Buffalo Wild Wings Gun Ban: What Do You Think?

Commenters express outrage on the business’s Facebook page after some of the company-owned restaurants post signs prohibiting guns on the premises.

Buffalo Wild Wings is attracting controversy after some of the chain’s company-owned restaurants began posting signs banning guns on the property.

KDKA reports photos taken at restaurants around the nation are popping up on social media sites of signs that say guns are not allowed inside the buildings.

No such sign was at the Buffalo Wild Wings on Route 22 in Wilkins Township over the weekend.

The move has sparked outrage on the company’s official Facebook page.

"It's your right to disarm your customers as is our right to go eat elsewhere from now on to prevent becoming a victim,” said one poster. “I changed banks for the same reason.”

In a statement to KDKA, Buffalo Wild Wings' corporate headquarters said that while the company “respects the right of individuals to carry firearms. One of our top priorities is the comfort, safety and enjoyment of our Guests and we have elected to exercise our right to prohibit the carrying of firearms in our company-owned restaurants.”

The company told the news station it regrets any inconveniences, but “This long-standing position is in the best interest of our Guests and our Team Members. This position may vary in independently owned franchised locations.”

KDKA checked a few of the local Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in Pittsburgh and found most of them currently do not have signs banning guns on their doors.

We want to know what you think. Would a ban on guns inside the premises prevent you from eating at the restaurant chain? Do you approve of Buffalo Wild Wings' stance? Tell us in the comment section below.


"Like" Patch on Facebook. | Follow us on Twitter. | Sign up for our daily email newsletter.

Jesse Garboden February 15, 2013 at 01:26 AM
One thing you have to remember the bad guys are the police as well. If you ban guns you must say to the police you must leave your gun in the car. So in that, police would be breaking your law of not having guns in the store. When there is a gun ban I would not even let an armed police man in because it would be breaking the law of not having them in the store. Gun are protected under the Constitution no matter what law the gov passes. Gun are legal 100% of the time no matter what the current gov says. If you change the Constitution you must leave the country because you don't love america. I don't have a gun for personal reasons. But if I had to get no law would prevent Keep me from protecting my friends and family and those who love the USA.
Jesse Garboden February 15, 2013 at 01:27 AM
If you don't love the Constitution your not an american.
Kathleen Gaberson February 16, 2013 at 02:06 AM
Really?!? Do you think that you are presenting a convincing argument? Just because some police officers are "bad guys" doesn't mean that you can label all police officers as such. And police officers in this country are expected to carry guns as part of their law enforcement responsibilities. A specific restaurant's designating its property as gun-free doesn't ban a police officer from entering it with his or her service weapon. And a specific establishment's policy is not a law, so a police officer who does so is not breaking a law. Even if private citizens were to be banned by federal or state law from owning personal weapons, police officers who carry weapons would not be breaking the law. It's the same principle as emergency and rescue vehicles breaking the speed limit when they are responding to an emergency with sirens and flashing lights--they take appropriate precautions to protect the public but they exceed the posted speed limit if the circumstances require it. Read the 2nd Amendment to the Consitution sometime and see if it guarantees gun ownership without restrictions whatsoever. It doesn't say that federal or state law can't place reasonable restrictions on who may own guns and what types of weapons they may own. By "the current government" do you mean the current President? He was elected by the voters with the responsibility to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Why would he try to pass a law against the Constitution?
Kathleen Gaberson February 16, 2013 at 02:12 AM
"If you change the Constitution you must leave the country because you don't love America"? But the Second Amendment to the Constitution itself was a change to the Constitution, as was every other Amendment. The Constitution itself contains a provision for such Amendments, so changing it by adding an amendment doesn't violate the Constitution. Any Federal law that is passed must be in line with the Constitition or there may be a legal challenge, all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary, to its constitutionality. Checks and balances, that's how it works, spelled out by the Constitution itself. Oh, and by the way, the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, including the right to criticize the Constitution. Criticism doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't love our country.
Kathleen Gaberson February 16, 2013 at 02:16 AM
Jesse, see my previous comment. As an American, I have a Constitutionally protected right to criticize the constitution. But what makes you think that my opposition to the ownership and carrying of assault-style weapons into restaurants and other public places is criticism of the Constitution? I think that most gun advocates misinterpret the Second Amendment, at best, and some may have no idea what it actually says. Read it sometime, and then read a Constitution scholar's interpretation of the framers' intent.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »