Waffle House = No firearms, even soldiers.

[Jeb21]

Here is a link to Chapter 790 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html

 

[RackinRay]

First of all - anyone asked to leave a public place, for whatever reasons, by an authorized owner or designated person that refuses to leave then becomes a trespasser. If you are carrying a weapon, legally or not, once you become a trespasser; you are an armed trespasser!
While 790.251 appears to concentrate on a licensed concealed carry permit holder employees right to keep firearms in their vehicle without reprisals from the employer, they complicated it by opening it up a bit more and addressing general publics ability to keep firearms in their vehicle, which is confusing since no license Is required in the state of Florida to have a loaded weapon in a private vehicle in the first place! (790.25(5)).

FSS 790.251 speaks to licensed employees being able to keep their firearms in their vehicles, likely in response to the ’08 review you mentioned. This is clear in:
“(c) “Employee” means any person who possesses a valid license issued pursuant to s. 790.06 and:
1. Works for salary, wages, or other remuneration;
2. Is an independent contractor; or
3. Is a volunteer, intern, or other similar individual for an employer.”

Then in the definition of invitee there is NOT a mention or qualification on possession of a license:
(e) “Invitee” means any business invitee, including a customer or visitor, who is lawfully on the premises of a public or private employer.”

That may be the start of the “hot mess” in understanding this statute!!

This may be somewhat clarified in para 3, where the statute speaks to the intent of the statute and says:
“It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen’s lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense. The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law.”

Ok, licensed employees cannot carry while on the job, as a condition of employment, but nothing can prohibit them from keeping a weapon in their vehicle, while para 3 appears to speak to the public’s ability to keep a weapon in their vehicle (FSS 790.25) under Florida law without reprisal from the property/business owner.

But it then continues in para 4(e) to make a statement that appears to be more decisive on the subject at hand:
“No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.”
The correct link for the pertinent section is : 790.251

It would seem that the statement in para 4(e) excludes a person lawfully exercising their right to bear arms from being excluded as long as they did not display a weapon other than in defense. So potentially, if a CCW customer refuses to leave, they could find protection in this section of the statute, but why be a test case?
Hot mess for sure, or job security for lawyers! LOL

As stated before, not sure why anyone would risk it when there are other choices that do not have such signs. In fact, everyone should call every business you see that has such a sign and let them know you are not frequenting their business, but taking your trade elsewhere based on their sign. We may see the number of such signs diminish quickly if it makes enough of an economic impact.

We can agree to disagree from here on if we are not in agreement, as I have no real interest in continuing the thread, but I do appreciate the exchange of ideas and information! It filled a slow lunch hour for me and I think I learned the statutes a little better!

 

[Jeb21]

Not sure we have any disagreement on either the law or the safest choice of actions i.e. just go somewhere else where there are no anti-firearm signs. See you around.

 

[Just Dave]

Who even cares about Waffle House anyway? It's not like they are a five star restaurant in the first place. Waffle House is a low end eatery and I can fry an egg AND burn hash browns just as good they can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roaster's Gallery]

Every couple months or so, I get kinda stopped up, if you know what I mean. Anyway, something special in Waffle House grease just seems to do the trick. I try not to be too far from home, but I do know where a few secluded spots are on most of my routes home. I never think about what is in my pockets, nor take the time to read signs when I'm entering most places, unless it is a "closed" sign, then I don't go in.

 

[RackinRay]

Who even cares about Waffle House anyway? It's not like they are a five star restaurant in the first place. Waffle House is a low end eatery and I can fry an egg AND burn hash browns just as good they can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When is breakfast Dave? :smile:

 

[wildrider666]

Two guys didn't get the no guns policy at WH. BG dead, CWP Killed him, no other injuries. This is a recent event, many others have occurred.

http://www.postandcourier.com/artic...s-robbery-at-waffle-house-in-north-charleston

 

[FUPAGUNT]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-permit-holder-stopping-waffle-house-robbery/

 

[flyandscuba]

And that's why - concealed means concealed - no matter what the signs on the front door read...

