Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Sept 30, 2015 22:07:39 GMT -5
Ohhhh Research strikes again! Found this little tid-bit while looking for Kentucky's open-carry status: (bolding everywhere except the title is mine) This sounds like it is referring to "public areas" or govt-run areas. Private businesses/establishments can make their own rules and that should be respected. Those are the kind of rights that we in the military are fighting for/serving for. Yes, the GOVT won't take away your right but when you are in a PRIVATE business, home, etc, they have the right to limit firearms. It is kind of like people's misunderstanding of the 1st amendment. They think it gives them the right to run their mouths with no repercussions. Well, that isn't true. Yes, the GOVT can't come down on you for a racist/sexist/profanity-laced rant but your employer sure can. Your rights can't be taken by the GOVT but the Waffle House isn't a govt run establishment.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,460
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 30, 2015 22:09:05 GMT -5
I would like to know why the guy was wearing his national guard uniform and wanting to eat at a Waffle House at 0200. Was he on his way to his base? Was he coming home from his base? Or was he just out and about wesring his uniform for no other reason than to be about wearing his uniform.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Sept 30, 2015 22:13:05 GMT -5
For the record (if anyone cares) Kentucky is an "open carry" state. He was legally within his rights to have it holstered and in view, in public, due to that fact. But... more importantly. According to the link provided by Mardi Gras Audrey in Reply #19, he's proven to be a serviceman and authorized to carry. I guess that solves the "what if he was just a wacko dressed up as a soldier?" and "did he even have the right to be armed?" questions... Actually, it doesn't. How is the night shift Waffle House waitress supposed to verify this? How does the staff confirm he's a "legit soldier" vs some drunk nutjob who lives next to an Army surplus store? These people don't have the luxury at 2 AM to find this kind of information out and they have to keep a safe environment. Better to just ask people with guns to put them away before eating. FWIW, I personally know several people who are "military obsessed" and think they are Marines. One was enlisted for about 3 days and they sent him home after figuring out he's nuts. He is still convinced that one day, he will be a Marine Pilot (He is in his 30s and has no chance). He wears camo, talks about the Marines every day, and is the kind of dude you would see at a Waffle House at 2 AM. How would the Waffle House staff know he's just a nutjob with a military obsession vs a true member or vet?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,460
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 30, 2015 22:14:12 GMT -5
Richard-you forgot this part of Audrey's link: "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."" I forgot nothing. I was addressing questions of him even being a soldier and questions of him being allowed to be armed in the first place... I was not addressing his being armed while inside the Waffle House. Re-read what I posted (and you quoted) for confirmation. Note the italicized/bolded. I didn't say I was addressing the "did he have the right to be armed in a Waffle House?" question... just the "did he even have the right to be armed?" one. I know what you were addressing. But it addressed nothing about members of the military who are wearing military uniforms at 0200 hours. I would imagine the military has their own rules about their members wearing their uniforms off-base, off-duty, and carrying sidearms out and about in public.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Sept 30, 2015 22:44:01 GMT -5
Those who lie about receiving decorations...not only a MOH but any decoration..{ I met some one who lied about receiving a Purple Heart and a CIB..}it is despicable ...but with that said...there is also the following to consider.. "“The right to speak and write whatever one chooses ― including, to some degree, worthless, offensive and demonstrable untruths ― without cowering in fear of a powerful government is, in our view, an essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment. The greatest damage done seems to be to the reputations of the liars themselves,” wrote Smith.Since SCOTUS has decided to hear the case on this next year it will be interesting to see how they handle this.... Just for my own information..my civic lessons were weak on some things..If Congress passes a law ..say on this or any specific what ever...it passes both houses ..no veto from the Executive branch...can that passed law of the land still be decided by SCOTUS if heard decide that it is unconstitutional and over turn it..??
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Sept 30, 2015 22:51:45 GMT -5
Those who lie about receiving decorations...not only a MOH but any decoration..{ I met some one who lied about receiving a Purple Heart and a CIB..}it is despicable ...but with that said...there is also the following to consider.. "“The right to speak and write whatever one chooses ― including, to some degree, worthless, offensive and demonstrable untruths ― without cowering in fear of a powerful government is, in our view, an essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment. The greatest damage done seems to be to the reputations of the liars themselves,” wrote Smith.Since SCOTUS has decided to hear the case on this next year it will be interesting to see how they handle this.... Just for my own information..my civic lessons were weak on some things.. If Congress passes a law ..say on this or any specific what ever...it passes both houses ..no veto from the Executive branch...can that passed law of the land still be decided by SCOTUS if heard decide that it is unconstitutional and over turn it..?? Yes, it is the checks and balances. If SCOTUS decides it is unconstitutional, that makes it void, no matter how "popular" the law is (Whether it is popular with the people, the Congress, or the President). It is important they have this power, as otherwise you would have laws passed and enforced that are unconstitutional but they are "popular" so they won't be overturned. A lot of rights we have now are because SCOTUS decided that the "popular law" was wrong (and unconstitutional). Usually, a passed "popular law" is how the case gets to SCOTUS. The parties suing are saying the govt is infringing their constitutional rights by having laws X, Y, Z, etc. SCOTUS looks at the laws and the constitution and decides if the law is/isn't constitutional. If it isn't, SCOTUS strikes the law (or the unconstitutonal part) down. Then, it isn't the law of the land anymore.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Sept 30, 2015 22:54:49 GMT -5
I forgot nothing. I was addressing questions of him even being a soldier and questions of him being allowed to be armed in the first place... I was not addressing his being armed while inside the Waffle House. Re-read what I posted (and you quoted) for confirmation. Note the italicized/bolded. I didn't say I was addressing the "did he have the right to be armed in a Waffle House?" question... just the "did he even have the right to be armed?" one. I know what you were addressing. But it addressed nothing about members of the military who are wearing military uniforms at 0200 hours. I would imagine the military has their own rules about their members wearing their uniforms off-base, off-duty, and carrying sidearms out and about in public. If for what ever reason he was in uniform when ever....even if KY has a open law of open carry...when in uniform, one has to wear uniform , decorations ..what ever in a authorized manner and to carry personnel weapons while in uniform I would think would be a violation , whether concealed or openly....Military very strick on that ...proper wearing of ... I did have a experience back in the day..a short R/R in Saigon...Weapons verbotem by military personnel unless authorized ...I did carry but seriously concealed and probably would have had my butt reamed if caught but with what was going on then just felt better about being armed...but that was then and I was a young sh*t with few brains at times...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Sept 30, 2015 22:57:55 GMT -5
Those who lie about receiving decorations...not only a MOH but any decoration..{ I met some one who lied about receiving a Purple Heart and a CIB..}it is despicable ...but with that said...there is also the following to consider.. "“The right to speak and write whatever one chooses ― including, to some degree, worthless, offensive and demonstrable untruths ― without cowering in fear of a powerful government is, in our view, an essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment. The greatest damage done seems to be to the reputations of the liars themselves,” wrote Smith.Since SCOTUS has decided to hear the case on this next year it will be interesting to see how they handle this.... Just for my own information..my civic lessons were weak on some things.. If Congress passes a law ..say on this or any specific what ever...it passes both houses ..no veto from the Executive branch...can that passed law of the land still be decided by SCOTUS if heard decide that it is unconstitutional and over turn it..?? Yes, it is the checks and balances. If SCOTUS decides it is unconstitutional, that makes it void, no matter how "popular" the law is (Whether it is popular with the people, the Congress, or the President). It is important they have this power, as otherwise you would have laws passed and enforced that are unconstitutional but they are "popular" so they won't be overturned. A lot of rights we have now are because SCOTUS decided that the "popular law" was wrong (and unconstitutional). Usually, a passed "popular law" is how the case gets to SCOTUS. The parties suing are saying the govt is infringing their constitutional rights by having laws X, Y, Z, etc. SCOTUS looks at the laws and the constitution and decides if the law is/isn't constitutional. If it isn't, SCOTUS strikes the law (or the unconstitutonal part) down. Then, it isn't the law of the land anymore. Thanks for the civic lesson...I thought that was the case but wasn't sure...Why I was a stong C student back in the day..
