Gun Activists Flaunting Assault Rifles Get Booted From Chili’s and Sonic

As a backlash grows, open-carry groups in Texas beat a retreat.

 

It would be an understatement to say that the tactics of gun rights activists have been backfiring of late. The showdown has taken place foremost in Texas, where in recent months groups such as Open Carry Texas have conducted provocative demonstrations in which armed men exercise their right under state law to carry semi-automatic rifles in public. No fewer than five national food and beverage chains have now told them to get rid of their guns or get lost, including Starbucks, Wendy’s, Applebees, Jack in the Box, and Chipotle.

And now Chili’s Grill & Bar and Sonic have effectively joined the list: Two videos posted on YouTube on May 19 by the San Antonio chapter of Open Carry Texas—since removed from public view but obtained by Mother Jones—show its armed members being refused service at both restaurants. The two companies have not made official statements on open carry but have since indicated that they are reviewing their policies. [See updates below.] From the nervous and angry reactions of some patrons to comments from some of the gun activists themselves, it’s not difficult to see why these spectacles haven’t been winning many people over.

“I just wish I had my kids in there when that one dumb chick come up and started rattin’ her mouth,” said one of the gun activists.

When a young woman approaches the group in Chili’s and expresses her dismay, a guy with an assault rifle strapped across his back offers her a flyer. “Um actually, there’s children here,” she replies, “and you’re a dumbass.” As she walks away one member of the group comments mockingly, “Yes, I’m a dumbass,” and then says of her, “must be Moms Demand Action,” referring to the national gun reform group.

Open Carry Texas’ hostility toward Moms Demand Action, which has pressured corporations over the demonstrations using social-media campaigns, has been displayed in more disturbing ways. As I detailed in a recent investigation, members of Open Carry Texas have been involved in harassment, bullying, and degradation of women.

In the Sonic video, as the thwarted gun group lingers in an adjacent parking lot, one member says: “I just wish I had my kids in there when that one dumb chick come up and started rattin’ her mouth.”

Though probably few if any patrons regularly worry about their personal safety as they order Bacon Ranch Quesadillas or double cheeseburgers and shakes, gun activists in both videos comment about the apparent danger of not allowing open carrying on the premises. One says he told his daughter, “It’s not safe to be here—we gotta go,” while another comments, “This Chili’s is no longer the safest Chili’s to eat at.”

Open Carry Texas and other gun groups, whose common goal is legalizing the open carrying of handguns in their state, evidently have concluded that none of this is helping their cause. On Friday, four of the groups released a joint statement asking supporters to retreat from such tactics. “We have decided the prudent path, to further our goals, is to immediately cease taking long guns into corporate businesses unless invited,” the statement said.

For open carrying going forward, their new “unified protocol and general policy” advises supporters to avoid corporate businesses altogether, and not to post pictures if they do get permission and decide to go in. “If at all possible,” it says, “keep to local small businesses that are 2A friendly.”

It remains to be seen whether the rank and file will stand down. As one Texas commentator focused on open carry noted about the move: “As expected there are those who object to this new policy because they feel it is a form of surrender.”

Update May 27, 2014, 6:15 p.m. EDT: Patric Lenow, VP of media relations at Sonic, told Mother Jones: “There is no [gun] policy at this point; we’ve traditionally relied on local and state laws. We see the situation has changed and there’s new tactics being employed and businesses are being pulled into this debate. That’s really what prompts the need to consider it.” Lenow did not say specifically when the company would reach a decision on a gun policy, but said that it would be “in the month of June, certainly.”

Update 2, May 28, 2014, 1:45 p.m. EDT: A spokesperson for Brinker International, the corporate parent of Chili’s, told Mother Jones: “Given the recent attention to open carry laws, we continue to evaluate [our] policy to ensure we provide a safe environment for our guests and team members.” Moreover, the activists who brought their weapons into Chili’s were pushing the boundaries of state law and putting the restaurant in jeopardy: “Long guns are not permitted in our restaurants based on regulation from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission,” the spokesperson said, “which prohibits a business that is licensed to sell or serve alcoholic beverages from allowing shotguns or rifles into the building.”

According to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission: “If an individual does choose to carry a rifle or shotgun into a TABC-licensed business, the individual is placing the business owner’s TABC license at risk….a business owner may ask a patron to leave the premises. If the patron refuses, that individual may be subject to criminal trespassing charges under Texas Penal Code Section 30.05.”

Update 3, May 30, 2014, 4:15 p.m. EDT: Both Sonic and Brinker International/Chili’s have now announced official positions on the issue: A Sonic spokesperson said the company is “asking that customers refrain from bringing guns onto our patios or into our indoor dining areas.” A Brinker International/Chili’s spokesperson said, “We recognize that the open carry of firearms in restaurants creates an uncomfortable atmosphere and is not permitted under many local liquor laws. So, we kindly ask that guests refrain from openly carrying firearms into our restaurants and we will continue to follow state and local laws on this issue.”

Additional reporting contributed by Julia Lurie.

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate