Of all the places, a jewelry store. I imagine if they are getting robbed they would have a different view of an armed law enforcement officer entering their store. We know if this had been some kind of incident involving a racial, religious or sexual minority, the store manager would have been fired by this morning and the company would have donated a huge amount to some activist groups as recompense. Wonder if anything happens, since they only insulted a law enforcement officer. Kay Jewelers Store Refuses Service to Uniformed Deputy Because He Was Armed A jewelry store in Statesville, North Carolina, would not allow an armed uniformed deputy to enter the store and pick up an engagement ring for his fiancée. WBTV reported that the manager of the Kay Jewelers store told the deputy he could not come in with the gun on his hip. The deputy explained that he was on duty and was using his lunch break to pick up the ring. Moreover, the deputy explained that he would be violating policy to go without his service sidearm while in uniform. But the manager would not budge. Rather, he told the deputy to return at a time when he was not carrying a gun. The deputy is part of the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office (ICSO), and that office used a Facebook post to explain its disappointment in the jewelry store’s handling of the situation. The ICSO noted the manager’s reaction to an armed law enforcement official was “very difficult…to comprehend, and [ISCO] earnestly hope situations such as these are few and are diminishing.” ICSO went on to thank other “citizens and businesses in our area who whole heartily support the men and women who wear the badge.” https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...fuses-service-uniformed-deputy-because-armed/
yadda yadda yadda...We know what the response would be if the manager had refused service to some black gang bangers or drug dealers. Immediate firing. Law enforcement? They'll look into "reinforcing" their training, whatever that means. "WBTV, a CBS affiliate in nearby Charlotte, reported Wednesday that Kay Jewelers had responded to the incident, saying, “We have tremendous respect for law enforcement, and we thank the Office for bringing this to our attention. We will be sure to reinforce store training regarding our firearm policy with specific regard to uniformed law enforcement.” The statement also indicated that the store was reaching out personally to the deputy to make things right." https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/05/store-turns-away-uniformed-deputy-weapon/
I think that people on the right should be more careful with their arguments... I'm in favor of NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND FOR GUN OWNERSHIP AND ALSO I'M AGAINST ANY FORM OF GUN REGISTRATION. That said, "The deputy explained that he was on duty and was using his lunch break to pick up the ring."... He is either on duty or he is on his lunch break... So, even though I personally think it is stupid, the store has to have a say in what can or not enter it's private grounds... The same way that the cake store owner should be able to choose if he wants to bake a cake for a gay marriage or not... If the officer doesn't want to comply with their rules, he can take his business elsewhere... And if this is a bad policy for the jewelry store, they should either assess the effects of it and change the policy accordingly or lose money.
He can be on duty and on a break at the same time. He explained that he was in uniform, and required to be armed as part of his uniform. The whole incident is beyond bizarre. I've been to high end jewelry stores that had armed guards in the store. You'd think this store would have been happy to have a cop in the store. Maybe they have a right to bar law enforcement, I don't know how the civil rights laws treat that. We can certainly agree that it is stupid.
I agree with your opinion that it is stupid, but people have to have the right to act in any way in their property, including ways which you and I can deem stupid. In this sense, it makes no difference if the officer has a uniform or not, his business there was strictly personal, not professional, so it only makes sense that the "no gun" rule of the store applies... In fact, even if a cop is in some private property professionally, he, in theory, could bypass these same laws only in very restrict situations and that is a good thing. Private property rights of the owner of the store are/should be supreme... Unfortunately, the same concept PROBABLY does not apply to gun ownership in the mind of the same owner of this store and that is what it should be really enforced throughout the country.(Not trying to change the subject... I just mean that beyond the second amendment and private property rights are extremely correlated).
We are increasingly seeing conflicts between gun rights and property rights. Gun owners are saying, if you are ok with eroding property rights to accommodate a whole laundry list of favored classes, please refrain from lecturing us about property rights where our right to keep and bear arms is involved.
There are cases where the shop owner's property interests must give way to society's interest. The city can regulate his business in numerous ways, all legal under the Constitution. I suppose if FB and YouTube can kick off users solely because they are rightwing, a store could take the position that it won't serve officers in uniform. Good luck with that.
Exactly... If you allow me a bit of a digression, I'd like to list some chronological facts... Before 1914: The U.S.(like any other country) had, from time to time, recession and "run to the banks"... This recessions used to last a a maximum 1 year, maybe 1,5 year in the worst case, but most imporantly, it was never anything devastating, regardless of the time. The U.S. had also completely free immigration. 1914: For some reason, people decided that it was a good idea to turn to government in order to avoid these recessions and run to the banks. The Federal Reserve was created. 1929: Because of the FED, the worst recession in history occurs, first because they created it and second, because when they should have acted and provide liquidity, they stay put and do nothing. The 1930's: People once again turn to goverment, because they don't want another recession like the one's they went through. So, for some reason, to fix one government fuck up, they decide to turn to government to fix the fuck up that government itself created. The New Deal is born and with it the Welfare State. All the following decades: The Welfare state grows and makes immigration an increasing problem. And throughout all this time, the government agencies that people decided to create to control immigration, not surprisingly, fail miserably in doing what they are supposed to do. Today: Completely disregarding the past, people see the result of one government fuck up after the other(usually the subsequent fuck up is a failed attempt to try to fix the previous fuck up), people turn again to government to fix the problem with a wall and tariffs(given the history of government "successes", I wonder how likely it is that this will actually work out). I'm sure you can see a pattern forming here... The point is that people (especially republicans, since a great deal of democrats are a completely lost cause IMHO) should simply recognize the problem and try to actually take on the problem head on(the welfare state is the biggest problem of all and the most difficult to solve, so every political effort should be directed to measures in the direction of ending it through time, like the negative income system). This way, someday, immigration has a chance to stop being a problem and actually go back to being a good thing. But to continue on the path of turning to government to solve problems will just create more problems as history shows and not only that, all the political capital spent in this other government measures(especially the wall) is time lost and that should have been spent in decreasing government's size... Acting this way, decades have passed and the mess only increased. The more both sides use government to fight one another, the worst it gets. And if you think about it, democrats are likely to win, because they actually love big government... Republicans should fight, obviously, but not the way they have been fighting(through government too). They should fight hard to decrease government in any way they can...