Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed

[EEllis]

Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

Dude it isn't always about you! It was about answering a question someone else posed to me and trying to convey my thoughts to him. You were nowhere in those thoughts. I have addressed your statements I just don't agree with you. And no I didn't accuse you. I asked a question trying to make a point then you went into the "I said no such thing!" mode. But if you want to repeat your claim after every post I make go ahead. Just excuse me if I don't bother to reply.

Lol. Whatever you say BRO. Continue to backpedal all you want. It is up there for everyone to read. Also, I have learned my lesson on arguing with someone as wily a debater as you. Next time someone asks something about a strip club I shall admit defeat immediately.

Not the slightest backpedal.

[Goldspurs]

Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

Dude it isn't always about you! It was about answering a question someone else posed to me and trying to convey my thoughts to him. You were nowhere in those thoughts. I have addressed your statements I just don't agree with you. And no I didn't accuse you. I asked a question trying to make a point then you went into the "I said no such thing!" mode. But if you want to repeat your claim after every post I make go ahead. Just excuse me if I don't bother to reply.

Lol. Whatever you say BRO. Continue to backpedal all you want. It is up there for everyone to read. Also, I have learned my lesson on arguing with someone as wily a debater as you. Next time someone asks something about a strip club I shall admit defeat immediately.

Not the slightest backpedal.

[Taypo]

Got nothing but time this week. Sitting in a hospital on emergency leave until Saturday.

Ouch. Hope it all works out OK, brother.

Twin boys were born a month early, but they are good! Got me a couple of weeks out of the 'stan. Just sucks they are in the NICU because they were early so I can't hold them as much as I want to.

Congrats, man! Your first? Glad they're doing OK and I hope you get some cuddle time soon.

Had a similar issue with my daughter back in the day. She was born in Germany with a heart problem and needed to get shipped to WRAMC. Got pulled out of Bosnia early for that one.

[JALLEN]

A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

The Navy puts businesses on the off limits list in San Diego from time to time, and Tijuana was off limits to Navy personnel at various times.

Let's keep it in perspective. First, I never condoned the military blacklist. Second, that blacklist exist because illegal activities usually take place at the establishments on the list. The Navy isn't trying to force these businesses to allow service members to carry firearms.

This is your statement I was responding to.

I don't know what your condoning it or not has to do with anything.

While it may be true that businesses on the blacklist may have illegal activities taking place, many are lawful businesses that the Navy may not approve of. The Navy doesn't allow members to carry firearms, although some obtain permits for off duty carry. The Navy isn't trying to force the business to do anything. It just doesn't allow its members to go there.

Your statement had to do with "a taxpayer funded organization (Navy) having no place blacklisting a business for practicing their rights."

I don't see why the government, at any level, can't control the conduct of its employees within reasonable limits, especially if there is some plausible justification for so doing.

[talltex]

A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

The Navy puts businesses on the off limits list in San Diego from time to time, and Tijuana was off limits to Navy personnel at various times.

Your statement had to do with "a taxpayer funded organization (Navy) having no place blacklisting a business for practicing their rights."

I don't see why the government, at any level, can't control the conduct of its employees within reasonable limits, especially if there is some plausible justification for so doing.

The military is a totally different situation from any civilian governmental agency. In the military you are REQUIRED to follow orders...whatever they may be...or potentially face legal charges that can result in imprisonment for failure to obey a direct order from a commanding officer with authority over you. They can tell you if and when you can leave the base and for how long. The Military Code of Justice does not apply to the civilian population. That's just part of the job description when you sign up. No where in the civilian world can an employer dictate to you what you can or cannot do on your own time as long as it is not directly related to your job. For instance, do you really think that the Texas DOT should be able to tell the guy repairing potholes what he can do next weekend? I know that's an exaggeration of what you mean, but when you say they should be able to control conduct...within reasonable limits...with some plausible justification...well, that is a really slippery slope. The government has expanded it's control over the civilian population at an alarmingly increasing rate over the last 15 years and it's always presented as being both reasonable and plausible, and necessary to protect us.

[Goldspurs]

A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

The Navy puts businesses on the off limits list in San Diego from time to time, and Tijuana was off limits to Navy personnel at various times.

Let's keep it in perspective. First, I never condoned the military blacklist. Second, that blacklist exist because illegal activities usually take place at the establishments on the list. The Navy isn't trying to force these businesses to allow service members to carry firearms.

This is your statement I was responding to.

I don't know what your condoning it or not has to do with anything.

While it may be true that businesses on the blacklist may have illegal activities taking place, many are lawful businesses that the Navy may not approve of. The Navy doesn't allow members to carry firearms, although some obtain permits for off duty carry. The Navy isn't trying to force the business to do anything. It just doesn't allow its members to go there.

Your statement had to do with "a taxpayer funded organization (Navy) having no place blacklisting a business for practicing their rights."

