Posted on 05/21/2011 5:28:00 AM PDT by marktwain
So the misses and I decided to go to Chili's Grill and Bar in West Lebanon last night. I have OC'd there many of times in the past. We were sitting in the bar area, and the side of the table I was sitting at my strong side was facing out. After we sat down for about five minutes talking about our days at work. I short gentleman approached "The Manager" who looked to be someone new because I had never seem him before. He was extremely nervous, forehead sweating, hands shaking, stuttering his words, but he said "Excuse me may I see your firearms permit". I replied back with, "You know I am OC'ing and am not required to have a permit right?" Again he said very nervously "May I please see your permit". I started to pull it out of my wallet to hand it to him and he said "Thank you enjoy your dinner and walked away".
The misses and I after he walked away were talking about how scared and nervous he was to ask me. I actually felt bad for the guy because he was so scared to approach me. So after dinner I asked the waitress to go grab the manager. He came over and I started off by saying "The food and service was great I wanted to personally thank you very much". He said we were welcome and then said to me "That his district manager just left. That is why I asked for your permit because he told me to. After I asked for it and went back I told him we have to figure out what the gun laws are in New Hampshire because I do not think they are the same as in Massachusetts". At that point I chimed in and said "No they are nothing like Massachusetts" I then referred him to the state of New Hampshire website which details RSA 159 I also added that in New Hampshire if there is not a law in there that says you can not do it then it would be legal to do. Ie: Open Carrying. He said thank you and we were welcome back anytime.
We can thank the media for the wonderful job they've done of 1) portraying gun people as gun-nuts and 2) portraying firearms as grenades with the pins pulled -- ready to GO OFF at any moment. Thanks, folks. /s
I’m hoping to see it happen here in FL as well. While I won’t personally OC since I have a CWP, I think the notion of guns being inherently bad needs to be quashed as garbage. They are merely tools in the hands of people.
Great story here, MT. Thank you for sharing.
I lived in NH, and Massachusetts currently.
I carry every moment, concealed.
I believe citizens who feel the need to carry openly are a bunch of nitwits who seek only to intimidate other peoples to prove whatever their point may be.
There aren't many laws on the books anywhere that are the same as in Massachusetts.
District manager = dick.
The guy would probably be less nervous about a waiter/waitress with TB walking around his establishment coughing and hacking all over the place than a tool safely holstered on a responsible, law-abiding citizen.
I don’t know, I’m starting to think the people have been too thoroughly brainwashed and dumbed-down to save this country and our Founding Father’s concept of a people governing themselves.
I don't put "Protected by S&W" stickers on my house, I don't talk about firearms with casual acquaintances and never open carry except for the occasional long gun.
I also consider it rude and disrespectful towards the public, and towards LEO's particularly, to put them in the position of having to deal with me and my weapon. I just comply with the law and try to keep a low profile.
We need to convert hearts and minds, and confront stereotypes.
I'm not a gun guy myself, but I took out a liberal at work who was mewling over the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.
I explained that the guy who did the shooting was a deranged leftist, with known mental problems, who had already been reported to the Sheriff's office, but that nothing was done because he was related to a County Employee.
I then explained who Yamamoto was and how America's gun ownership helped prevent Japan from attacking the mainland in World War II.
Cheers!
Maybe. Or it could be that the Constitution actually matters to them and they are trying to get back to a Constitutional Republic, as our Founding Fathers established.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t doubt that there are some jackasses out there who do OC for the reason you state. They are the same type who get a Pit Bull and enjoy being dragged down the street by it, or who go and buy a Harley and dress like outlaws on the weekend, or who drive a huge pick up and tailgate people because they think it makes their arms look bigger, or the career woman who buys a big ugly man-watch and taps her fingernail on the table-top to punctuate her directives.
The world will always have those with a Napoleonic complex.
The more we exercise our Constitutional rights, the more “the people” will come to accept our Constitutional liberties as “the norm” and the better they will be able to recognize violations of that norm, such as cities that make it a crime to own a firearm even in your dwelling.
Exactly. Long guns are a different issue and necessarily require different treatment.
I expect a crap storm shortly from other parties.
I understand the right to OC, and that’s fine with me ‘cause his state has determined that it is his right to do so, but wasn’t this done just to be provocative?
Other than showing arrogance, I can’t for the life of me see ONE GOOD REASON to OC for a night out with the wifey at Chili’s.
Just imagine the number of people who carry concealed weapons! I’ve walked around a major southern city before, in and out of public places with one in my purse.
Regularly carried one in my car years ago. That has changed thanks to cell phones, plus I don’t drive nearly as much since I work at home.
From the brief filed yesterday (March 18, 2011) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second District in the case of Goldberg v TOWN OF GLASTONBURY, MICHAEL FURLONG, Sergeant, Glastonbury Police Department, Town of Glastonbury, KENNETH LEE, Officer, Glastonbury Police Department, Town of Glastonbury, SIMON BARRATT, Officer, Glastonbury Police Department, Town of Glastonbury. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).
