Officer asked to leave gun free Outback Steakhouse

[protias]

I know this is a little older article, but I couldn't find it posted here. Outback is not a carry friendly place, even though I have found several threads here saying people had no issue. Corporate policy is no carry...except for police in uniform.

https://www.tactical-life.com/news/outback-steakhouse-tennessee-officer/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/5/outback-steakhouse-apologizes-after-uniformed-offi/

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/outback-steakhouse-no-rights-just-rules/

https://newschannel9.com/news/local...g-firearm-asked-to-leave-cleveland-restaurant

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/l...nt-because-he-had-service-weapon/51-514142825

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/3742022...nt-because-he-was-carrying-his-service-weapon

He says that another customer seated across from him was “scared for her life” and afraid because “police are shooting people.”

I just love how the "scared" woman needed to be escorted to her car with her husband by the Outback manager from the armed cop after he had left. I mean really, you say you fear cops shooting everyone, then have that cop leave, who is now outside (still armed), who could still potentially shoot you (not that he would), and have the unarmed manager "protect" you? That's like have unarmed "security." And as Lt Con Dave Grossman has said about unarmed "security," is not security.

A spokesperson from the corporate office of Outback Steakhouse said in an email that the manager made a mistake:
"We’ve always allowed uniformed law enforcement officers to carry their sidearms while dining with us. A manager made a mistake. We have contacted the guest personally and apologized."
A second spokesperson with the corporate office at Outback Steakhouse said law enforcement is an exception to its policy.
"We've always allowed uniformed law enforcement officers to carry their sides arms inside our restaurants. A manager made a mistake and we have discussed this with her. We have contacted the guest personally and apologize. Law enforcement is the exception to our policy. We are a restaurant where families often dine and where liquor is served and merely want all of our guests to feel comfortable."

And the cop had said:

"There was a mistake made and that’s it... We all make mistakes and must move forward with our lives," Ward wrote.

Seriously, either we have rights or we don't. This is no mistake, but a political agenda to keep the masses thinking every day people who have the wherewithal to protect themselves as the enemy and to roll over to the criminal.

 

[solus]

yawn...

Protias, your perspective of time is quite askew as almost 10+ months is more than quote, "...a little older article...." and the truth of the matter is SCOPES says while the thrust might be true ~ someone did get thrown out of OUTBACK as self reported on their FB account back in 2 Feb 2018, it wasn't a peace officer, but rather a Wildlife Ranger! [ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/outback-steakhouse-gun-policy-controversy/ ]

As for all the cited newspeek and social media BS articles...guess mate you shouldn't believe everything you find on Ammoland, tactickool sites, or WTs or....

oh sorry Protias, et al., please forgive me but I truly am not impressed with the gang in blue believing they are 'special, precious, and should be afforded privileges' this nation's JQCitizens aren't!

 

[protias]

yawn...

Protias, your perspective of time is quite askew as almost 10+ months is more than quote, "...a little older article...." and the truth of the matter is SCOPES says while the thrust might be true ~ someone did get thrown out of OUTBACK as self reported on their FB account back in 2 Feb 2018, it wasn't a peace officer, but rather a Wildlife Ranger! [ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/outback-steakhouse-gun-policy-controversy/ ]

As for all the cited newspeek and social media BS articles...guess mate you shouldn't believe everything you find on Ammoland, tactickool sites, or WTs or....

oh sorry Protias, et al., please forgive me but I truly am not impressed with the gang in blue believing they are 'special, precious, and should be afforded privileges' this nation's JQCitizens aren't!

I started out my post admitting the articles were old...

Park rangers are not police officers?

https://www.parkrangeredu.org/law-enforcement-and-protective-park-ranger-jobs/

Law enforcement rangers, like general park rangers, often have a strong knowledge of natural resource management, but they must also have a background that includes training and education in law enforcement.
Law enforcement rangers serve as the “eyes and ears” of the parks in which they work. This means they are knowledgeable of:

• The park system and related rules and regulations within the park
• Laws and regulations at the local, state and federal level
• Basic law enforcement
• Emergency operations

Law enforcement rangers are primarily responsible for providing law enforcement services, which often includes:

• Detecting and investigating violations of local, state and/or federal criminal laws
• Apprehending and detaining violators
• Patrolling park grounds, enforcing park rules and regulations and protecting park resources
• Providing search and rescue services
• Assisting other law enforcement agencies
• Responding to emergency incidents and providing emergency care

And where did I ever say I support special privileges for some? I'm pretty sure I said that in my final paragraph...

 

[CJ4wd]

While the article may not be as "timely" as some people like, it is still desireable to point out business policies that are inconsistent with 2A tenets. Even IF the manager "made a mistake", the fact that Outback limits carry to UNIFORMED officers (what about "plain-clothed" officers or detectives?) is a slap in the face to everybody else.

 

[OC for ME]

We continue to miss the singular point...that LEO, and the complainer is a LEO, would not hesitate to subject a OCer to enhanced scrutiny, or worse, because he enjoys state sponsored extra-privileges...and expects special consideration from private property owners. Outback should stick to its guns and make no exceptions.