I don't see why the government, at any level, can't control the conduct of its employees within reasonable limits, especially if there is some plausible justification for so doing.

Let me see if I can explain it one more time. First, I am not discussing the Navy's activities. You are. Since you are talking about it, why don't you explain why a business goes on the Navy blacklist. I am certain it's not too allow Sailors to carry firearms in a private business. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I don't have any issue with the government placing off limits any establishment that is knowingly violating the law. That is not the case in this situation. The private business was blacklisted due to LAWFUL behavior. How in the world can you think that is ethical?

[Taypo]

I don't have any issue with the government placing off limits any establishment that is knowingly violating the law. That is not the case in this situation. The private business was blacklisted due to LAWFUL behavior. How in the world can you think that is ethical?

I'll take that one step further. They were blacklisted due to lawful behavior being applied to their guys, rather than the entire population. If they blacklisted because HOB posts 30.06, I'd respect that. They didn't - they blacklisted because they don't want the rules to apply to them.

[Taypo]

Here's a thought that just struck me. How many 30.07 signs are off duty cops going to walk by and then blacklist when they're asked to leave or cover up?

[mojo84]

Here's a thought that just struck me. How many 30.07 signs are off duty cops going to walk by and then blacklist when they're asked to leave or cover up?

Not so sure that's a good question. I know quite a few cops personally and have/had several in my family. None of them do or will carry openly when off duty.

[Taypo]

Here's a thought that just struck me. How many 30.07 signs are off duty cops going to walk by and then blacklist when they're asked to leave or cover up?

Not so sure that's a good question. I know quite a few cops personally and have/had several in my family. None of them do or will carry openly when off duty.

I hope you're right about that. Come Jan 1, there's going to be enough press going in both directions on OC without getting off duty carry involved in it.

[JALLEN]

The military is a totally different situation from any civilian governmental agency. In the military you are REQUIRED to follow orders...whatever they may be...or potentially face legal charges that can result in imprisonment for failure to obey a direct order from a commanding officer with authority over you. They can tell you if and when you can leave the base and for how long. The Military Code of Justice does not apply to the civilian population. That's just part of the job description when you sign up. No where in the civilian world can an employer dictate to you what you can or cannot do on your own time as long as it is not directly related to your job. For instance, do you really think that the Texas DOT should be able to tell the guy repairing potholes what he can do next weekend? I know that's an exaggeration of what you mean, but when you say they should be able to control conduct...within reasonable limits...with some plausible justification...well, that is a really slippery slope. The government has expanded it's control over the civilian population at an alarmingly increasing rate over the last 15 years and it's always presented as being both reasonable and plausible, and necessary to protect us.

Apparently the police are required to follow orders not to work at this bar. It has nothing to do with the UCMJ.

There are a great many slippery slopes out there. Are you sure this really is one?

Cops have a lot of restrictions on them that affect off duty activities, as I understand it. The cops I was friends with in San Diego were never completely "off duty" as they explained it. They were required to be always armed and carry badges. If a breach of the peace occurred in their presence, they were expected to involve themselves to stop it. The Sheriff seemed to be of a rather more strict view, that his deputies were not mere employees but his assistants, clothed with his authority akin to agency, for whose conduct he was answerable directly. This may be part of the slippery slope of militarizing the police force.

[talltex]

The military is a totally different situation from any civilian governmental agency. In the military you are REQUIRED to follow orders...whatever they may be...or potentially face legal charges that can result in imprisonment for failure to obey a direct order from a commanding officer with authority over you. They can tell you if and when you can leave the base and for how long. The Military Code of Justice does not apply to the civilian population. That's just part of the job description when you sign up. No where in the civilian world can an employer dictate to you what you can or cannot do on your own time as long as it is not directly related to your job. For instance, do you really think that the Texas DOT should be able to tell the guy repairing potholes what he can do next weekend? I know that's an exaggeration of what you mean, but when you say they should be able to control conduct...within reasonable limits...with some plausible justification...well, that is a really slippery slope. The government has expanded it's control over the civilian population at an alarmingly increasing rate over the last 15 years and it's always presented as being both reasonable and plausible, and necessary to protect us.

Apparently the police are required to follow orders not to work at this bar. It has nothing to do with the UCMJ.

My reference to the UCMJ was because your original statement: "I don't see any reason why the government, at any level, can't control the conduct of its employees, within reasonable limits, especially with a plausible reason for doing so." The military CAN do all that and more because of the UCMJ. You can't "quit your job" with them because you don't like it. You will do as you are told...when you are told...and how you are told. That's the deal you agreed to. However, the government at "any level" covers an enormous number of different types of employment whose employees are not subject to that type of control. The police department, according to Nightmare 69, told it's officers they couldn't work at HOB until the union got things worked out. THAT was what my original comment was in reference to...a "union" telling a taxpayer funded government agency what it's employees can or cannot do. That sounds to me like the officers complained to their union that they weren't allowed to carry off duty in HOB and the union is using it's leverage with the Chief to try and pressure HOB into changing it's policy.