On June 21, 2007 James Goldberg walked into a Chili’s Restaurant in Glastonbury Connecticut openly carrying a handgun in a belt holster. There was no indication that Mr. Goldberg was engaged in criminal conduct, about to engage in criminal conduct or was threatening criminal conduct.
The Chili’s manager, Laura Smith noticed that Goldberg carried a firearm into the restaurant on his side secured in a holster. Smith called 911 emergency dispatch and inquired whether it is legal in Connecticut to openly carry a gun.
There was no complaint from Smith, or anyone else, that Goldberg was acting in a threatening manner was “threatening, physically threatening anybody in the take-out area of the restaurant,” or had drawn his gun from the holster. No information was provided by dispatch to indicate that any crime had been committed.
In response to Smith’s call, the Glastonbury Police Department (GPD) dispatched Officer Simon Barratt to the restaurant for a report of a male in possession of a gun. Officer Kenneth Lee and Sergeant Michael Furlong responded to Chili’s with Officer Barratt.
None of the three officers drew their weapons as they entered Chili’s together in a single file. Sergeant Furlong observed Goldberg “sitting on a bench in the take-out area of the restaurant carrying a handgun in a holster on his right hip. Goldberg was silent and had his arms folded on his chest.
Sergeant Furlong did not observe any “commotion” in the restaurant or anyone in a state of distress as he entered. The officers did not tell anyone in Chili’s to clear the area or evacuate the restaurant. Sergeant Furlong “gave a verbal command to Mr. Goldberg to show me his hands.” Goldberg showed Sergeant Furlong his hands. Sergeant Furlong testified his purpose was to “investigate a criminal complaint.” He testified he was focused on “officer safety, the handgun, and securing the weapon…” At this point it was still a criminal complaint only and he (Sergeant Furlong) had not “made an arrest opinion in his head…”
After Goldberg compliantly showed his hands upon Sergeant Furlong’s command, Sergeant Furlong ordered Goldberg to “stand up” and “turn away.” Goldberg immediately showed his hands upon command. Goldberg immediately stood up upon command. Goldberg immediately turned away from Sergeant Furlong upon command. Officer Barratt then placed handcuffs on Goldberg. Goldberg did not resist being handcuffed. He never acted in a violent or hostile manner toward Sergeant Furlong, Officer Barratt, or Officer Lee.
Goldberg never resisted arrest. According to Officer Lee: “He [Goldberg] was compliant. I mean, you know, he put his arms up; and, you know, they – he grabbed the gun. He was compliant the whole time.” As Officer Barratt handcuffed Goldberg, Goldberg was instructed that he was “not being placed under arrest” but “detained.” Sergeant Furlong continued staring at Goldberg’s gun after Goldberg was handcuffed. Sergeant Furlong testified "The gun was a “concern”".
Goldberg’s handgun was securely fastened in his holster. When Sergeant Furlong attempted to remove the handgun from Goldberg’s holster, the handgun did not “come immediately out.” According to Sgt. Furlong, “[h]olsters are designed to not be easily removed by other people, other than the one that’s wearing the holster.” Sergeant Furlong had to “manipulate” the holster to remove it. Finally, after more than one attempt, Sergeant Furlong seized Goldberg’s holster and handgun. Sergeant Furlong did not ask permission from Goldberg to remove the gun. Goldberg did not consent to the gun’s removal.
Sergeant Furlong then went to speak to Smith. Sergeant Furlong testified he did not take or subsequently prepare any notes of his conversation with Smith. There were no witnesses to Sergeant Furlong’s conversation with Smith. While Sergeant Furlong spoke to Smith, Goldberg remained handcuffed and “detained” by Officer Barratt and Officer Lee. Sergeant Furlong already had confirmed that Goldberg possessed a valid state permit to carry a pistol or revolver. Sergeant Furlong determined that Goldberg was in lawful possession of the handgun carried in a holster on his right hip.
_______________________________________________
This case helped highlight the ambiguity in OC law in CT and how police *interpret* it, wrongly.
I work in a bar, they will not even let me carry a skinner on my belt.
These things have a... dampening effect on business and human interaction.
I appreciate your reasoned response.
ditto
I would be owning some cop’s pension.
I suggest you stay out of Arizona. Open carry is practiced daily, especially here in cattle country which can be defined as almost anywhere there is feed, and I surely would not want to damage your oh so tender feelings. On the other hand, I have no intention of foregoing my inherent right to self defense just to shelter you from the sight of my hand gun. Take your delicate sensibilities and keep them in the Peoples Republic of Mass. You seem well suited to your environment.
Rights are like muscles. If you do not exercise them, they go away. This man had the courage to exercise his rights. Most have been so intimidated and indoctrinated by the media that they are not willing to even think about exercising their rights. Carrying openly is as much an act of political free speech as it is one of exercising your Constitutional right to bear arms.
If a person with an open carry were to thawrt a attack on the Prez. or Bill Clinton, the public could quickly get back to licking axx, couldn’t they??? Maybe throw ina blow job or two.
I now live in a state, and in a town, where the chances for violence and home invasion are extremely remote. Although I have a permit for concealed carry, and open carry without ammunition is permitted, I rarely carry. The responsibility and inconvenience of carrying doesn't measure up to the risk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.