Why wouldn't the Waffle House want some LAC carrying?
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...eter-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw-GA-Wafflehouse
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...eter-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw-GA-Wafflehouse
Who would have thought that a Waffle House in Kentucky would refuse to serve anybody for openly carrying a firearm? I'd have been more likely to think that being armed would be a requirement, sort of like the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" rule, or finer dining establishments requiring that gentlemen wear a jacket and tie. But apparently the owner of several central Kentucky Waffle House restaurants, including at least some in Lexington, has a no guns policy but doesn't post any signs so they don't get the lost business from Kentuckians who object to their disarmament policy. The story is getting a bit of national attention and they may be getting some push back against their no guns policy.
http://www.lex18.com/story/30134712/restaurant-refuses-service-to-soldier-for-carrying-firearm
If you'd like to provide some kind and respectful feedback t the owner of these Waffle House locations....
http://www.wafflehouselex.com/#!location/c14xr
I know all of the Waffle houses in Nashville had no firearm signs on them.
I am wondering if this is a corporate policy or maybe a local franchise owner policy?
The thought of any member of the military carrying a firearm AND in uniform, outside of their base, or training area, is highly offensive to the sense of liberties that said member of the military swore to protect, and defend.
If I cared in the slightest bit at all, I'd be raising a ruckus to that dude's C/O, and anyone else I could give an ear-full.
I can say if I was his C/O, I'd tell you to take your highly offended self on long walk off a short plank. How dare you say that the men and women who, as YOU pointed out, swore to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, have no right to self defense while out in public just because they're in uniform. The military is not just "subordinate" to We the People. They are PART of We the People.
POLICY
. It is DoD policy that:
a. DoD personnel, to whom this Directive is applicable, shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.
This is a part of the policy of the DOD directive. Self explanatory. I have no problem with the military carrying off base, but remember, this gentleman was National Guard, at the direction of the governor of the Commonwealth and not the DOD. Also, the argument that had happened earlier is in dispute. No police report of the incident that I have seen. The policy of Waffle House is archaic and irresponsible.
He is not DOD personnel, therefore, not under the control or guidance of the DOD. He is a member of the Kentucky National Guard, therefore, under direction of the Commonwealth and the governor.
I can say if I was his C/O, I'd tell you to take your highly offended self on long walk off a short plank. How dare you say that the men and women who, as YOU pointed out, swore to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, have no right to self defense while out in public just because they're in uniform. The military is not just "subordinate" to We the People. They are PART of We the People.
Police Praise Concealed Permit Holder For Stopping Waffle House Robbery
A concealed carry permit holder was praised for shooting an armed robbery suspect around 5 a.m. on October 10, thereby stopping the robbery of a Waffle House in Charleston, South Carolina.
One of the uniformed officers who responded to the 911 calls said, “It says something about firearms, for good people with firearms being in the right hands.”
According to The Post and Courier, police received “reports of an armed robbery and shots fired.” They arrived to find “the suspect had been shot.” Waffle House employees told police that an armed customer had stopped the robbery. One employee said, “He saved us, that’s what he did.”
The suspect was taken to Medical University Hospital in critical condition, and no other injuries were reported.
On September 27, a Waffle House in Nicholasville, Kentucky, refused to serve a uniformed National Guard soldier because he had his gun holstered in plain sight. A waitress told him he would have to leave his gun outside if he wanted service.
In the face of public outcry over the treatment of the soldier and a gun policy that keeps law-abiding citizens defenseless in the face of danger, the Nicholasville Waffle House said, “For many years, we have had a ‘No Firearms’ policy in place in our restaurants. We continue to believe this is the best policy for the safety of our customers and associates.”
A related development in South Carolina, and the Nicholasville Kentucky incident is cited.
http://www.gunowners.org/defense10102015.htm
Also, and I'm now commenting on what I think the law should be and not necessarily on what the law is... I think denying a person of the right to keep and bear arms because he is in uniform in any branch of an armed service is as wrong as prohibiting someone from being armed because he's Jewish, gay, or of some perceived race. Unalienable rights are for everyone. What shouldn't be allowed are armed forces patrolling our streets acting under the central control of government. We had posse comitatus for a good reason. But that's completely different from a guy in the National Guard openly carrying a firearm and eating breakfast. IMO. Waffle House has the right to deny armed individuals from entering their restaurants (although the above article demonstrates why that's a stupid thing to do), and I have the right to boycott Waffle House. Property rights & free markets for the win!
however, the gunowner's blog attempting to tie the two together...they are not remotely related and it is the kind of journalism i would come to expect from fox news.
the KY NG individual, i am sure did not have permission from his KY TAG to be armed, with his personal firearm no less, and the comments from those Sr enlisted are misguided, per se. the young man was in the wrong, especially with this specific individual's history of causing/participating in etc., that came to light at that particular WH a couple of weeks previously.
i personally do not frequent WH as i do not enjoy the almost immediate aftermath of their greasy fare.
ipse
now hotrod, the particular young man in question of this thread at the WH was OC'g! seems the cite doesn't seem to mention that option.
now finally, Sgt, didn't know WH was considered a NG facilities or a recruiting stations.