Manager at Texas Whataburger denies service to detective because of his gun

[NNT]

A right is a possessed power of a freedom to do or freedom from

I think we will not agree on the symantics of the definition. I'm ok with that.

I am ok to be a civilian, not a subject.

More on topic I suppose, I believe police must work within the laws, and they obviously have more law enforcement authority than I do. I would like to carry where they can, but if I can't, I still want them to. I don't think they should get perks due to the job, but it happens. Every Leo I know personally speeds and never stops at stop signs in their personal car.

[ScottDLS]

My view of the term civilian always included LEOs too unless they were currently serving on active duty in the uniformed armed services of the United States. Cops are civilians, Marines are not... FBI, civilian. US Army, not.

[ScottDLS]

A right is a possessed power of a freedom to do or freedom from

I think we will not agree on the symantics of the definition. I'm ok with that.

I am ok to be a civilian, not a subject.

More on topic I suppose, I believe police must work within the laws, and they obviously have more law enforcement authority than I do. I would like to carry where they can, but if I can't, I still want them to. I don't think they should get perks due to the job, but it happens. Every Leo I know personally speeds and never stops at stop signs in their personal car.

Always address police officers as "Your Excellency", or "Sire".

[carlson1]

I think LEOs should be able to carry anywhere because they are the authority that uphold the law. Just like I feel that citizens should be able to carry anywhere because we are the immediate authority of our own well being. a LEO wouldn't want to be caught in a situation without his gun wishing he had it, just as a citizen wouldn't. Some people can argue well LEOs have had training. so have we as citizens. granted LEOS have had much more extensive training than we have, but we are both recognized by the state as capable and competent firearm carriers and I don't think LEOs or civilians should have to disarm. If the state trusts us with a gun, I feel that 30.06 30.07 companies should have to trust us too. Yeah, I know that business owners have the right to not allow guns on their property. UNLESS you're a LEO. That's where the whole "special treatment" issue crops up for me. we are both recognized by the state as being responsible gun owners so why can't I carry places that only LEOs can? We've both gone thru the process of taking the tests and traning to be able to carry a handgun as per the state requirements. I don't feel as tho LEOs should get special treatment when it comes to carrying a gun. I feel at this point im kinda repeating myself, its 1AM cut me some slack haha. I think i'll end this rant now.

What training have you had?

the same written and proficiency exams that all LTC holders go thru.

Sorry, but the proficiency (or qualifying) with a handguns is definite not training and in here lies the problem.

call it what you want it's good enough for the state of texas. ive legally passed allt he requirements as defined by the state of texas to legally carry a handgun. i shouldn't be kept from doing so, same as LEOs. regarless of what you consider "traning" the leo has met his requirements, as have I. It's the fact that LEOs get special treatment. "here in lies the problem"

At least you know that you have no training. Maybe you can seek out some place to train and it would help to add some IDPA or other competition shootings to your life. It will make you better prepared.

[Grundy1133]

I think LEOs should be able to carry anywhere because they are the authority that uphold the law. Just like I feel that citizens should be able to carry anywhere because we are the immediate authority of our own well being. a LEO wouldn't want to be caught in a situation without his gun wishing he had it, just as a citizen wouldn't. Some people can argue well LEOs have had training. so have we as citizens. granted LEOS have had much more extensive training than we have, but we are both recognized by the state as capable and competent firearm carriers and I don't think LEOs or civilians should have to disarm. If the state trusts us with a gun, I feel that 30.06 30.07 companies should have to trust us too. Yeah, I know that business owners have the right to not allow guns on their property. UNLESS you're a LEO. That's where the whole "special treatment" issue crops up for me. we are both recognized by the state as being responsible gun owners so why can't I carry places that only LEOs can? We've both gone thru the process of taking the tests and traning to be able to carry a handgun as per the state requirements. I don't feel as tho LEOs should get special treatment when it comes to carrying a gun. I feel at this point im kinda repeating myself, its 1AM cut me some slack haha. I think i'll end this rant now.

What training have you had?

the same written and proficiency exams that all LTC holders go thru.

Sorry, but the proficiency (or qualifying) with a handguns is definite not training and in here lies the problem.

call it what you want it's good enough for the state of texas. ive legally passed allt he requirements as defined by the state of texas to legally carry a handgun. i shouldn't be kept from doing so, same as LEOs. regarless of what you consider "traning" the leo has met his requirements, as have I. It's the fact that LEOs get special treatment. "here in lies the problem"

At least you know that you have no training. Maybe you can seek out some place to train and it would help to add some IDPA or other competition shootings to your life. It will make you better prepared.

there's a trainer in sherman with whom i'd like to take some classes. his name is Jeremy Cox. some of you might know him, some of you might not. https://www.facebook.com/COX-Firearms-T ... 967932491/

[OlBill]

A right is a possessed power of a freedom to do or freedom from

I think we will not agree on the symantics of the definition. I'm ok with that.

I am ok to be a civilian, not a subject.

More on topic I suppose, I believe police must work within the laws, and they obviously have more law enforcement authority than I do. I would like to carry where they can, but if I can't, I still want them to. I don't think they should get perks due to the job, but it happens. Every Leo I know personally speeds and never stops at stop signs in their personal car.

I don't see it as semantics to claim the police have a right to arrest. I see it as dangerous.

They have more law enforcement authority than I do too, because I don't have any. But that doesn't confer rights.

Why are police authorized to carry firearms in the performance of their duties?

Why do I have the right to bear arms?

They do have additional responsibilities and we all know it is immoral delegate responsibility without authority.

The police do not have the right to arrest me. They have the responsibility and therefore the authority to do so if and when they have probable cause.

