8 police denied service because of guns

[The2ndAmendment]

I was pretty clear that No the 3rd ammendment wouldn't apply. The 4th might. But not the 3rd. The 3rd is pretty specific.

Let's break this down to a single question (and then evolve the situation with a more complex question after each iteration):

If the police were ordered (by the local or state government) to live on your property, but to neither search nor seize any of your possessions or property, would the Third Amendment be applicable to remove them from your property?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Scott Lupton, the general manager of the Manassas Buffalo Wild Wings location, sent an email to LaClair, apologizing for any confusion caused by the incident, which he calls a “huge misunderstanding.”

End of story.

No..The Chain deserves a boycott.
I am starting one right now..
This was no misunderstanding.
This is another incident in a long line of businesses taking a politically correct stance.
Sick of this shit.
When businesses **** up with this PC bullshit, they should be punished.

 

[bucs90]

Wherever I worked..whether it was my own shops or for someone else...cops, sheriffs, CHP...always got HUGE discounts on goods and/or free coffee, fries, burgers, etc. if they were in uniform. Creaky leather holsters, walkies on their shoulders...the whole shebang. And in my shops, I left orders for my employees if an officer came in...they get 50 per cent off (antique store), IF in uniform. Same with soldiers.
But I am retired now, so....doesn't matter what I did. But I wanted THEM to know I appreciate them.

Just wanted to say thank you for being among the many who show a small token of appreciation for the police and military in your business. The ones who you helped surely knew you did appreciate them, and I know it made their day better!

 

[bucs90]

I was pretty clear that No the 3rd ammendment wouldn't apply. The 4th might. But not the 3rd. The 3rd is pretty specific.

Let's break this down to a single question (and then evolve the situation with a more complex question after each iteration):

If the police were ordered (by the local or state government) to live on your property, but to neither search nor seize any of your possessions or property, would the Third Amendment be applicable to remove them from your property?

I think he is right. The police are classified as a paramilitary organization, not an army. The 3rd applies to the standing federal army.

If the local govt ordered cops to pitch a tent on your property, or in your house, just their mere presence would violate the 4th amendment, as no cop can enter your home without a warrant or exigent circumstance (like an in progress emergency) or being invited. Just their eyes wandering in your home constitutes a search. A search is an action, regardless of if it produces illegal items or not.

So, if they showed up, came in, and refused to leave- and had no warrant or exigent circumstance- you can demand they leave. If not, they technically would be trespassing.

But I know the courts have ruled that cops CAN come into your home under an extreme emergency- like a SWAT call where a sniper needs to use your upstairs window to end a situation, but ONLY in extreme exigent emergencies. So, while incredibly rare, under extreme emergencies the courts have ruled cops CAN force you to allow them in your home- which would technically violate the 3rd if they were considered army. So I think it's already been through the courts.

 

[tjvh]

This emotionally driven gun hysteria has gone way over the edge. It was the Police numbskull.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You have the right to deny "Soldiers" the right to remain on your property. A police officer is considered an "agent of the state," from Griswold vs Connecticut (right to privacy), and the 14th Amendment applies the 3rd Amendment to the State and local governments.

If the police were wanting to camp out on your property for an extended period of time, you might have a point... otherwise tresspass or 4th Amend would be a better avenue for legal redress.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I think he is right. The police are classified as a paramilitary organization, not an army. The 3rd applies to the standing federal army.

The one case to interpret the 3rd, Englom v. Casey 677 F. 2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on remand, 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd. per curiam, 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983) dealt with units of the National Guard, so I do not think it a stretch to apply the 3rd to the police. My objection would that this is not "quartering". Quartering involves an extended living arrangement, not a temporary entry or occupation.

Thus, if a city passed a law which required you to provide room and board in your home for a police officer, I would not be ashamed to assert the 3rd (along with a host of other arguments)... but I certainly would not invoke the 3rd under circumstances where the police entered a place of business to have some food and were asked to leave and presumably refused.

 

[Avatar4321]

I was pretty clear that No the 3rd ammendment wouldn't apply. The 4th might. But not the 3rd. The 3rd is pretty specific.

Let's break this down to a single question (and then evolve the situation with a more complex question after each iteration):

If the police were ordered (by the local or state government) to live on your property, but to neither search nor seize any of your possessions or property, would the Third Amendment be applicable to remove them from your property?

No. Because the police are not soldiers. I don't know why this is difficult to understand.

The Fourth amendment would apply since the police are not allowed on your property without a warrant and without permission regardless of what their reason is.

The 3rd amendment applies to soldiers being quartered on private property agains the owners will. That's all.

I have no clue why you think my response is going to change when the text of the 3rd amendment hasnt.

 

[legaleagle_45]

No. Because the police are not soldiers. I don't know why this is difficult to understand.

Technically either were members of the National Guard which were involved in Engblom v Carey. The 3rd arose out of the practice of the Crown to have professional soldiers live in the homes of colonists. While a "cost savings" device for the Crown it also served another purpose which is the real reason for the 3rd. It was intended to intimidate and awe the colonist so as to prevent opposition and discourage resistance.

