• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Red Robin informed me they are a "Gun Free" establishment at dinner tonight

Bulleteater

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
49
Location
Nevada
We are making progress over there, but you'll have to sit through the dozens of the "conceal and carry on" crowd who won't care until the metal detectors go up.

LOL you know I used to be one of those guys. Not anymore, especially since my "permission slip" expired and King Gillespie is dragging his feet on my renewal.
 

z28power

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
142
Location
Las Vegas
We are making progress over there, but you'll have to sit through the dozens of the "conceal and carry on" crowd who won't care until the metal detectors go up.

LOL you know I used to be one of those guys. Not anymore, especially since my "permission slip" expired and King Gillespie is dragging his feet on my renewal.

Yup, progress is being made over there but I have noticed it is a good community that doesn't mind concealing to make life easier (some exceptions of course.)

Nothing wrong with it and some people prefer concealing, but I am certain I would get a large number of "you have a CCW, just conceal and go in anyway" kind of comments, which isn't really the point. Still, if it generates any additional traction it should be worth putting up, I suppose. :)
 

cjohnson44546

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
188
Location
Memphis, TN
We are making progress over there, but you'll have to sit through the dozens of the "conceal and carry on" crowd who won't care until the metal detectors go up.
Why would people want to pay money to these fools that will kick them out even if its concealed and they find out about it... Red Robin is not anti-OC, they are anti-gun. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a stupid policy, even for CCers.
 

FTG-05

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
441
Location
TN
Why would people want to pay money to these fools that will kick them out even if its concealed and they find out about it... Red Robin is not anti-OC, they are anti-gun. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a stupid policy, even for CCers.

Costco, RR and other anti-gun companies are hoping for and counting on the business of the "concealed means concealed", "does the sign have the force of law?" and other spineless gun owners to maintain and/or even increase their market share. It's their way of having their anti-gun/anti-American cake and eating it too. :banghead:

The only thing standing in their way is people like the OP et al that have a backbone that refuse to support them.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Costco? Why do you need a 120 roll pack of tp?
RR? Their food ain't all that and a bag of chips.
Mom & Pop shops are the way to go. They are less likely to ding ya for being a gun nut. Heck, they are likely gun nuts too.
 

Bulleteater

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
49
Location
Nevada
I sent my email yesterday morning to Mulz and every corporate suit I could find @ RR, so far, crickets chirping. I wonder if the OC response to this incident has taken them by surprise and they're doing a team "huddle."

Still haven't seen a thread started at Nevada Shooters. I wouldn't worry about the CC advocates - you may get one or two "concealed means CONCEALED" comments, maybe even several...and if so, big friggin deal. What you want is to continue the email blasting. I seriously doubt you will get "dozens." People exaggerate to make a point.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
I've not received any kind of reply either. This at least encourages me that they did not expect many people to care enough to tell them, and they are trying to figure out what to say. Indeed, they may even be rethinking their policy?
 

cjohnson44546

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
188
Location
Memphis, TN
I've not received any kind of reply either. This at least encourages me that they did not expect many people to care enough to tell them, and they are trying to figure out what to say. Indeed, they may even be rethinking their policy?

No... Nothing will happen from several emails, would have to get national recognition in the news. Your emails are just trashed and ignored.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
No... Nothing will happen from several emails, would have to get national recognition in the news. Your emails are just trashed and ignored.

The first few people who emailed received a form letter in reply. After they received several more emails, we are not getting a form letter in reply. Likely they are at least now determining how to defend their policy, which at least means they are looking at it.
 

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
The first few people who emailed received a form letter in reply. After they received several more emails, we are not getting a form letter in reply. Likely they are at least now determining how to defend their policy, which at least means they are looking at it.

Agreed. I included the CEOs email in there. Somebody will have to kick it uphill, or at least the manager is getting some phone calls.
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
I looked up ARS 4-229. It is, in fact, an Arizona Revised Statute, that applies to firearms in an establishment that is licensed to sell liquor, in the State of Arizona.

