Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Applebee's can do without my dollars: I don't do business with anti-Second Amendment bigots.
Anti-gun response from applebees
- Thread starter jsalcedo
- Start date
- Status
Dan from MI
Member
Found this post on Free Republic.
I just called the Applebees here where I go (in Michigan and I was just there today). I was told by the manager that some restaurants are company owned and some are franchised. He told me all Applebees in Michigan are company owned and that, and I quote, "You can bring your gun in here any time you want."
121 posted on 06/04/2003 8:27 PM EDT by ShadowDancer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I just called the Applebees here where I go (in Michigan and I was just there today). I was told by the manager that some restaurants are company owned and some are franchised. He told me all Applebees in Michigan are company owned and that, and I quote, "You can bring your gun in here any time you want."
121 posted on 06/04/2003 8:27 PM EDT by ShadowDancer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
nemesis
Member
Two e-mails sent and Applebee's off the approved list. Will deter all the other folks that I can.
Don't mess with Texas.
Don't mess with Texas.
Dan from Mich,
Glad Applebee's in our state don't have a problem with CCW.
Keep in mind though, we still can't go there until AFTER July 1st when the law changes to allow CCW in establishments that serve alcohol, as long as they aren't actually bars.
Trebor (in Michigan)
Glad Applebee's in our state don't have a problem with CCW.
Keep in mind though, we still can't go there until AFTER July 1st when the law changes to allow CCW in establishments that serve alcohol, as long as they aren't actually bars.
Trebor (in Michigan)
I am laughing my a$$ off at Applebee's now! They are going to learn a harsh lesson from this.
The thing is, we gun owners are not asking for any special treatment or for anything to be given to us for free, all we want is to be left alone. We have a right to own guns but just not carry them in Applebee's.
The thing is, we gun owners are not asking for any special treatment or for anything to be given to us for free, all we want is to be left alone. We have a right to own guns but just not carry them in Applebee's.rock jock
Member
Before we start punishing franchise owners that support CCW in their restaurants, we should find out if this policy is limited to Saint Tony's.
Stetson_CO
Member
I don't eat at Applebees on any regular occasion but now I won't at all. We were actually going to go there Friday night, about 15 of us, now we wil go elsewhere.
Thanks for the heads up on this.
c):{
Thanks for the heads up on this.
c):{
Skirmisher
Member
Here in Michigan, starting July 1st. we will be able to carry into returants that serve liqour. It will interesting to find out how many will post no carry signs. It always amazes me that they don't want legal carry on their premises but do absolutely nothing about the illegal carry-those criminals who want to do harm!
MacPelto
Member
This is a good reason to send an email to the corporate address too. If you tell them that you won't eat at Applebutt's anywhere because of one manager's decision, the corporate office will climb up their rear-end in a heartbeat. Generally speaking, one company will own the rights to all the franchises in a certain area (in this case, applejam inc. in SA), that will then answer to the corporate HQ. If HQ gets complaints from other markets about these guys, things will happen.
Keep writing!
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
i think i've been to applebees maybe 3 or 4 times. no big loss if i never go there again, however considering that ours is locally owned (by a former executive of McD's who lost that position because he violated his contract by owning/managing other restaurant chains, and went bankrupt, and has driven each restaurant he has owned into the ground) they probably dont have such a sign. in fact, the only places i have seen that address weapons/firearms, are major office buildings, and cityowned property.
as a side note, it humors me that such signs show usually a revolver, good thing i carry an autoloader!
as a side note, it humors me that such signs show usually a revolver, good thing i carry an autoloader!
Thumper
Member
My response:
Mr. DeAngelo,
I just read your unfortunate response to [email protected] regarding lawful CHL holders carrying handguns in your restaurants. Please be aware that your comments are up for display on multiple websites frequented by politically active gunowners. National Rifleman, a national publication of the NRA, has also been alerted to your company's bias against lawful gunowners.
In case you were unaware, CHL legislation in Texas received a large boost after the Luby's incident, during which lawful gunowners were effectively disarmed. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Mr. DeAngelo, criminals largely disregard your sign. It only effects those of us who wish to comply with the law.
As I'm sure you realize by now, your statements have prompted a national boycott of the establishment you represent. I've eaten at Applebee's many times (my girlfriend likes your salads), but, until you retract your comments, I won't be eating there again. I'll encourage my gun owning friends to avoid Applebee's also.
Awaiting your response...
A former customer,
(Thumper)
Houston, Tx.
Not a very good response, I'll admit, but his smarmy reply to jalcedo pissed me off.
Everyone CC: [email protected] in your emails also...I don't know if he's the right guy, but filling his inbox will get us to the right folks.
