is not the standard for stops. It's the standard for custodial arrests. Cops routinely make terry stops (Terry v. Ohio) based on reasonable suspicion of an offense. If a cop reasonably suspected you were prohibited from carry, then they could stop you. That's true of ANY offense, not just carrying a weapon.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Sorry.

Reasonable Suspicion then.

[merqz]

35. It's already taken a direction!

It's been legal for many many years in many many states and has created no problems. Why is this a problem? Why should cops be allowed to violate people's rights to make you feel better. If open carry is the law there, then cops must respect it. It's the law in the state I live in. I've seen people open carrying here. I have yet to see any problem with it.

[lutefisk]

12. I tried to respond but I don't know what you are saying...nt

[Euromutt]

21. I think the point lawodevolution is trying to get across...

... is that Wisconsin is one of the two remaining states in the Union which do not issue concealed carry permits at all (let alone on a "may issue" basis). Consequently, if someone wishes to carry a handgun for self-defense in Wisconsin, that person has to carry openly because he cannot legally carry concealed. So if you don't like seeing people carrying openly and you want to do something about it, your easiest choice is to support "shall issue" legislation for CCW permits. The other is to amend the state constitution, specifically Article I, Section 25, which guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms "for lawful purposes."

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Despite your Lovejoying, your kids would be in more danger from saturated fats

I note there haven't been any shootouts at Starbucks since they also declined to ban open carry of guns, this despite

much angst and handwringing from the Brady Campaign and certain posters here.


With several thousand Starbucks in the US + millions of handgun owners, you would have thought there would have been at

least a half a dozen or so by now, at least going by the overheated statements issued back then.

[lutefisk]

9. I'll agree that the saturated fats are a known danger- kills more people than guns, for sure.

I don't really eat at Culvers- but if I were to walk into a Culvers, I know the fat (and lots of it) is waiting for me. If I walked in and saw a citizen with a gun, I'd turn around and walk out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. That's your choice, and I respect it. It's also Culver's choice not to ban OC.

A question for you:

Would you eat at a Culver's in Minnesota (presuming there are any), knowing that state has shall-issue concealed carry?

If one or more of the patrons were armed, you'd probably never know it.

[Pavulon]

18. Ganbangers hang out there?

They dont have the place in NC but I tend to avoid places where filth collects.

[cleanhippie]

23. Right. like that scenario is EVER gonna happen.

Regardless, it won;t change the taste of your ice cream one bit, so relax and enjoy.

[RSillsbee]

27. I don't follow

20 heavily armed gangbangers on our left.

Do you assume a ban on firearms would disarm your gangbangers?

[shadowrider]

29. Sadly, that is the exact position many anti-gun posters on this forum take. n/t

[RSillsbee]

30. If that's the case

Perhaps we should simply ban crime.

[SteveM]

31. My, my is "blood running in your ice cream!"? More hysteria-for-argument. nt

[Callisto32]

6. Teh bLudZ, it will rRunn in teh ailz!

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Gore on the relish packets! Brains on the shake mixers! Oh noes!

That sound about right?

[Callisto32]

14. Pretty close,

but I think you need more random capital letters and inappropriate punctuation to really capture the essence of the lunacy.

[proteus_lives]

19. Good!

:thumbsup:

[RSillsbee]

26. I'll be sure to stop in for a burger and shake.

Your arteries will not thank you. Mi Espousa refers to Culver's as "Booty Burgers" becuase they tend to target that portion of her anatomy. Having said that I am pleased I may even have to go buy a tenderloin from them myself