 

[Rapier]

Apparently the Liberal AH, Juan Wlilliams, that said guns being used to save lives is a fabrication, did not get the message that has been sent over and over again. Now he can tell the Jermaines of this world to stay home and not play with guns, else they get dead from being struck by lightning.
Ed

 

[Ross7]

Two guys didn't get the no guns policy at WH. BG dead, CWP Killed him, no other injuries. This is a recent event, many others have occurred.

http://www.postandcourier.com/artic...s-robbery-at-waffle-house-in-north-charleston

More from WH on that shooting and their policy...

A statement was issued Monday from a Waffle House spokesperson:

We are very fortunate that no associate or customer were harmed in this tragic incident. It is Waffle House, Inc., policy not to allow firearms with the exception of law enforcement officers, including security guards. It is out understanding that the customer involved was an off duty security guard who was carrying his firearm and the incident occurred outside the restaurant.

We are well aware that different people and businesses have varying opinions regarding this issue, and we respect the right of all to have different opinions. However, we continue to believe this is the best policy for the safety of our customers and associates.

Incident report reveals new details in fatal armed robbery attempt

 

[flyandscuba]

I guess Waffle House's no gun policy didn't do much to protect this employee...

Man kills Mississippi Waffle House employee over smoking policy http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/2...pi-waffle-house-employee-over-smoking-policy/

 

[wildrider666]

Everybody else in that Mississippi WH is very lucky the BG didn't care about witnesses and getting caught! I am constantly amazed at the trivial things that trip peoples triggers. I wonder if this WH actually was Posted with a no guns sign?

 

[Raven]

Guttmacher is a well respected expert in this field. I have his book and I have recommended it to my CCW students I lent out my copy of his book otherwise I would see exactly what he says on this issue. He may disagree with me, which is fine. The law is a gray area many times. On this topic in particular I will say that there is no appellate level cases directly on point and no statutes that directly addresses this issue (again not unusual in the law). When you read the cases dealing with trespass you do see issues of notice and conditional invitations.

A conditional invitation is one were the store owner says you can come in so long as you pay a cover or you can come in so long as you are over the age of 18 or similar race/religion neutral condition. If someone sneaks into a club with out paying the cover charge or while underage, then he or she is a trespassers because he or she did not comply with conditions of the invitation. I put the "no guns" allowed signs in the same category - you can come in so long as you leave your weapons outside. If you bring in a weapon you have violated the condition of the invitation and you are automatically an armed trespasser.

Notice we have discussed already and repeatedly. I believe a properly posted "no guns" sign is sufficient notice. I further believe that forcing an employee or business owner to confront and armed individual who has ignored a posted "no guns" sign and ask that armed individual to leave in order to trigger the criminal statutes is dangerous bordering on crazy.

In the last few days I have spoken to some of my peers regarding this issue. One said that there must be a direct request to leave and then a refusal and two said that the sign would be enough. I personally don't give a rat's ass what a homicide detective thinks about that issue. His opinion on the law would not be admissible in a court of law. I further believe that comparing a no gun sign with a no food or drink sign is apples and oranges. The first addresses a very real safety concern, the other deals solely with profit. Having said that theaters will kick you out for violating their no outside food or drink policy.

This is a long post but I want to give you food for thought in this and any other firearms law. You may know that in 2014 the Stand You Ground Statute and other use of force statutes were amended to include the following phrase "or threaten to use force" . This addition supplemented the original language which read "use of force". The reason for this change is contained in the legislative history excerpted here - In recent years, there have been cases in which persons have been convicted of aggravated assault for threatening to use force (e.g., displaying a firearm, etc.) and have been sentenced to mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment pursuant to the 10-20-Life law. [FN15] In some of these cases, the defendant unsuccessfully argued self-defense. [FN16] Specifying that the justifications in ch. 776, F.S., apply to threatened uses of force may clarify the issue.