There is a huge difference in my book.

Laws and police are an unfortunate necessity. Would that it were not so.

[OlBill]

My view of the term civilian always included LEOs too unless they were currently serving on active duty in the uniformed armed services of the United States. Cops are civilians, Marines are not... FBI, civilian. US Army, not.

That is correct. Subject to UCMJ.

[ScottDLS]

My view of the term civilian always included LEOs too unless they were currently serving on active duty in the uniformed armed services of the United States. Cops are civilians, Marines are not... FBI, civilian. US Army, not.

That is correct. Subject to UCMJ.

Countdown till somebody posts the dictionary.com, Wikipedia, or google definition of civilian that excludes cops,,firefighters, military, paramedics, nurses, and home health care aides....

[Allons]

My view of the term civilian always included LEOs too unless they were currently serving on active duty in the uniformed armed services of the United States. Cops are civilians, Marines are not... FBI, civilian. US Army, not.

Anyone not military is a civilian. Cops are not military.

[NNT]

I totally agree if they work outside the law it is very dangerous. They do not have the right to arrest me any time the choose, there are laws (as I mentioned previously) that dictate what, where, how, etc.

I also completely agree with your last comment. I wish they were not a necessity.

As to the what we can carry, I believe a free people should be able to own any and all firearms, tanks, whatever. If we use them to harm others there should be stiff consequences.

I understand language matters, and correct words can make a big difference. I also understand we use words to communicate ideas, and if we (as a people) differ on some terms, but understand the intended message, we can get along.

The origin and correct usage of terms like rights, privilege authority duty morals ethics, etc could be an interesting and lively debate in a different time and place.

[Abraham]

I wish the cop bashing would stop.

Mods, if more cop bashing posts are posted please delete!

With one exception: The FBI dancing fool, shooting an innocent bystander with his hideous display of the Elaine Benice/Seinfeld school of dance/terpsicorian ugliness go anywhere bullet shooting. That one should go on into perpetuity or until he's either fired or banished to Nome, Alaska...where they'll probably shoot back, not once buy many times....

[Soccerdad1995]

I wish the cop bashing would stop.

Mods, if more cop bashing posts are posted please delete!

With one exception: The FBI dancing fool, shooting an innocent bystander with his hideous display of the Elaine Benice/Seinfeld school of dance/terpsicorian ugliness go anywhere bullet shooting. That one should go on into perpetuity or until he's either fired or banished to Nome, Alaska...where they'll probably shoot back, not once buy many times....

I read almost all of the posts in this thread, but it is pretty long. Did I miss the "cop bashing"? All I am seeing are posts saying that the police should not have more rights to carry than we all, as free citizens, should have. That, and posts saying that private property rights should trump the right of anyone (including police officers) to be on your property. None of those denigrate police officers.

Can you do me a favor and quote one of the "cop bashing" posts so I can see what you are referring to?

[Abraham]

With all due respect: You can read and I don't cafe to argue.

There's plenty there.

We're at an all time ebb (fashionable even) where even decent people (such as yourself) are cop bashing and if and when it happens it passes you by, well all I can say is support your local police...because one day when the chips are quite possibly down, you'll be really, really be glad they there to help you.

You'll probably want to buy them a cup of coffee and a meal and won't want to hear an anti-cop smearing.
Cop hugging and hand shaking, but anti...never.

[Soccerdad1995]

With all due respect: You can read and I don't cafe to argue.

There's plenty there.

We're at an all time ebb (fashionable even) where even decent people (such as yourself) are cop bashing and if and when it happens it passes you by, well all I can say is support your local police...because one day when the chips are quite possibly down, you'll be really, really be glad they there to help you.

You'll probably want to buy them a cup of coffee and a meal and won't want to hear an anti-cop smearing.
Cop hugging and hand shaking, but anti...never.

I do completely respect you and your opinion. All of my comments should be taken with that in mind. I can read. You are correct in that assessment. I'm assuming you can read as well. So if I'm not missing anything that was posted in this thread, then the difference must be in our definition of "cop bashing".

I do not believe that you need to have a complete and total allegiance to someone in order to not "bash" them. Stating that the police work for the people is not " cop bashing" IMHO. It is rather, the basic fundamental premise on which our country was founded. The government works for the people. This includes the police. Police officers do not get to ignore your rights as a property owner (I'm assuming you own property). They just don't. If you run a business and you want someone to leave, you should be able to politely ask them to leave, and they should do so. Period. This is true whether they are government employees who work for you, and it is also true if they are your fellow citizens.

I'm not sure why you perceive this as "cop bashing". I have very good friends who are LEO's and I regularly buy them coffee or other drinks. They do a job that I could not do, because I do not have the patience that it requires. It is a thankless job, and I appreciate everything they do. But I don't think they are gods, and I don't think they should have more rights than the people they work for.

I'm also leaving open the possibility that there is some post in this thread that really is "cop bashing" in nature. I just haven't seen it. But as I said, it is a long thread. And you clearly don't want to explain your position by actually citing any examples of what you consider to be "cop bashing" posts.

[Soccerdad1995]

My view of the term civilian always included LEOs too unless they were currently serving on active duty in the uniformed armed services of the United States. Cops are civilians, Marines are not... FBI, civilian. US Army, not.

That is correct. Subject to UCMJ.

Countdown till somebody posts the dictionary.com, Wikipedia, or google definition of civilian that excludes cops,,firefighters, military, paramedics, nurses, and home health care aides....

Actually the term "civilian" can also be used to describe someone who is not part of a group. Like professional poker players might refer to casual tourists as "civilians". This might be more of a slang term, though. I'm not sure how this relates to the topic of this thread, though.