Mr. DeAngelo,
I just read your unfortunate response to [email protected] regarding lawful CHL holders carrying handguns in your restaurants. Please be aware that your comments are up for display on multiple websites frequented by politically active gunowners. National Rifleman, a national publication of the NRA, has also been alerted to your company's bias against lawful gunowners.
In case you were unaware, CHL legislation in Texas received a large boost after the Luby's incident, during which lawful gunowners were effectively disarmed. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Mr. DeAngelo, criminals largely disregard your sign. It only effects those of us who wish to comply with the law.
As I'm sure you realize by now, your statements have prompted a national boycott of the establishment you represent. I've eaten at Applebee's many times (my girlfriend likes your salads), but, until you retract your comments, I won't be eating there again. I'll encourage my gun owning friends to avoid Applebee's also.
Awaiting your response...
A former customer,
(Thumper)
Houston, Tx.
Not a very good response, I'll admit, but his smarmy reply to jalcedo pissed me off.
Everyone CC: [email protected] in your emails also...I don't know if he's the right guy, but filling his inbox will get us to the right folks.
Ian Sean
Member
Never had a good meal there anyway, no loss.
I find more and more that all the chains stink anyway, I'll stick to the locals trying to scratch out a living.
I find more and more that all the chains stink anyway, I'll stick to the locals trying to scratch out a living.
I assume that Mr. DeAngelo is aware that by limiting an individual's ability to defend themselves on their property, they automatically assume a higher responsibility to secure everyone's safety. If a shooting were to take place in their establishment and an innocent patron was injured or killed as a result, their company would be financially liable with regards to medical bills, lost wages, etc.; because they restricted someone's ability to defend themselves and failed to provide adequate protection for them in return.
Ebbtide
Member
Sent:
Dear Sir,
It is with disappointment I hear your Applebees' does not allow customers or staff to exercise their rights to carry a concealed firearm for protection.
Although I do not live in Texas I will begin a personal boycott of Applebee's Restaurants in my area (Ohio) and despite my modest gains in recent years, I have also instructed my Financial Planner to sell off any remaining shares of individual stocks and shares held thru mutual funds.
Sincerely,
ehenz
Dear Sir,
It is with disappointment I hear your Applebees' does not allow customers or staff to exercise their rights to carry a concealed firearm for protection.
Although I do not live in Texas I will begin a personal boycott of Applebee's Restaurants in my area (Ohio) and despite my modest gains in recent years, I have also instructed my Financial Planner to sell off any remaining shares of individual stocks and shares held thru mutual funds.
Sincerely,
ehenz
My law professor (no I'm not a lawyer but do have an MBA and was required to take several business law classes) was pick-pocketed while standing in line to purchase tickets for his return flight home.
No Wallet = no money = no ticket back home.
He was forced to stay an extra day until family members arrange for his return flight.
He sued for all of the extra expenses he had to lay out and he won on the grounds that they failed to provide adequate protection. There may be other / better examples, but this is the one that I am familiar with.
MacPelto
Member
Not so! I thought it a very good response...better than mine. Not only did you give him a chance to recant, you brought up the Luby's incident! A stroke of genius, if you as me. I wish that I had thought of it.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Here is an excellent letter that was written to Cinemark Theaters and caused them to reevaluate their policies. With a little tweaking it makes the basis for a good "Why are you barring concealed carry letter" just about anywhere:
"While you are taking note of specification of the law, I would ask you to take the following factors into consideration before finalizing your decision. Carrying a concealed handgun onto private property is legal and authorized by the Texas Legislature so that Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders may protect themselves from danger. If you prohibit CHL holders from carrying a handgun while on your business premises, you will be rendering useless a lawful act on the part of such persons. Additionally, you will render them unable to protect themselves when the legislature has provided a means for their own self protection.
Common sense indicates that you are assuming the risk of providing for the personal protection of such persons while on your property. An example of reasonable steps that you might take to provide for the personal protection of CHL holders who are disarmed while on your premises is to hire round the clock security guards to provide armed protection in your place of business and in the parking area.
It is reasonably foreseeable that posting signs indicating that CHL holders may not carry a handgun on or about their person while on your premises would indicate to the criminal element that the persons inside the theater are disarmed, and, thereby, make your business premises a target for violent criminal activity. Certainly, it would make it more of a target than a business that posts no sign at all, leaving the criminal element uncertain as to whether or not CHL holders are armed on the premises. This was the intent of the legislature, as the handgun is required to be concealed. The purpose of the statute is to create a tremendous deterrent effect throughout society in that the criminal element will not know who has chosen to exercise their lawful right of self-defense. By creating a zone where you advertise that patrons on your premises are not armed, you are holding yourself out to the public as a place where the public safety desires as expressed by the legislature are void and prohibited, and you give the criminal element a reason to believe that your premises are vulnerable to crime.
