(Dentists’ Website)
According to Pleasant Prairie dentist Jean Leconte, his mission is to “treat people with dignity and respect.” According to a Kenosha Dad, however, this couldn’t be further from the truth.
A Kenosha father of two young children tells KCE that his kids were expelled from Prairie Ridge Dental Care, a dental practice in Pleasant Prairie, just days after the man expressed concern with a sign on the front of the building. The man noticed the sign on October 20, 2023, when he brought his kids in for an appointment.
(Submitted Photo)
We’ve all seen the signs – “no guns allowed.” “No businesses that post the sign think they are creating a safer atmosphere, it’s simply a political statement. They want people to know that they don’t support the second amendment. They put their politics ahead of their patients’ safety,” said the Dad.
The father mentioned to the receptionist that the sign isn’t a good idea and later sent a note to the clinic asking them to reconsider the sign’s presence.
The father of the two kids says that his children had an appointment for Wednesday, October 25, 2023 – one needed teeth pulled and both needed cleanings and check-ups. Two days before the appointment, a secretary called the father to confirm the appointments. Everything was set.
(Prairie Ridge Facebook Page)
The day before the appointment, however, the father received a call from Prairie Ridge Dental. The father shared with us an audio recording of the call. The woman identified herself as Nicole, the office manager. She told the father that his two children were no longer patients of Prairie Ridge Dental. He asked why the decision was made and she told him that it was an “office decision.” Despite his repeated inquiries, she would not tell him why they would no longer see the children in the clinic. The Kenosha father believes that the clinic that promises to “treat everyone with dignity and respect” is a farce. “This dental office essentially refused to treat my children because they disagreed with my political viewpoints. That’s wrong,” he told KCE.
(Dentists’ Website)
KCE believes that Heartland Dental provides contract management and other services to Prairie Ridge Dental. KCE reached out to Heartland Dental and they didn’t wish to speak with us about the issue. We also reached out to Jean Leconte, DDC and Nidia Aqil, DMD. Leconte received our communication but refused comment. We reached out to Nicole Jones, the office manager, who again, refused comment. KCE is unable to determine who, specifically made the decision to remove the children from the office’s patient list as no one is willing to take responsibility, but Nicole Jones proudly displays her preferred pronouns on her LinkedIn account. For now, though, the Kenosha Dad tells us he found a local dentist that has great reviews and doesn’t take into account their parents’ political views.
(Submitted Photo)
KCE contacted our friend Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. The group has successfully sued the government and other entities many times in the last decade. He is an expert on gun laws here in Wisconsin.
According to Clark, Wisconsin statute provides immunity from liability for businesses that choose to allow carry. This doesn’t mean in absolute terms that a business that puts up a sign is guaranteed to be liable if something happens (it will probably depend on the circumstances of a particular case) but for certain businesses that allow carry have immunity from liability for anything that happens as a result of that decision – businesses like Prairie Ridge Dental, give up such immunity. “For this reason most insurance companies (upon learning about Wisconsin’s immunity provision) advise their insured businesses not to prohibit carry. Insurance companies will take immunity every day of the week,” said Clark on Monday afternoon.
Interestingly, there was a Milwaukee County contractor Transit Express, that does transportation for people on government assistance or with disabilities, etc. They had signs up prohibiting carry. One employee (last name Henry) attacked another employee (Angel Medina) in the employee locker room and the employee being attacked pulled a gun from his locker and defended himself killing Henry, which was deemed justified by the DA.
The wife of the deceased, Gwendolyn Henry, sued Transit Express for wrongful death and an out of court settlement was reached. The irony is if Transit Express had ALLOWED carry they would have been immune from the lawsuit. Transit Express removed their “no carry” signs.
We asked Clark why, in his experience, businesses put up “no guns allowed” signs.
“I think its one of the following:”
1. Ignorance
“They assume they are better off legally by prohibiting carry and are unaware of Wisconsin’s immunity statute.”
2. Lack of Logical Thought
“They think anyone willing to do something bad with a gun will be deterred by a “no carry” sign. Lets face it. If you are willing to shoot someone or even just threaten them, you don’t care about a silly sign on the door. The penalty for shooting or threatening someone is far more severe than ‘trespassing’. A no guns sign is a welcome mat for a lunatic shooter because they know the respectful law-abiding folks will obey the sign.”
3. Anti-gun Political Bias
“I think this is a good percentage of the small businesses who prohibit carry. They don’t support the right to carry. They hate guns, and putting up a “no guns” sign is their personal little power-trip of imposing their belief on others. In this case, given the Dentist took the clients off his patient list. I suspect its the latter. An intolerant anti-gun bigot who doesn’t respect anyone’s right to disagree.”
32 Responses
What was the initial complaint like? Seems like there might be some missing info here?
Well then maybe the business should’ve replied to the media and the accusations.
We had been shopping for a new dentist for our family. This one is now off of our short list.
Sure you have.
They aren’t alone. Nobody cares if you believe it or not.