4-229. Licenses; handguns; posting of notice

A. A person may carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a licensee who is an on-sale retailer unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession of weapons on the licensed premises. The sign shall conform to the following requirements:

1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public and immediately adjacent to the liquor license posted on the licensed premises.

2. Contain a pictogram that shows a firearm within a red circle and a diagonal red line across the firearm.

3. Contain the words, "no firearms allowed pursuant to A.R.S. section 4-229".

B. A person shall not carry a firearm on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer if the licensee has posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section.

C. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection B of this section if:

1. The person was not informed of the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section before the violation.

2. Any one or more of the following apply:

(a) At the time of the violation the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section had fallen down.

(b) At the time of the violation the person was not a resident of this state.

(c) The licensee had posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section not more than thirty days before the violation.

D. The department of liquor licenses and control shall prepare the signs required by this section and make them available at no cost to licensees.

E. The signs required by this section shall be composed of block, capital letters printed in black on white laminated paper at a minimum weight of one hundred ten pound index. The lettering and pictogram shall consume a space at least six inches by nine inches. The letters constituting the words "no firearms allowed" shall be at least three-fourths of a vertical inch and all other letters shall be at least one-half of a vertical inch. Nothing shall prohibit a licensee from posting additional signs at one or more locations on the premises.

F. This section does not prohibit a person who possesses a handgun from entering the licensed premises for a limited time for the specific purpose of either:

1. Seeking emergency aid.

2. Determining whether a sign has been posted pursuant to subsection A of this section.


Certainly is not enforceable in the State of Nevada.
 
Last edited:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
I looked up ARS 4-229. It is, in fact, an Arizona Revised Statute, that applies to firearms in an establishment that is licensed to do sell liquor, in the State of Arizona.
SNIP...

Certainly is not enforceable in the State of Nevada.

Beat me to it. Correct about the statute, its origin, and its state of applicability. It seems the corporate policy may in fact be less "corporate-wide" than this transplant would like to admit.
Will keep an eye on this.

Side note: I envy the position Nevada has taken in regards to OC in establishments that serve alcohol. Can't OC in them down here in AZ, and I refuse to get a permit...
At least we have this snippet as consolation:(:
"F. This section does not prohibit a person who possesses a handgun from entering the licensed premises for a limited time for the specific purpose of either:

1. Seeking emergency aid.

2. Determining whether a sign has been posted pursuant to subsection A of this section."
 

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
"F. This section does not prohibit a person who possesses a handgun from entering the licensed premises for a limited time for the specific purpose of either:

1. Seeking emergency aid.

2. Determining whether a sign has been posted pursuant to subsection A of this section."

"Um, I am alcohol fueled officer. I was going to die without a beer."
"Entry fee is a 2 beer minimum sir!"

Thank goodness Nevada has none of this non-sense.
 

Craftymommy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
172
Location
Nevada
My husband hasn't received a response yet. Maybe they are rethinking their stance. Only time will tell I guess!
 

28kfps

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
1,533
Location
Pointy end and slightly to the left
No... Nothing will happen from several emails, would have to get national recognition in the news. Your emails are just trashed and ignored.

May be so. However we have had good luck here in Nevada with such tactic. Doesn't hurt. They hit the delete button so be it however there is only one way to reach the number of complaints that breaks the camels back and that is keep trying.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
I looked up ARS 4-229. It is, in fact, an Arizona Revised Statute, that applies to firearms in an establishment that is licensed to do sell liquor, in the State of Arizona.

It should also be noted that this replaced an earlier law which prohibited customers (other than LEOs, of course) from having firearms in any establishment where patrons could buy alcohol by the single serving for onsite consumption. That means that the Land of AZ LOOSENED restrictions on guns in bars.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,037
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
A recent invitation from a friend to eat at RR made me recall reading something about it here on OCDO, so I checked their website: https://www.redrobin.com/tools/gun-policy.html

"While Red Robin will follow state and local laws on this issue, Red Robin respectfully requests that guests refrain from bringing guns into our restaurants."

It seems to me that RR has move from a prohibition to a request (like Target and Chipotle).
 
Last edited:
Top