I would argue the 3rd Amend in a case where the government ordered you to provide lodging in your home for the police, espescially if the purpose of same is to insure you do not break the law. I would also invoke a whole lot of other things including the 4th, 5th and the 13th, 14th... heck I might even throw in the Magna Carta.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was pretty clear that No the 3rd ammendment wouldn't apply. The 4th might. But not the 3rd. The 3rd is pretty specific.

Let's break this down to a single question (and then evolve the situation with a more complex question after each iteration):

If the police were ordered (by the local or state government) to live on your property, but to neither search nor seize any of your possessions or property, would the Third Amendment be applicable to remove them from your property?

No. Because the police are not soldiers. I don't know why this is difficult to understand.

The Fourth amendment would apply since the police are not allowed on your property without a warrant and without permission regardless of what their reason is.

The 3rd amendment applies to soldiers being quartered on private property agains the owners will. That's all.

I have no clue why you think my response is going to change when the text of the 3rd amendment hasnt.

Technically, I would think that, if a city decided to house police in people's homes, the 3rd would be a valid argument to use to against it.

That said, it clearly has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Police Officers Refused Service at Buffalo Wild Wings Because of Guns - Manassas, VA Patch

So the company has a double standard.

If you are a citizen, you may NEVER bring your gun into their place.

but if your a cop

well that's just different


Buffalo wild wings will never see my face again.

 

[bucs90]

Police Officers Refused Service at Buffalo Wild Wings Because of Guns - Manassas, VA Patch

So the company has a double standard.

If you are a citizen, you may NEVER bring your gun into their place.

but if your a cop

well that's just different


Buffalo wild wings will never see my face again.

Thats right. You are not a cop. Cops....well, are cops. Cops also have blue lights and sirens on their cars, and you dont. Cops can do a lot of things you cant due to their job and the specifics that come with it.

Dont like it? Go be a cop. Hear starting pay is 30K and you might even get shot on duty!

 

[Two Thumbs]

Police Officers Refused Service at Buffalo Wild Wings Because of Guns - Manassas, VA Patch

So the company has a double standard.

If you are a citizen, you may NEVER bring your gun into their place.

but if your a cop

well that's just different


Buffalo wild wings will never see my face again.

Thats right. You are not a cop. Cops....well, are cops. Cops also have blue lights and sirens on their cars, and you dont. Cops can do a lot of things you cant due to their job and the specifics that come with it.

Dont like it? Go be a cop. Hear starting pay is 30K and you might even get shot on duty!

Did you read the link or do you have short term memory issues?

They were off duty, and therefore no special rights apply to them.

Of course your to ******* dumb to understand my initial point of the stewpudity of the anti-gun rule.

 

[bucs90]

So the company has a double standard.

If you are a citizen, you may NEVER bring your gun into their place.

but if your a cop

well that's just different


Buffalo wild wings will never see my face again.

Thats right. You are not a cop. Cops....well, are cops. Cops also have blue lights and sirens on their cars, and you dont. Cops can do a lot of things you cant due to their job and the specifics that come with it.

Dont like it? Go be a cop. Hear starting pay is 30K and you might even get shot on duty!

Did you read the link or do you have short term memory issues?

They were off duty, and therefore no special rights apply to them.

Of course your to ******* dumb to understand my initial point of the stewpudity of the anti-gun rule.

Cops are never "off duty". If they have their ID, badge and gun, then they have 100% of the same authority as if they were on-duty.

I dont find the rule stupid at all.

Buffalo Wild Wings doesnt want random, untrained rednecks or thugs toting guns into their business.

However, if cops (on or off duty) come in, not only does that provide some protection, but they know the cops are trained with those guns, they are not just random yahoos with pistols.

I know the right wing is on a radical jihad of hatred for any and all government employees. But, you'll never change the fact that cops and military people get a few special perks that the rest of us dont. You dont like that, go sign up for their job.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Thats right. You are not a cop. Cops....well, are cops. Cops also have blue lights and sirens on their cars, and you dont. Cops can do a lot of things you cant due to their job and the specifics that come with it.

Dont like it? Go be a cop. Hear starting pay is 30K and you might even get shot on duty!

Did you read the link or do you have short term memory issues?

They were off duty, and therefore no special rights apply to them.

Of course your to ******* dumb to understand my initial point of the stewpudity of the anti-gun rule.

Cops are never "off duty". If they have their ID, badge and gun, then they have 100% of the same authority as if they were on-duty.

I dont find the rule stupid at all.

Buffalo Wild Wings doesnt want random, untrained rednecks or thugs toting guns into their business.

However, if cops (on or off duty) come in, not only does that provide some protection, but they know the cops are trained with those guns, they are not just random yahoos with pistols.

I know the right wing is on a radical jihad of hatred for any and all government employees. But, you'll never change the fact that cops and military people get a few special perks that the rest of us dont. You dont like that, go sign up for their job.

Never off duty? Really?

Then why did it say they were off duty.

And I just love the idea that you're ok with the government not having to abide by the same rules we do.

 

[Ringel05]

You can make a case that the Police officers were unfairly treated but you have to consider that they were behaving badly by flashing their weapons while they were in plain clothes. The weather is cool and there is no excuse to run around with a weapon showing.

In Virginia, if the establishment serves alcohol, by law any carried firearm must be visible. That is unless they recently changed the law.