We are a restaurant where families often dine and where liquor is served and merely want all of our guests to feel comfortable."

Obviously Outback, which usually have parking lots, does not detect the irony in this statement.

 

[Ghost1958]

If a citizen can't carry there while eating neither should a LEO be able too.

That said. An open to the public business should not be allowed to ban firearms.

 

[OC for ME]

Should the government, and its armed minions, be used to encourage the recognition of our 2A guarantee on another citizen's private property?

 

[scooter348]

So the LEO, carrying a firearm as a tool of his profession, should have to remove it while he eats in a restaurant?

You cop haters are a real piece of work.

 

[protias]

Should the government, and its armed minions, be used to encourage the recognition of our 2A guarantee on another citizen's private property?

Doesn't the government do this already? ADA, color of skin, etc, etc, etc.

 

[OC for ME]

Don't agree with any of those other infringements either.

 

[OC for ME]

So the LEO, carrying a firearm as a tool of his profession, should have to remove it while he eats in a restaurant?

You cop haters are a real piece of work.

Wrong perspective...one that cop apologist use routinely. The Great Unwashed Masses have every right to defend themselves as that cop, with his gubbmint issued pistol, has whether he is on or off the clock.

No gun for me...no gun for he. The private property owner has the last word, right wrong or indifferent.

 

[HP995]

So the LEO, carrying a firearm as a tool of his profession, should have to remove it while he eats in a restaurant?

You cop haters are a real piece of work.

Scooter, it's a question of whether to accept a small partial truth versus the whole truth.

Yes, an LEO should be able to eat while armed. But no, he should not be the ONLY one privileged to do so by virtue of guvperks, hypocrisy, and corruption. Nor should a restaurant be encouraged to discriminate against peaceable citizens and the basic rights/truths recognized by the highest law of our land.

So the question might be amended, something like this:

"So the LEO, carrying a firearm as a tool of his guv-privileged/VIP profession, should have to remove it while he eats in a restaurant that forbids the "tools" of safety to all other non-VIP second-class diners?"

That probably makes me the biggest "cop hater" ever to donate my hard-earned 2nd-class $$$ to the local LE union.

That was during the height of violent BLM/etc attacks and protests pre-Trump and I wanted to show a little support for rule of law.

(Funny how many NeverTrumpers forgot those dangerous times so quickly, and get so fake-righteous-angry about a little take-no-more-BS tweeting when they never made a peep about the endless escalating lawlessness that came before. Trump has big flaws and flouts too, but at least he's not afraid to call out bad behavior for fear of political correctness, and his law and order campaign pitch was pretty well-targeted in 2016.)

OC4Me and Ghost hit the bullseye eloquently:

We continue to miss the singular point...that LEO, and the complainer is a LEO, would not hesitate to subject a OCer to enhanced scrutiny, or worse, because he enjoys state sponsored extra-privileges...and expects special consideration from private property owners. Outback should stick to its guns and make no exceptions.

If a citizen can't carry there while eating neither should a LEO be able too.

 

[solus]

So the LEO, carrying a firearm as a tool of his profession, should have to remove it while he eats in a restaurant?

You cop haters are a real piece of work.

Spoken as the privileged LE you are that unless you have and show all my brothern in blue unconditional respect, in deeds, action towards, speech, and allow US to do as we please...you are labeled a constable on patrol [cop] hater.

 

[scooter348]

Wrong perspective...one that cop apologist use routinely. The Great Unwashed Masses have every right to defend themselves as that cop, with his gubbmint issued pistol, has whether he is on or off the clock.

No gun for me...no gun for he. The private property owner has the last word, right wrong or indifferent.

Typical cop-hating attitude. You hate the fact that a LEO can be armed somewhere and you can't. Rather than address the problem with the establishment that discriminates against the armed citizen, you stomp your foot and cry (whiny voice)"If I can't have one, neither should he!" So you want the LEO to be unarmed as you. What if the LEO encounters someone he has previously arrested who has decided to ignore the No Gun Rule and exact some revenge on said LEO? How is that LEO supposed to defend himself? With his OC spray? Or his ASP? I agree 100% that citizens should be able to protect themselves, armed or otherwise. I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I totally support your right to carry everywhere I, as a LEO, can carry. But the argument that if a citizen can't carry there than the LEO shouldn't be able to carry there is just plain dumb. Stop being haters.

 

[scooter348]

Spoken as the privileged LE you are that unless you have and show all my brothern in blue unconditional respect, in deeds, action towards, speech, and allow US to do as we please...you are labeled a constable on patrol [cop] hater.

Crickey, mate! You got all that out of a 32 word post? I don't show all my brethren in blue unconditional respect, why would you assume I require you to do it? If you had your way, you would label us all after Reg Christie!

