No OC For National Guard At Nicholasville Waffle House

[protias]

Why wouldn't the Waffle House want some LAC carrying?

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...eter-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw-GA-Wafflehouse

 

[travr6]

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?

 

[Liberty4Ever]

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 signs certainly look like this is a corporate policy. They have the Waffle House logo on them and they're professionally made. All of the ones I've seen, locally and online in other locations, all look the same.

I took a picture, but I believe gutshot linked to a picture of the sign earlier in this thread.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I am bothered that some people think NG is more equal than non government agent law abiding citizens. This is no different then Local, state, or federal agents getting special rights.

Unless policy has changed federal soldiers may not carry while in uniform unless ordered. NG unless called out by the president are not federal, so it is up to the governor.

But I know plenty of soldiers who carry CC while off duty in uniform, don't ask, don't tell.

 

[56brd]

I don't want anyone to think I am taking the side of Waffle House. I do however think they should
be able to have people hear their side of the story.

I sent an e-mail. Waffle house says, this young man was in their establishment a earlier the same
week and was involved in a fight, so when he arrived this time on the midnight shift with the weapon
he was asked to leave. Probably would have been asked to leave even if he hadn't be carrying a weapon.

I deleted the mail so this is the readers digest version, and not word for word. They feel the incident
was not appropriately reported.

 

[solus]

Update

http://www.lex18.com/story/30149876...2nd-statement-on-incident-with-national-guard

quote:
We normally are very loose on how we enforce that policy in terms of the military. However, on this particular incident, two facts have not been reported accurately that facilitated the situation with Mr. Welch. First, he was an active participant in a fight on the premises several weeks prior to September 27th. He was restrained and taken off the premises by off-duty police officers that were eating in the restaurant at the time. The second item not reported accurately was the time the most recent incident occurred, 2AM. We have associates who have to make snap decisions on our third shifts to provide for their own safety and the safety of our customers. Our associates decided because of Mr. Welch's recent altercation, which they witnessed, it was in their best interest at 2 AM to ask Mr. Welch to leave his firearm in his vehicle. Mr. Welch decided to leave. unquote

quote:
In response to that statement, Welch told LEX 18's Josh Breslow that the altercation involved him being attacked in the parking lot. Welch said there was no fight and that he chose not to press charges. unquote

quote:
Several people have questioned whether Welch was allowed to have his personal weapon on him while in uniform and off duty. A spokesperson for the Kentucky National Guard said Welch was authorized to do so because he had his concealed carry and was not brandishing the weapon. However, Welch also had to comply with the "no firearms" policy at Waffle House. unquote.

ipse

 

[Grapeshot]

The spin cycle goes round and round.

 

[DrakeZ07]

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 they was on their way to, or from, their base/training, they can darn well change in/out of their uniform at the base/training facility, or in the car in the parking lot. We're not Russia, or China, where military people are free and open to be in uniform and carry firearms at the same time. I've got family members that was, or still are, in the military, and I asked one family member, currently in the marines, what would happened if he was in uniform, and carrying his own sidearm, and went to eat at a restuarant... He said his C/O, and every rung of the ladder down to his Platoon Sergeant, would, well to put it politely and not to use his own words as they were not ... civilized; He'd get chewed out, and demoted quicker than he could even think possible.

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.

The military are subordinate to We the People, seeing them armed, and in uniform, conveys a sense of them acting under color of law, and with official authority. Despite how power hungry the military are in general, that's a can of worms I doubt any military lawyer would want to defend against.

 

[DeSchaine]

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.

 

[solus]

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.

whoa there stand down a moment...you might read post seven (7) before you begin your chastising of drake...as well as take a gander at this DoD directive which says unless under appropriate order, DoD directive 5210.56, 1 April 2011, explicitly lays out the circumstances, a military member may only be armed with a service provided weapon! (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf)

so, the NG lad, who interestingly enough at the same location, got into an altercation couple of weeks previously, can't just holster up while he is his prudy but i am sure wrinkled uniform and strap on your personal firearm to saunter about hither and yon amongst the countryside and populaces cuz you are afraid!!

ipse

 

[hotrod]

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.

