Waffle House Refused to Serve an Armed, Uniformed U.S

[Jimmyp25]

First police are getting refused, now our armed service members!


Waffle*House*Refused*to*Serve*an*Armed,*Uni formed*U.S.*Soldier - Eater

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Jimmyp25

First police are getting refused, now our armed service members!
Waffle*House*Refused*to*Serve*an*Armed,*Uniformed* U.S.*Soldier - Eater

According to the link, Waffle House has a policy of prohibiting firearms unless they are being carried by a law enforcement officer. This article claims he was with the Army National Guard http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...=NYDailyNewsTw
But no matter what branch of the service he is with, why would he be wearing a sidearm?

[froglipz]

I don't think that military personnel can carry sidearms off base in a non combat area.

Here’s an excerpt from Defense Department policy on carrying firearms:

The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed.

Sounds fishy to me.

[Suburban_Guy]

Seems like an attempt at 'shaming' waffle house simply because, gasp, this was a member of the military.

Policies and rules are just that. Not only military as per DoD policy above but also waffle house policy, only exception is law enforcement.

Sorry but no sympathy from me.

[Jimmyp25]

Is it possible that the waffle house was in the range of a base? Possible the solider was a "MP"? ..

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by froglipz

I don't think that military personnel can carry sidearms off base in a non combat area.

Here’s an excerpt from Defense Department policy on carrying firearms:

The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed.

Sounds fishy to me.

I did a little research and apparently in a few states (including Kentucky) there are state laws allowing National Guard members to carry sidearms at any time they want as long as they are in uniform

[LordSquidworth]

He wasn't refused service, he was asked to take his firearm outside. Huge difference.

Waffle House isn't public space, it's private property. They say no guns, it means no guns.

[Suburban_Guy]

Originally Posted by LordSquidworth

He wasn't refused service, he was asked to take his firearm outside. Huge difference.

Waffle House isn't public space, it's private property. They say no guns, it means no guns.

Good point.

In fact, that makes him look even more foolish.

No doubt there may be a minor attempt at 'viral shaming' Waffle House, again, simply because this was a military member. But I'm sure most people are smarter than that.

[don1945]

He had no reason to have his weapon on him, he could have locked it in his trunk, eaten, and then retrieved it when he was done.

He was playing soldier and felt above their policy. They did the right thing.

Don

[WIHS2006]

Does this 'no firearms' policy apply to law enforcement? I am actually surprised by this, I can see being antsy about armed civilians but a uniformed soldier of the Kentucky Army National Guard or a sworn LEO is a different story.