[JALLEN]

Apparently the police are required to follow orders not to work at this bar. It has nothing to do with the UCMJ.

My reference to the UCMJ was because your original statement: "I don't see any reason why the government, at any level, can't control the conduct of its employees, within reasonable limits, especially with a plausible reason for doing so." The military CAN do all that and more because of the UCMJ. You can't "quit your job" with them because you don't like it. You will do as you are told...when you are told...and how you are told. That's the deal you agreed to. However, the government at "any level" covers an enormous number of different types of employment whose employees are not subject to that type of control. The police department, according to Nightmare 69, told it's officers they couldn't work at HOB until the union got things worked out. THAT was what my original comment was in reference to...a "union" telling a taxpayer funded government agency what it's employees can or cannot do. That sounds to me like the officers complained to their union that they weren't allowed to carry off duty in HOB and the union is using it's leverage with the Chief to try and pressure HOB into changing it's policy.

I wasn't a Judge Advocate, but after 19 years in the Navy Reserve, 14 of those as a commissioned officer, and 40 years as a lawyer, I think I have a decent understanding of the requirements and limitations of the UCMJ. Of course, my experience with off limits lists was confined to San Diego, and that was nearly 50 years ago.

The reason this came up was after I compared police blacklisting to Navy placing businesses off limits. It is analogous, if not precisely exactly the same. I don't see any reason why the government cannot enforce regulations involving employee behavior standards, especially where it is a matter of requiring police officers be armed at all times, not some trivial foolishness like haircuts, or wearing ugly ties, etc. We don't want to careen down any slippery slopes.

One question about this remains unresolved. Are police officers in this city required to carry a firearm at all times, or is it personal choice? IIRC, the officer involved objected to HOB that it was a requirement.

So, the deal is that HOB can have its way, insist on its rights and do without police security free lancers, and maybe patronage of the officers like this fellow, or make some concession.

I made a steady, and occasionally opulent, living for many years because someone insisted on what they perceived as their rights.

[Taypo]

That's a big part of my disgust with the situation - the claim that it's a "requirement" to carry off duty, but he didn't seem to be worried about potential repercussions by disarming for a concert and broadcasting it to the Internets.

If it's a requirement, then take your gun and go home.

If it's not, then make a choice as to what's important.

Either way, running a business into the ground because you think their property rights don't apply to you is what it boils down to.

[Goldspurs]

Apparently the police are required to follow orders not to work at this bar. It has nothing to do with the UCMJ.

My reference to the UCMJ was because your original statement: "I don't see any reason why the government, at any level, can't control the conduct of its employees, within reasonable limits, especially with a plausible reason for doing so." The military CAN do all that and more because of the UCMJ. You can't "quit your job" with them because you don't like it. You will do as you are told...when you are told...and how you are told. That's the deal you agreed to. However, the government at "any level" covers an enormous number of different types of employment whose employees are not subject to that type of control. The police department, according to Nightmare 69, told it's officers they couldn't work at HOB until the union got things worked out. THAT was what my original comment was in reference to...a "union" telling a taxpayer funded government agency what it's employees can or cannot do. That sounds to me like the officers complained to their union that they weren't allowed to carry off duty in HOB and the union is using it's leverage with the Chief to try and pressure HOB into changing it's policy.

I wasn't a Judge Advocate, but after 19 years in the Navy Reserve, 14 of those as a commissioned officer, and 40 years as a lawyer, I think I have a decent understanding of the requirements and limitations of the UCMJ. Of course, my experience with off limits lists was confined to San Diego, and that was nearly 50 years ago.

The reason this came up was after I compared police blacklisting to Navy placing businesses off limits. It is analogous, if not precisely exactly the same. I don't see any reason why the government cannot enforce regulations involving employee behavior standards, especially where it is a matter of requiring police officers be armed at all times, not some trivial foolishness like haircuts, or wearing ugly ties, etc. We don't want to careen down any slippery slopes.

One question about this remains unresolved. Are police officers in this city required to carry a firearm at all times, or is it personal choice? IIRC, the officer involved objected to HOB that it was a requirement.

So, the deal is that HOB can have its way, insist on its rights and do without police security free lancers, and maybe patronage of the officers like this fellow, or make some concession.

I made a steady, and occasionally opulent, living for many years because someone insisted on what they perceived as their rights.

I have spent my whole adult life and the last 15 years as active duty. The "off limits" list the military uses is NOT the same as boycotting a business because of legal activity.

Honestly, I am only arguing the ethical dilemma with the police department placing the private business on a black list. I am fairly certain it is legal for them to do this. . Doesn't make it right and does not help their case, in my eyes, of being the protectors of a community instead of a bully with a badge.