 

[solus]

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.

i have looked at, read, and re-read your post and yet fail to see any type of nomenclature signifying a policy number nor some kind of context?
oh wait...you meant under paragraph 4. DoD Policy

instead of just quoting your own little slice of the document, which you believe suits and supports your own personal interpretation let's look at 4(b):

b. Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. Evaluation of the necessity to arm DoD personnel shall be made with the consideration of the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of those arms. However, the overriding factors in determining whether or not to arm are the mission and threat. Arming DoD personnel (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) shall be limited to missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DoD assets or persons’ lives

now that were was a verifiable altercation, lack of police report notwithstanding, could signify there could be an alternative motive to be in uniform as well as to be armed with our personal firearm!!

ipse

 

[hotrod]

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.

 

[shaun]

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.

Hotrod is correct. Unless on Title 10 Active Duty orders placing them subject to DoD regulations, NG/ANG falls under Title 32. As such, NG/ANG members are not subject to UCMJ (unless Title 10) but instead are subject to their State laws. Yeah, it can get confusing. It all comes down to Title status and corresponding jurisdiction. It's this reason a Governor may allow his militia to be armed whereas I, a Member of the Reserve may not while in uniform or on Federal property.

Carry Safe

 

[shaun]

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.

+1

 

[Liberty4Ever]

A related development in South Carolina, and the Nicholasville Kentucky incident is cited.

http://www.gunowners.org/defense10102015.htm

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.”

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!

 

[solus]

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

 

[hotrod]

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

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...l-guard-bases-and-recruitment-offices/315976/

Yes, he was allowed to carry in uniform. The governor authorized it, as long as the NG member had a CDWL. There is a push to allow CC without a CDWL currently. So, please make sure you know what you are talking about. Disinformation appears to be your forte.

 

[solus]

so gunny, you're quick on quoting the july newspaper article where the KY governor authorized the adjutant to issue guidance to have allowed NG members to carry firearms ~ quote: ...enhance security at state National Guard facilities and recruiting stations ...allowing active duty servicemen to carry concealed weapons at state facilities.... unquote.

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. additionally your cite states: quote: ...as long as they have a valid concealed weapons permit unquote

further, as an NCO, i know you must be familiar that when dealing with the military and its officialdom mentality and know they are not going to let just any smuck carry a firearm as there would be appropriately training certs to be shown to supervisors as well have appropriate documents showing permission to carry WHILE AT NG FACILITIES & RECRUITING STATIONS!

further, i didn't see any correction to my comment about the TEG approving carry on a case by case basis. nor any refuting the young man's altercation several weeks earlier...could it be, nawlll he is NG and couldn't conceive of premeditation of revenge could he.

now finally, Sgt, didn't know WH was considered a NG facilities or a recruiting stations.

oh and btw, what you were saying about me...oh ya that is it: quote So, please make sure you know what you are talking about. Disinformation appears to be your forte. you might, just might practice what you sling.

ipse

 

[Liberty4Ever]

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.

Being from North Carolina, you may not realize that non-felon adults have always had the right to openly carry firearms in Kentucky, and that's why the statement deals with concealed carry. Concealed carry of deadly weapons is the only bearing of arms that Kentucky regulates. Similarly, the statement emphasizes facilities and recruiting stations, not because that's the only place that national guard troops would be allowed to keep and bear arms, but rather because that's the only place they were previously prohibited from being armed, in much the same way that any employer could make a firearms policy for the place of employment. So to summarize, the statement specifically mentions concealed carry and recruiting centers and other facilities because Kentuckians would already understand that open carry anywhere else would not be an issue. Kentuckians have that right, and our laws have always recognized that right.