Here is a link to Chapter 790 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html
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
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
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.
Bump. Worth reading againGuttmacher 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.
Exactly . Nobody knows when I’m carrying or not .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
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 populationUsed 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.