So to rephrase, there were situations where a bad guy attacked his victim, the victim presented a weapon, the bad guy retreated or surrendered, the victim did not then shoot the bad guy because his life was no longer in danger. Should be a win win for all concerned. But nope, some prosecutors were then going after the victim arguing that you have to actually shoot the bad guy in order to take advantage of the favorable language contained in the statutes (i.e. you have to fire the weapon in order to "use it" as stated by the statute). A stunningly stupid argument in my mind, but it was working and otherwise good folks were going to prison because they did not shoot. Here is a case that was actually cited by the legislature:

For example, 53 year old Orville Wollard was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after firing
a warning shot into a wall in response to his daughter's boyfriend aggressive behavior towards his daughter (the boyfriend
had physically attacked Wollard earlier that day and, upon returning to Wollard's house, shoved Wollard's daughter and
punched a hole in the wall). Wollard claimed self-defense but was convicted and sentenced to 20 years pursuant to the 10-20-
Life law. http:// famm.org/orville-lee-wollard/ (last visited on April 24, 2014); http:// www.theledger.com/article/20090619/
NEWS/906195060 (last visited on April 24, 2014).

BTW I am not an advocate of warning shots - still I faill to understand how this man could have been convicted.

This is why I get concerned when folks think they can toe the legal line and get away with it. I have always counseled give the line a bit of distance so that you are not the victim of some incredibly stupid interpretation of the law.

Bump. Worth reading again

 

[Fanner50]

I always look for a sign that says "Fanner50 this means you too." LOL. No sign, then it obviously doesn't mean me too. As others have said, concealed means concealed. We love Waffle House and will continue to go there, and I will continue to look for that sign that says that their policy applies to Fanner50 also.

 

[G-rat]

The sign always shows a Beretta 92 and I don't own one. Don't ask don't tell...

 

[Jerry]

I never look for a gun sign. Im usually just looking for the door handle. Plausible deniability defense, but not International, I JUST NEVER LOOK FOR A SIGN.
Actually they can ask you to leave for any reason, and they don't need a sign for THOSE REASONS. Its their shop!
Concealed is Concealed, AS ALREADY SAID, and Ive been concealed for 30 years and never been asked to leave a business because of a detectable firearm.
BUT, I found out that brandishing a firearm because the food was cold will get you an awful lot of attention.
Just kidding.

 

[stage20]

Used to eat waffle house at least twice a week. Never noticed a sign about the firearm policy until covid. My mornings are fast pace. I'd call ahead to whatever waffle house was on the way to the job, pick it up and be back on the road. They were always fast. Much quicker than fast food drive through and always hot.
Well covid got them short handed and they stopped doing to go orders over the phone. I don't have the time to sit and wait. Between that and their firearms policy, I've only eaten there twice since.
Doubt they miss my money but they might miss other people's. On my trek I rarely see waffle houses packed out on weekdays anymore. They still get crammed on Saturday and Sunday mornings. Exception is the one on woodbine Rd in pace. It seems to stay full. Can't park there with my trailer so I've never eaten there.

 

[NavCorman]

If Waffle House has a "no firearms policy" then how come I see visably armed State Police,County Sheriffs,and Corrections Officers eating in there(Hwy 29,Cantonment)almost every day ?? They carry weapons for self protection. Do I not have that same right ??

This is just another example of why,for me, concealed means concealed. --- SAWMAN

Exactly . Nobody knows when I’m carrying or not .

 

[Raven]

Used to eat waffle house at least twice a week. Never noticed a sign about the firearm policy until covid. My mornings are fast pace. I'd call ahead to whatever waffle house was on the way to the job, pick it up and be back on the road. They were always fast. Much quicker than fast food drive through and always hot.
Well covid got them short handed and they stopped doing to go orders over the phone. I don't have the time to sit and wait. Between that and their firearms policy, I've only eaten there twice since.
Doubt they miss my money but they might miss other people's. On my trek I rarely see waffle houses packed out on weekdays anymore. They still get crammed on Saturday and Sunday mornings. Exception is the one on woodbine Rd in pace. It seems to stay full. Can't park there with my trailer so I've never eaten there.

Wow when I go thru Woodbine it's always the most empty of 4 Waffle Houses I pass and always gives me the best service! I never noticed the signs until the Scam-demic either. They're always trying to give me freebies for wearing a badge and endorsing law enforcement. Even my fake badge... hard to believe anybody pro LEO would be anti CCW. I think this is definitely a corporate sign forced on the local pro 2A population