Waffle House continues company policy to ban permitted concealed handguns

Crime Prevention Research Center ^ | April 23, 2018

[rogerantone1]

Waffle House has continued to have a gun-free zone policy. Here is a statement that Waffle House issued in October 2015 after an attack that was stopped outside their restaurant by a permit holder

[HamiltonJay]

A business has the right to deny you to carry your firearm on their property.....

However, because this business is refusing you the right of self defense, while on their property it seems reasonable that said business should be criminally and civilly responsible for any and all harm that comes to you as a result of not being able to defend yourself on their property should such events occur.

IF this isn’t the law, it should be. Particularly CRIMINALLY.

[ontap]

There is room for discussion here but my opinion is my 2nd ammendment rights supersede his property rights. The days of business owners having complete control of their establishments were ended when the courts ruled they could not refuse service to anyone if it violated their constitutional rights !!!

[qaz123]

Funny you say that. I frequent two. And I’ve never seen any of those signs. Not that anyone, working there or eating there would pay any attention to them.

[DoughtyOne]

LoL

[Freedom4US]

LOL!!

Take another bong hit Gus. Property rights died a long, long, time ago. Apparently when you weren’t paying attention. LOL!!

Thanks for my first daily chuckle though. I needed it.

[Garth Tater]

No problem Freedumb, I always enjoy setting people up for a laugh at our Founding Fathers and the principles our nation was founded upon. Have a great day!

[Freedom4US]

Dude. You. Don’t. Get. It.

There is no such thing as “private property” with respect to a business open to the general public. I’m on your side. I really am.

But you need to look at things how they really are, not how you wish them to be.

[Garth Tater]

That's right, Dude. Use the logic that the state's legislature and governor have removed a property owner's right to decide who can or cannot smoke in their establishment as the justification for you to deny him the right to decide that you may or may not enter his establishment while carrying a gun. Two wrongs somehow make it right in your mind I guess.

I do find it interesting that you correctly identified that the notion of a public accommodation was an asinine reason for the first infringement of the property owner's rights by the state, but then immediately turned around and used it to justify your own violation of his rights. Interesting, but not interesting enough to continue a conversation with you. Enjoy your day over at DU. Tell all your friends we said hello,

[Freedom4US]

What is your problem? LOL!!

It may be much deeper than the subject at hand, oftentimes the issue isn’t really the issue. Let’s try to see where you’re running into confusion.

I agree with you - the notion that state legislatures or local jurisdictions, or anybody else has the power to unilaterally force businesses to become “smoke free” is completely wrong and misguided. I get that. Any freedom loving minded person understands this implicitly. And the way they couched this, part of the terminology or verbiage they used for their rationale or justification as you put it - was that a restaurant or business is not “private property”; it is open to the public. Therefore, it is a place of “public accomodation.”

You don’t have to agree with this. You don’t have to like it. But that’s what they did, that’s what they say they believe, that is their logic.

Consequently, I am in favor of using their very own logic, reasoning, and justification and shoving it right back at them with respect to this issue. Hit back twice as hard. Why is this controversial for you? Why do you see this a problem?

[Garth Tater]

"Consequently, I am in favor of using their very own logic, reasoning, and justification and shoving it right back at them with respect to this issue."


You seem to have your parties confused, Freedumb.

The property owner has done nothing to you and had no say in the smoking-vs-no-smoking matter. They have simply followed the law and in no way have any of their actions justified your violation of their rights.

The asinine "logic, reasoning and justification" is wholly on the part of the state - and yet for some reason you want to use the state's actions as a reason to deny the property owners their God given right to control their property as they see fit.

You don't even have the weak argument of "but I'm following the law," as even the law says that you are in the wrong here.

You are one strange fellow, Freedumb. Morally wrong in violating the owner's rights. Legally wrong in violating the law. But it's all good as long as you get to shove it right back at  them  somebody, right?

_________________________________________________________

Maybe it's time to put down the pipe, Dude. You'll think better in the morning.

[Freedom4US]

I get it now. I see where you are getting upset, because I’m really talking about the “state” with a small “s”.

We’re not really talking about the property owners Gus! We’re talking about the state. The property owners are fcked, we all get that, when it comes to property rights. That ship sailed a long long time ago. We are agreed on that, I think. What we’re talking about here is peaceable citizens going about their business, being able to defend themselves anywhere they have a right to be.

The fundamental God given right of self defense for any individual outweighs a sticker on a door right?