 

[solus]

Typical cop-hating attitude. You hate the fact that a LEO can be armed somewhere and you can't. Rather than address the problem with the establishment that discriminates against the armed citizen, you stomp your foot and cry (whiny voice)"If I can't have one, neither should he!" So you want the LEO to be unarmed as you. What if the LEO encounters someone he has previously arrested who has decided to ignore the No Gun Rule and exact some revenge on said LEO? How is that LEO supposed to defend himself? [1] With his OC spray? Or his ASP? I agree 100% that citizens should be able to protect themselves, armed or otherwise. I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I totally support your right to carry everywhere I, as a LEO, can carry. But the argument that if a citizen can't carry there than the LEO shouldn't be able to carry there is just plain dumb. Stop being haters.

Crickey, mate! You got all that out of a 32 word post? I don't show all my brethren in blue unconditional respect, why would you assume I require you to do it? [2] If you had your way, you would label us all after Reg Christie!

Scooter, i am truly sadden and disappointed with your expressed hostile & errant mentality you are currently exhibiting towards your employers ~ the citizens of your locale, state, and this country.

You did postulate an interesting concept which i have highlighted in [1] from your post above...tho I must counter with the same hypothesis with minor word changes...

HOW IS A JQCITIZEN SUPPOSE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WHEN THE NICE LE ISNT AVAILABLE?

[case in point of the good deputy Peterson and his actions during the Parkland shool shooting. JQCITIZEN isn’t allowed to carry on educational property, while the nice RSO Deputy Peterson was...please tell me how well that worked for those killed/injured in the school?]

Finally, per your comment in [2] so if YOU don’t show your blue brethren unconditional respect, and yet you then go on to state something about why we assume YOU require JQCitizen be required to, then why on earth have you engaged in labeling forum members with such a derogatory term?

 

[Ghost1958]

Typical cop-hating attitude. You hate the fact that a LEO can be armed somewhere and you can't. Rather than address the problem with the establishment that discriminates against the armed citizen, you stomp your foot and cry (whiny voice)"If I can't have one, neither should he!" So you want the LEO to be unarmed as you. What if the LEO encounters someone he has previously arrested who has decided to ignore the No Gun Rule and exact some revenge on said LEO? How is that LEO supposed to defend himself? With his OC spray? Or his ASP? I agree 100% that citizens should be able to protect themselves, armed or otherwise. I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I totally support your right to carry everywhere I, as a LEO, can carry. But the argument that if a citizen can't carry there than the LEO shouldn't be able to carry there is just plain dumb. Stop being haters.

Plain dumb?
OK. I've had one family member murdered, and an attempt made on my daughter and I. As a, civilian.

Which is likely more than 90 % of cops have had on their lives.
Nobody was ID nor caught.

Now. Since we are supposing.
Suppose I followed the no gun for citizens stupidity in a restaurant (which I wouldn't), and another attempt was made to kill me. What am I supposed to defend myself with?
The salt shaker? Maybe a spoon or butter knife?

What's dumb is the idea most cops have that their lives are more valuable and worth protecting than a citizens life.

As I said no open to the public area should be allowed to ban firearms. I don't care who owns it.

But as long as that stupidity is allowed if a LEO can carry in a place whining, "but but how can I defend myself. I'm special you know. Officer safety and such". Then any citizen free to walk the streets should be too.

 

[since9]

We the People actually have greater right to keep and bear arms than do law enforcement officers on duty. Ours is expressly recognized and protected by the Constitution itself, whereas those of law enforcement officers on duty are merely derived. Several areas of the Constitution attest to this, including, but not limited to our Second Amendment.

The problem is, we don't enjoy that right in many areas of the United States because of widespread local, county, state, and even federal situational myopia, ignorance of the Constitution, bias towards law enforcement aka "the man" and prejudice against We the People.

The only way to change it by exercising our Constitutional rights, primarily, to redress government of our grievances, and secondarily, to vote them out when they refuse to listed. Third is quite important, as well: educating others and encouraging them to stand firm against the domestic enemies, as well.

 

[OC for ME]

Typical cop-hating attitude. ...

The fact the cop whined on a public forum that he could not carry while on duty, and now you as well, is the point that you clearly ignore (philysophically disagree with?). What work are you doing to encourage any business who grants you access while armed and will deny me access while armed to change their policy. Or, do you simply enjoy the exception granted to you (and all cops) and support theses anti-2A businesses with your dollars.

So you want the LEO to be unarmed as you. ...

Appeals to emotion are a poor debate tactic. A cop can defend himself in the same improvised manner that I must employ to defend my self.

I agree 100% that citizens should be able to protect themselves, armed or otherwise. ....

If you enjoy the exemption granted by these anti-2A businesses then your 100% claim rings hollow.

The irony in the last sentence of the cop's FB post, that escapes him and you, is thick enough to cut with a salt shaker.

 

[HP995]

Don't be afraid Mr. LE, we lowly 2nd-class citizens will risk our own less valuable necks to protect you while you eat at anti-carry establishments, with a stern word, a fencing fork, or a mighty kungfu move if necessary! Welcome to our world.