Letter to Nation's Hamburgers about Brady Campaign petition ...

[spin]

Responsible Citizens of California Respond to Brady Campaign Petition
November 12th, 2010 5:11 pm PT

Dear Nation’s Hamburgers Executives and Store Management:

My name is Yih-Chau Chang. I am the Press Secretary for the Responsible Citizens of California, a non-profit organization that seeks to educate the public on the truth regarding gun ownership by common, law-abiding citizens. Our organization serves as a counterbalance to the anti-gun lobby by stating the facts surrounding responsible gun ownership by providing evidence sourced from federal and State government reports, peer-reviewed academic research studies, international government-sourced data, and real-life local news stories.

The Responsible Citizens of California have recently been made aware that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has petitioned your company to ban the practice of Open Carry on your company premises. While we will respect any decision you make on this matter, we would like to provide you with some information regarding the Open Carry Movement in California to help provide you with facts that might help you to reach a more informed decision on this issue.

***snip***

Even over the course of decades where this Open Carry law has been in effect in California, there has never been one single instance of a violent crime being committed by someone who decided to exercise his/her right in this regard. Even earlier in the year, when the Open Carry Movement became a high profile issue in the press, there were still clearly no violent incidents despite the fact that there were multiple high profile Open Carry events occurring up and down the State every single week. Much to the chagrin of the Brady Campaign, their subjectively-biased, emotional-based assertions that common, law-abiding gun owners who choose to carry their sidearms holstered in a public setting were a threat to society turned out to be completely false.emphasis added

On the contrary, a number of private businesses that supported the Open Carry Movement have benefitted greatly from being associated with supporting every Californian’s 2nd Amendment Rights both in financial terms and also through enhanced media exposure. You may remember that Starbucks was one such company that found itself as the center of attention when it decided that the Brady Campaign’s request to ban Open Carry in their stores was flatly turned down. As a result, Starbucks benefitted greatly from this increased foot traffic and media exposure, especially in these tough economic realities that we face today.


Yih-Chau Chang - Press Secretary - Responsible Citizens of California

http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/responsible-citizens-of-california-respond-to-brady-campaign-petition

[Hoopla Phil]

1. K and R

[cleanhippie]

2. This has too much reason and common sense.

Epic fail.













:sarcasm: in case I needed it.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. I think the only non-partisan answer is to say that the business will abide by local laws.

Having the same rules as the local law makes alot of sense and is pretty good from a legal standpoint. Not to mention that such a response, to remain consistent with what the laws in the area allow, isn't likely to offend anyone on either side of the debate... well, unless you're one of those VPC or Brady Campaign dickwads. lol.

[spin]

4. unfortunately the Brady Campaign has had some success in California ...

The Brady Campaign issued the following statement....

The Contra Costa Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has learned that the local Open Carry group will be bringing their guns to Nation's Hamburgers restaurant in Pleasant Hill on Saturday, November 27th.

The Brady Campaign has contacted Nations Headquarters in Emeryville and asked that they issue a NO GUNS policy for their entire chain of California restaurants. The Brady Campaign took similar actions in the past to get the chains of Peets Tea & Coffee, California Pizza Kitchens, Buckhorn Grill and others who all have implemented NO GUNS policies for their stores.emphasis added

The Contra Costa Brady Campaign is awaiting Nation's response. If the meeting is held, Brady Campaign members say they will picket the location to inform and educate customers of the public safety risk to their families.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/incontracosta/detail?entry_id=76930

[X_Digger]

5. What's really funny is that Contra Costa..

is the same town that said they wouldn't be prosecuting many cases due to budget cuts..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=218720

[spin]

6. California needs to pass "shall issue" concealed carry ...

at a minimum and to me carrying an exposed unloaded weapon is asking for trouble. If open carry is legal then the firearm should be loaded.

California is in dire straits financially and it's easy to see that law enforcement will be cut back. Criminals may see career opportunity in California and move for the good weather and the availability of victims to rob, rape and pillage.

California citizens need to have access to loaded firearms for their own defense, especially now.

[jazzhound]

7. Opening arguments in Peruta v. San Diego County take

place this coming Monday morning. Should be interesting:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=349874

[spin]

8. That might be the case that brings "shall issue" concealed carry ...

to California.

Peruta v. County of San Diego is a Second Amendment case challenging the concealed carry license issuing policies in San Diego County. This case was started when Ed Peruta applied for his conceal carry license and was subsequently denied. He wished to carry for defense of self and family.

Ed then started the internal appeals process with the license division for the sheriff’s office. He painstakingly exhausted all administrative options for appealing the denial of his concealed carry license. After which Ed hired an attorney and filed a civil rights case in federal court. Both the County of San Diego, and Sheriff Gore himself are defendants in this case. The lawsuit was later amended and added several other plaintiffs including the CRPA Foundation which helped strengthen the case for the general public.

This case has the potential to fix carry for San Diego County and like the Sykes v. McGinness case may even fix carry for all of California depending on what happens at trial. When we say "fix carry" we mean to say that when you apply for your CCW permit, the right of "self defense" is sufficient for "good cause" as it relates to California penal code 1205
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego

The Brady Campaign will have a conniption fit.

[jazzhound]

9. Nice to see my donation to the CRPA legislative fund has

gone to a good cause ----- and so soon after I made it!

The thank you letter I received from the group was hand signed with the phrase *great thanks for your support* underlined in ink.

From what I understand, the Brady "Campaign" will be in the courtroom crying wolf again.

[spin]

10. The Brady Campaign is like a broken record ...

I better post a definition of that phrase for those who were born after the age of record players.


1.broken record

One who continually repeats the same statement with little variation, if any. Derives directly from the (slightly inaccurate) term involving polyvinyl record albums, where such a "broken" record would repeatedly skip back a moment in what being played. (The term was inaccurate - usually such skippage was caused by debris on the disc.)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=broken%20record

[Callisto32]

12. Haha.

This is like when I told a friend to "for for the brass ring, man." He looked at me like I was from MARS.

[Callisto32]

11. I have to disagree with you, here.

While I understand your point, I don't think that it matters. A private property owner is well within his rights to restrict carry of firearms on the premises and we should all respect such a decision (not that I think you are suggesting differently). I don't think that being non-partisan is really much, if any, of the calculus that should be/is being employed. Rather, the owners are probably making their decisions based on personal feelings on the matter and, of course, business considerations. If a business wishes to restrict firearms by licensed/legal carriers I won't be offended, I will simply avoid the business. This is truly a place where I think the market will sort this out in short order.

[spin]

13. You could also send or give the business owner them a really nice card ...

which tells him that:




and the backside says:

As a Citizen with a
concealed handgun license, I:
• Have no felony convictions.
• Have never been convicted of domestic violence.
• Have no history of mental illness.
• Have passed a background check and have my
fingerprints on file with the Authorities.
• Have passed mandatory training in both the use
of a firearm and the applicable law.
Can you say that about your other customers?

They can be printed out from this link.
http://binaries.concealedcarryforum.com/ccwsign/1.pdf

[krispos42]

14. That's a zinger, isn't it? n/t