Recently, Taco Bell was assessed eight million dollars in damages for a violent assault that took place on its property for failing to protect the persons at the Taco Bell. The law is fairly clear on this subject in Texas. "Generally, an ordinary business owner or operator, as opposed to a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his or her invitees. Garner v. McGinty, 771 S.W.2d 242, 246(Tex. Civ. App.--Austin 1989, no writ). "A business invitor owes a duty to his business invitees to take reasonable steps to protect them from intentional injuries caused by third parties if he knows or has reason to know, from what he has observed or from past experience, that criminal acts are likely to occur, either generally or at some particular time." Id. at 246: Castillo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,663 S.W.2d 60,66 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.)("there is no duty upon the owner of operators of a shopping center...or upon merchants and shopkeepers generally, whose mode of operation of their premises does not attract or provide a climate for crime, to guard against criminal acts of a third party, unless they know...that acts are occurring or are about to occur on the premises that pose imminent probability of harm to an invitee: whereupon a duty of reasonable care to protect against such act arises.") Thus, a plaintiff in a case against an ordinary business owner or operator will have to demonstrate that the business owner or operator knew or had reason to know that criminal acts were likely to occur in order to establish that the business owner or operator had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect invitees from injuries caused by third parties. By contrast, the duty of a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment generally includes the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect patrons from assaults of third persons while on the premises. Eastep v. Jack-in-the-Box, Inc., 546 S.W.2d 116(Tex.Civ.App.--Houston{14th Dist.} 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
The Attorney General's office of Texas has noted the following on this issue: "Once a duty to protect patrons from the intentional acts of third parties is established, whether a business owner or operator will be held liable for injuries to customers inflicted by third person appears to depend in great part upon the foreseeability of the assault and whether the business owner or operator took reasonable measures to prevent the assault."
In your previous form letter you state “In our fourteen year history, we have … only experienced a few criminal assaults upon customers.†From gathering data from police crime statistic reports, it seems this is untrue. According to the reports, it is a few criminal assaults per year per theater. When you do the math, that’s a lot more than “a few.†Why this is acceptable to you, I have no idea.
I personally will not patronize your business if it prohibits CHL holders from carrying their handguns concealed on their persons while on your premises for three reasons:
(1) You discriminate against individuals who merely take advantage of a lawful means of protecting themselves;
(2) You have created a place where there is a higher likelihood of criminal activity; and
(3) The absence of state certified and qualified citizens who lawfully carry a handgun means that I will be less safe than if I were in a similarly situated place of business that did not prohibit CHL holders from being personally armed on the premises;
If you persist in this policy, I will advise the members of my family and all of my friends not to patronize your place of business and we will take our business to a competitor. Even a small price increase for the same goods is worth the personal safety of myself, my friends, and my family in these troubled times.
Many businesses have considered putting up signs prohibiting otherwise lawfully carried handguns to be prohibited from the premises and have changed their policy to allowing CHL holders to be armed on the premises.
Moreover, I understand that the attorneys in Texas have concluded after a thoughtful and extensive review of all the factors involved that allowing CHL holders on the premises armed does not increase liability in any way as it is a legislatively authorized and protected activity. This is so because the individuals involved have had a background check, careful screening, state qualification and certification of knowledge of the penal code, safety procedures and have passed a handgun proficiency examination.
I hope that you will consider the above factors carefully, and in the end, come to the right decision and allow CHL holders to patronize your business while exercising their legislatively authorized right to their own self-protection. Alternatively if you choose to deny the legislatively granted right for people to protect themselves while on your premises, you have legally assumed the risk of providing for the safety of your patrons and have made a decision to ban lawful carrying of handguns on your business premises after understanding all of the factors involved.
"While you are taking note of specification of the law, I would ask you to take the following factors into consideration before finalizing your decision. Carrying a concealed handgun onto private property is legal and authorized by the Texas Legislature so that Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders may protect themselves from danger. If you prohibit CHL holders from carrying a handgun while on your business premises, you will be rendering useless a lawful act on the part of such persons. Additionally, you will render them unable to protect themselves when the legislature has provided a means for their own self protection.
Common sense indicates that you are assuming the risk of providing for the personal protection of such persons while on your property. An example of reasonable steps that you might take to provide for the personal protection of CHL holders who are disarmed while on your premises is to hire round the clock security guards to provide armed protection in your place of business and in the parking area.