Sounds like there could be more to the story. That said, respecting private property rights is also important and thus the dental office can do as it did. If the only reason they removed the children as patients is the father’s requesting reconsideration of the policy, I agree that the dad has every right to feel upset about it. That said, this has zero to do with Second Amendment rights as the restriction was made by the owner or person in control of private property and not a governmental entity.
Bottom line:
1. The dental office, like it or not, can prohibit carrying weapons on its premises.
2. People are free to dislike (or like) the dentist’s decision to do so and to drop the children as patients and to express themselves lawfully.
3. Second Amendment is not involved here. Private property rights are.
I support Second Amendment rights. I also support private property rights. In this case, the latter wins the legal battle. How people choose to lawfully react toward this business as a result is their First Amendment choice.
The dentist has a right to treat or not treat anyone. The father has a right to patronize the dentist or not. More division of the population
Regardless of who the dad is I agree that he can express his dissatisfaction with the dental office but it’s not a Second Amendment issue.
Kevin – love your work but you almost always speel because wrong :).
You mix flip the “u” and the “a.”
Fixed! Thank you 🙂
Obviously he didnt agree with their views from the beginning. Either keep your mouth shut or go somewhere else. No one likes a wrench . Why would you let a libtard dig in your mouth any way?
I think people who keep their mouths shut about politics in today’s environment are complicit in the corruption of our society.
Looks like she got her wish for a hippopotamus for christmas, it’s in her mirror. It is nothing more than political statement when you put up a no guns allowed sign, because if it’s one thing we should have learned by now it’s people with guns who wish to do harm, ignore signs. They are definitely on the list of dentists to never consider if I am looking for a different one.
When “dad” walked in the building he saw the sign first. Could have just turned around and gone elsewhere. But he didn’t !
He responded with a challenge to what he already knew was a biased and left group of people. Whether it was the dentist or his staff that put up the sign he knew they would be irrational and stand their ground.
Could have turned around but didn’t. He got what he asked for.
Sounds like you would prefer him to be a coward? You prefer people keep their mouths shut about what is right and good? Weirdflex.
Coward ? No.
Just that people must think things thru.
When you make a statement you must expect that others will respond.
Whether the dentist thought it thru that by putting up that sign he would get responses both positive and negative, is his willingness to take the chance he will still have customers after he takes that position.
As for the dad, did he really expect them to reverse their position and take the sign down?
Putting the sign up is taking a position. A position that in today’s environment is polarizing. And he the “dad” shouldn’t complain that they held their ground.
Dad didn’t think it thru. Or maybe he did ?!
So, trying to tell someone else how to run “their” business makes him what? I prefer that people mind their own business. If you don’t like the way they run it, you are free to patronize someone else.
As I slept on this I wondered if there could be a non-political reason for the dentist not to want guns in the office. For example, could sedation be an issue with safe handling of a firearm? I don’t know the answer but it’s an interesting question.
Possible sedation would be an excellent point, but I doubt that was
what the Doctor was thinking.
Cause I’m sure you know.
People that support the 2A shouldn’t even consider transacting with any business posting these signs. Also, concealed means just that – nobody knows you’re carrying. Take that statement as you will.
exactly!!! I refuse to do business with people like this who have zero respect for our Constitution
Second Amendment applies to government activity. This is a decision by a private person relating to private property. Apples and oranges. Feel free to not like it and go elsewhere but it’s not even close to a Second Amendment issue. It is a First Amendment issue.
Well good to know! I was recommended Pleasant Prairie Dental for 3 of our grandchildren, but I quickly called my son this morning to tell him to go elsewhere as he and our granddaughters won’t be treated with dignity and respect if they don’t care about the Second Amendment! And thank you for the heads up about Wisconsin Carry–my husband and I just joined.
She looks like a hippo.
While I disagree with this business’s decision, it’s their property and they legally have the right to post that sign if they s wish. They accept the consequences should anything happen on their property.
As a customer, you have the right to not patronize their business. Butting heads with the owner is not going resolve anything. Walk away and take your business somewhere else. I’m a big fan of Capitalism as letting the consumer decide the winners/losers. If there are enough customers that support their views, the business will succeed. If not, they will take their business elsewhere. No need for any legal issues/battles. Let the market decide.
Unrelated to this article— but why did all the Google reviews disappear?!
Do what I do when I see those idiotic signs. Take your business elsewhere.
What I find interesting about these signs is that these people lump in law abiding gun owners in with thugs and terrorists.
Curious why voting on comments is not allowed? Is this for all… or just some??
You go woke, you go broke! We must unite and take our country back!
There is an interesting quirk in the Wisconsin law, that no-one seems to know; When a business posts the no gun sign, as seen above, they are assuming the financial liability for anyone injured on their property if a shooting were to occur on their property. That essentially means if you deny a person’s right to carry a weapon for self defense and they are shot and/or killed on your property and you have that sign up, you are “NOW” the one who is financially responsible to either them or their heirs under the law; not the person, who committed the crime and did the shooting.
I agree it’s a political statement, but most people don’t realize the possible devastating financial consequences of posting that sign. Additionally, it was just released that the CDC has been falsifying their released data; they have been lowering the number of reported self defense incidents of people using a firearm to defending themselves as it doesn’t fit with the gun control narrative.