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 1, 2015 8:00:39 GMT -5
It's working.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 1, 2015 9:19:46 GMT -5
a Waffle House can refuse to accommodate for ANY non-discriminatory reason. ANY. By "discriminatory" I'm assuming you mean "officially discriminatory", since banning arms carriers is plainly discriminatory? Either way, time for the NRA to buy a few laws and add arms carriers to the ever-growing list of must-serve customers.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 1, 2015 9:22:39 GMT -5
I thought this was going to be some epic spin on his argument, but he actually said it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 9:53:46 GMT -5
a Waffle House can refuse to accommodate for ANY non-discriminatory reason. ANY. By "discriminatory" I'm assuming you mean "officially discriminatory", since banning arms carriers is plainly discriminatory? so is not serving people without shirts. so yes, LEGALLY discriminatory = discriminating against a protected class.Either way, time for the NRA to buy a few laws and add arms carriers to the ever-growing list of must-serve customers. i assume that you are kidding, since not kidding would imply that you have no idea why or how protected classes come about.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 10:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2015 10:05:53 GMT -5
Those who lie about receiving decorations...not only a MOH but any decoration..{ I met some one who lied about receiving a Purple Heart and a CIB..}it is despicable ...but with that said...there is also the following to consider.. "“The right to speak and write whatever one chooses ― including, to some degree, worthless, offensive and demonstrable untruths ― without cowering in fear of a powerful government is, in our view, an essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment. The greatest damage done seems to be to the reputations of the liars themselves,” wrote Smith.Since SCOTUS has decided to hear the case on this next year it will be interesting to see how they handle this.... Just for my own information..my civic lessons were weak on some things.. If Congress passes a law ..say on this or any specific what ever...it passes both houses ..no veto from the Executive branch...can that passed law of the land still be decided by SCOTUS if heard decide that it is unconstitutional and over turn it..?? Yes, it is the checks and balances. If SCOTUS decides it is unconstitutional, that makes it void, no matter how "popular" the law is (Whether it is popular with the people, the Congress, or the President). It is important they have this power, as otherwise you would have laws passed and enforced that are unconstitutional but they are "popular" so they won't be overturned. A lot of rights we have now are because SCOTUS decided that the "popular law" was wrong (and unconstitutional). Usually, a passed "popular law" is how the case gets to SCOTUS. The parties suing are saying the govt is infringing their constitutional rights by having laws X, Y, Z, etc. SCOTUS looks at the laws and the constitution and decides if the law is/isn't constitutional. If it isn't, SCOTUS strikes the law (or the unconstitutonal part) down. Then, it isn't the law of the land anymore. Justice Roberts takes the popularity of a law into consideration when deciding constitutionality. The Supreme court decision does not make something constitutional or not constitutional, it just ends the legal debate. There are many unconstitutional laws they have ended the legal debate on by choosing unconstitutional.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 1, 2015 10:15:31 GMT -5
By "discriminatory" I'm assuming you mean "officially discriminatory", since banning arms carriers is plainly discriminatory? so is not serving people without shirts. so yes, LEGALLY discriminatory = discriminating against a protected class.Either way, time for the NRA to buy a few laws and add arms carriers to the ever-growing list of must-serve customers. i assume that you are kidding, since not kidding would imply that you have no idea why or how protected classes come about. Of course I know how protected classes come about. Lobbyists fund political campaigns in return for candidates' appointing and confirming judges sympathetic to their interests. Meanwhile, some malcontent who can't go 60 minutes without his gun decides to go to the only restaurant in 50 miles that doesn't allow guns and insists on being served. When he's turned down, rather than giving his business to the IHOP across the street, he sues the waffle house for emotional damages (a la Oregon). His case works its way up to the highest court in the land, where the judges take a huge steaming on disciplined legal reason and award him his heart's desire in a split 5-4 decision. As a result of the man's heroism, now all the businesses in the land, from daycare centers to petting zoos, are forced to serve heat-packing customers against their better judgment. And all is well with the world. I hear that, as we speak, the courts are considering whether businesses should be able to ban customers who insist that other customers absolutely must not use inline quotations but can't seem to remember to follow the rule themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 10:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2015 10:18:24 GMT -5
i assume that you are kidding, since not kidding would imply that you have no idea why or how protected classes come about. Of course I know how protected classes come about. Lobbyists fund political campaigns in return for candidates' appointing and confirming judges sympathetic to their interests. Meanwhile, some malcontent who can't go 60 minutes without his gun decides to go to the only restaurant in 50 miles that doesn't allow guns and insists on being served. When he's turned down, rather than giving his business to the IHOP across the street, he sues the waffle house for emotional damages (a la Oregon). His case works its way up to the highest court in the land, where the judges take a huge steaming on disciplined legal reason and award him his heart's desire in a split 5-4 decision. As a result of the man's heroism, now all the businesses in the land, from daycare centers to petting zoos, are forced to serve heat-packing customers against their better judgment. And all is well with the world. I hear that, as we speak, the courts are considering whether businesses should be able to ban customers who insist that other customers absolutely must not use inline quotations but can't seem to remember to follow the rule themselves. It you could fit in the phrase "sanctimonious hypocrites" somewhere to describe them, that would be my view as well.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 10:41:37 GMT -5
i assume that you are kidding, since not kidding would imply that you have no idea why or how protected classes come about. Of course I know how protected classes come about. Lobbyists fund political campaigns in return for candidates' appointing and confirming judges sympathetic to their interests. Meanwhile, some malcontent who can't go 60 minutes without his gun decides to go to the only restaurant in 50 miles that doesn't allow guns and insists on being served. When he's turned down, rather than giving his business to the IHOP across the street, he sues the waffle house for emotional damages (a la Oregon). His case works its way up to the highest court in the land, where the judges take a huge steaming on disciplined legal reason and award him his heart's desire in a split 5-4 decision. As a result of the man's heroism, now all the businesses in the land, from daycare centers to petting zoos, are forced to serve heat-packing customers against their better judgment. And all is well with the world. I hear that, as we speak, the courts are considering whether businesses should be able to ban customers who insist that other customers absolutely must not use inline quotations but can't seem to remember to follow the rule themselves. um....no. that is not how they have come about, generally speaking. but thanks for showing me that you don't actually know.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 1, 2015 10:42:11 GMT -5
Of course I know how protected classes come about. Lobbyists fund political campaigns in return for candidates' appointing and confirming judges sympathetic to their interests. Meanwhile, some malcontent who can't go 60 minutes without his gun decides to go to the only restaurant in 50 miles that doesn't allow guns and insists on being served. When he's turned down, rather than giving his business to the IHOP across the street, he sues the waffle house for emotional damages (a la Oregon). His case works its way up to the highest court in the land, where the judges take a huge steaming on disciplined legal reason and award him his heart's desire in a split 5-4 decision. As a result of the man's heroism, now all the businesses in the land, from daycare centers to petting zoos, are forced to serve heat-packing customers against their better judgment. And all is well with the world. I hear that, as we speak, the courts are considering whether businesses should be able to ban customers who insist that other customers absolutely must not use inline quotations but can't seem to remember to follow the rule themselves. It you could fit in the phrase "sanctimonious hypocrites" somewhere to describe them, that would be my view as well. boooooooo!
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Oct 1, 2015 14:18:59 GMT -5
Few thoughts, first this guy isn't a soldier. He plays dress up one weekend a month where he gets to wear a uniform, show up at a unit on base somewhere and do low level shit work for a couple days under pretty close supervision so he hopefully doesn't fuck up the day to day operations of the unit too badly. At my old unit we had the reserve and guard "computer operators" type up and collate SOP's, do inventory, that kind of thing. They weren't trained well enough to do anything on the actual computer systems. They weren't given admin credentials at all, just regular user logins. Not sure what other units do with their weekend warriors, but I guarantee most of them do similar low level busy work. Second, as any actual military person will tell you, he shouldn't be cruising around off base in uniform at all. Running short errands on your way to or from duty is fine, but outside of that you remove the uniform and wear civilian clothes. The uniform is a privilege, not a right, and should be worn in accordance with all regulations, including the ones about only wearing it to perform official functions. As to the gun, rules is rules. Waffle House is free to post no weapons signs, and this guy needs to abide by them or take his business elsewhere. Pretty simple. That's the way our country works. The one this dude swore to defend with his life if necessary. Whoa there a minute kimosabee....Possible back in the day..if your that old and were in the Reserves that was the way it worked as far as training and such ..however..in todays military ..with a smaller military on active duty and a professional service...the reservist and National Guard units are in the front lines ..with many many deployments and redeployments and taking casualties... It seems that so many support units as well as combate units too are being done by these folks so it is a far cry from the weekly drill and the weekend drill and the two weeks in the summer... The rest of your post I have no problem with...
|
|