It is reasonably foreseeable that posting signs indicating that CHL holders may not carry a handgun on or about their person while on your premises would indicate to the criminal element that the persons inside the theater are disarmed, and, thereby, make your business premises a target for violent criminal activity. Certainly, it would make it more of a target than a business that posts no sign at all, leaving the criminal element uncertain as to whether or not CHL holders are armed on the premises. This was the intent of the legislature, as the handgun is required to be concealed. The purpose of the statute is to create a tremendous deterrent effect throughout society in that the criminal element will not know who has chosen to exercise their lawful right of self-defense. By creating a zone where you advertise that patrons on your premises are not armed, you are holding yourself out to the public as a place where the public safety desires as expressed by the legislature are void and prohibited, and you give the criminal element a reason to believe that your premises are vulnerable to crime.
Recently, Taco Bell was assessed eight million dollars in damages for a violent assault that took place on its property for failing to protect the persons at the Taco Bell. The law is fairly clear on this subject in Texas. "Generally, an ordinary business owner or operator, as opposed to a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his or her invitees. Garner v. McGinty, 771 S.W.2d 242, 246(Tex. Civ. App.--Austin 1989, no writ). "A business invitor owes a duty to his business invitees to take reasonable steps to protect them from intentional injuries caused by third parties if he knows or has reason to know, from what he has observed or from past experience, that criminal acts are likely to occur, either generally or at some particular time." Id. at 246: Castillo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,663 S.W.2d 60,66 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.)("there is no duty upon the owner of operators of a shopping center...or upon merchants and shopkeepers generally, whose mode of operation of their premises does not attract or provide a climate for crime, to guard against criminal acts of a third party, unless they know...that acts are occurring or are about to occur on the premises that pose imminent probability of harm to an invitee: whereupon a duty of reasonable care to protect against such act arises.") Thus, a plaintiff in a case against an ordinary business owner or operator will have to demonstrate that the business owner or operator knew or had reason to know that criminal acts were likely to occur in order to establish that the business owner or operator had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect invitees from injuries caused by third parties. By contrast, the duty of a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment generally includes the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect patrons from assaults of third persons while on the premises. Eastep v. Jack-in-the-Box, Inc., 546 S.W.2d 116(Tex.Civ.App.--Houston{14th Dist.} 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
The Attorney General's office of Texas has noted the following on this issue: "Once a duty to protect patrons from the intentional acts of third parties is established, whether a business owner or operator will be held liable for injuries to customers inflicted by third person appears to depend in great part upon the foreseeability of the assault and whether the business owner or operator took reasonable measures to prevent the assault."
In your previous form letter you state “In our fourteen year history, we have … only experienced a few criminal assaults upon customers.†From gathering data from police crime statistic reports, it seems this is untrue. According to the reports, it is a few criminal assaults per year per theater. When you do the math, that’s a lot more than “a few.†Why this is acceptable to you, I have no idea.
I personally will not patronize your business if it prohibits CHL holders from carrying their handguns concealed on their persons while on your premises for three reasons:
(1) You discriminate against individuals who merely take advantage of a lawful means of protecting themselves;
(2) You have created a place where there is a higher likelihood of criminal activity; and
(3) The absence of state certified and qualified citizens who lawfully carry a handgun means that I will be less safe than if I were in a similarly situated place of business that did not prohibit CHL holders from being personally armed on the premises;
If you persist in this policy, I will advise the members of my family and all of my friends not to patronize your place of business and we will take our business to a competitor. Even a small price increase for the same goods is worth the personal safety of myself, my friends, and my family in these troubled times.
Many businesses have considered putting up signs prohibiting otherwise lawfully carried handguns to be prohibited from the premises and have changed their policy to allowing CHL holders to be armed on the premises.
Moreover, I understand that the attorneys in Texas have concluded after a thoughtful and extensive review of all the factors involved that allowing CHL holders on the premises armed does not increase liability in any way as it is a legislatively authorized and protected activity. This is so because the individuals involved have had a background check, careful screening, state qualification and certification of knowledge of the penal code, safety procedures and have passed a handgun proficiency examination.
I hope that you will consider the above factors carefully, and in the end, come to the right decision and allow CHL holders to patronize your business while exercising their legislatively authorized right to their own self-protection. Alternatively if you choose to deny the legislatively granted right for people to protect themselves while on your premises, you have legally assumed the risk of providing for the safety of your patrons and have made a decision to ban lawful carrying of handguns on your business premises after understanding all of the factors involved.
bogie
Member
You know, someone needs to snailmail the fellow a CORRECT 30.06 sign, with the words "Criminals will, of course, ignore this, so our customers are fair game!" at the bottom.
Jason Demond
Member
Anyone get a reply yet?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked