BW3 refuses to serve armed officers... sort of

.

The clerk applied the company anti-gun policy.
The officers didn't like it, didn't want to leave their guns in their cars like any other customer.
A stink was raised, letters were written, the manager apologized.
Applying it unfairly is even worse than having the policy in the first place.
http://manassas.patch.com/articles/...ervice-at-manassas-restaurant-because-of-guns

(And maybe they didn't know BW3 was anti-rights... why would they want to give money to a company with such a policy?)

Agreed MKEgal. Policy should be policy. Being a LEO should not also make you a Citizen+.

Carthago Delenda Est

It's this type of ridiculousness that's going to backfire on the pro-firearm community. Mark my words. It looks great on paper, and it's certainly a stick in the eye of the State, but there is zero ground gained in the pro-firearm community.

You should know by now,

kurt555gs said:

Agreed MKEgal. Policy should be policy. Being a LEO should not also make you a Citizen+.

Carthago Delenda Est

Click to expand...

The "Golden Children" think the laws don't apply to them. Same goes for private company policies, they don't apply to them.

Like Senators and Representatives, the laws are only for the "common man" not the privileged!

Still not sure why people call it "bw3". Last I checked, Buffalo Wild Wings hasn't had 3 W's since the last century.