The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: long762range on May 19, 2009, 11:20:22 AM
-
http://community.kdvr.com/_Restaurant-with-anti-gun-policy-saved-by-a-gun/BLOG/281845/96399.html
Oh, the irony.
The manager of an Atlanta restaurant, Taco Mac, stopped an armed robbery Sunday morning by firing his own gun at the armed robber. What makes this story ironic is that the CEO of the company that owns this particular Taco Mac was one of the people that strenuously fought against the passage of the Georgia law last year that made it legal to carry a firearm in this restaurant. The law also contained a provision overriding Taco Mac's policy of banning firearms from its employee parking lots.
In Georgia in 2008, it was illegal to carry or possess a firearm in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Taco Mac serves alcohol. The Georgia General Assembly changed the law when it passed HB 89, which contained a provision that repealed the gun ban in restaurants that serve alcohol so long as the patron is not consuming alcohol. HB 89 also contained a provision that the NRA aggressively pushed that prevented employers from banning employee guns from cars in the parking lot. Both provisions would come into play on Sunday morning.
Taco Mac's owner vociferously opposed the new law both before its passage and after, by posting "No Guns" signs at the entrance. As GeorgiaCarry.Org member Matthew P. put it in a press release on Sunday:
Tappan Street Restaurant Group, which operates most of the Taco Mac restaurants in the Atlanta area, was quick to ban the legal carry of firearms in their restaurants following the passage of HB89 (the "gun rights" bill) into law in July 2008. WSB reported today (Sunday) that, shortly after 3am, an armed gunman accosted an employee as he or she took out the trash and attempted to rob the Taco Mac in Virginia Highlands. The manager drew a handgun and exchanged fire with the gunman before he (the gunman) fled. No employees or customers were reported injured. Had the manager honored the "gun ban" in TSRG's Taco Mac restaurants, the outcome could have been much worse -- consider the fate of slain bartender John Henderson at the Standard (who complied with his assailant's instructions) in January 2009.
What remains to be seen is whether Bob Campbell, president of TSRG and member of the board of the Georgia Restaurant Association (who vigorously opposed the passage of HB89 and its subsequent signing into law) will revisit the flawed "no guns" policy in his restaurants. To do otherwise, and certainly to fire the brave manager who refused to be a victim, would reveal that his emotions surrounding the "guns" issue exceed both the bounds of common sense and of common decency.
It is probably wishful thinking to believe that Bob Campbell will reconsider his gun ban. Rationality and the experience of empirical observation rarely enter into the thought processes of a gun banner.
Let us consider the history. Taco Mac has not had an armed robbery in 30 years. Taco Mac posted the Georgia Restaurant Association signs banning firearms, which tells criminals that this is an easy target. Then it is robbed. So what is the conclusion to be drawn? That gun free zones encourage armed criminals to prey upon the disarmed people inside?
Bob Campbell is more likely to believe that the real problem is his failure to post a "No Guns" sign at the back door, where the armed robber entered.
The manager of this location possessed a Georgia Firearms License. This brought him within the ambit of the law protecting him from his employer for possessing a firearm in his car in the parking lot. The result of an armed Georgian with a firearms license was one wounded, bleeding criminal and no wounded employees.
A restaurant spokesperson said an employee was taking out the trash around 3:30 when a masked man approached him with a gun, forcing the worker back inside.
That's where the would-be robber learned the manager was armed, too. A spokesperson for the restaurant said the manager and the suspect fired at each other and that the masked man then ran to a waiting car bleeding. None of the four employees was hurt.
Taco Mac disingenuously claims in statement that "The safety and security of our customers and employees is of utmost importance." If Taco Mac really meant it, then they would take down the "No Guns" signs. Any restaurant in Atlanta that bans firearms cares nothing for the safety of its customers or employees and is leaving them at the mercy of any criminal with a gun.
In this day and age, it is not like they are unaware that criminals refuse to abide by "gun free" zones. Such zones simply encourage violent crime.
-
The irony is delicious!
-
Watch for the manager to get fired, and the restaurant to get sued by the BG. I hope I'm wrong, but it reminds me of the Pizza Hut delivery guy here in Iowa who used his concealed hangun to defend himself during a robbery attempt while delivering a pizza and was promptly sacked by Pizza Hut. Mrs. T and I haven't eaten Pizza Hut food since that day.
-
Watch for the manager to get fired, and the restaurant to get sued by the BG. I hope I'm wrong, but it reminds me of the Pizza Hut delivery guy here in Iowa who used his concealed hangun to defend himself during a robbery attempt while delivering a pizza and was promptly sacked by Pizza Hut. Mrs. T and I haven't eaten Pizza Hut food since that day.
Bingo!
-
If he gets axed, and I too think he will, he will not have trouble finding another job. He is the kind of guy I like to have around me.
-
Hello and thanks for this information. I copied and pasted the text and sent it on to an informal group I update on Second Amendment issues and related topics.
I also added these comments:
"Sometimes, only a gun will do but we have goofies, bliss ninnies and libtards all of the time, it seems. I hope that the manager who shot the trash that tried to rob the store is not fired, but I expect otherwise. Being as polite as I can be, Bob Campbell and those agreeing with his inane rule are fools of the highest order. They would rather trust a criminal willing to commit a violent felony than an honest employee and citizen that has jumped through the legal hoops and passed background checks.
Thus, I believe him and all like him to be fools, in the truest sense of the degrading term."
Best.
-
That is awesome and kudos to the manager for breaking the rules. With the exception of the County courthouse and State/Federal Goverment Buildings I carry no matter what. And as for the states that are anti-ccw even though I have one, what they don't know won't hurt them. I'll be damned if I allow myself or my family to be a victim due to ignorance of a law passed by a bunch of pencil necked geeks who are fortunate to make their decisions with presence of armed security or state police and metal detectors!!! ;)
-
Love the irony,.
Hopefully, we can have a follow up regarding this employee who chose NOT to be a victim.
If he is terminated from his job, during these "economic times" perhaps an email or 5000, to the CEO of Taco Mac, along with a boycott of his product can change his mind...
After all, it is Georgia,... ;)
-
that is classic,
good on him,,
when I read it I first thought he would loose his job for breaking a policy
If he is terminated from his job, during these "economic times" perhaps an email or 5000, to the CEO of Taco Mac, along with a boycott of his product can change his mind...
hell yea the NRA or other Pro CCW organisations MUST stay on top of this issue and if anything happens then they need to get everyone to Jump on the company big time.
-
Watch for the manager to get fired, and the restaurant to get sued by the BG. I hope I'm wrong, but it reminds me of the Pizza Hut delivery guy here in Iowa who used his concealed hangun to defend himself during a robbery attempt while delivering a pizza and was promptly sacked by Pizza Hut. Mrs. T and I haven't eaten Pizza Hut food since that day.
so its wrong to fire some one that violates company policy?
-
so its wrong to fire some one that violates company policy?
IMO company policy's should also be in line with state laws
if it is legal then why not....
-
so its wrong to fire some one that violates company policy?
Don't start TAB, You KNOW we are all going to dump on you, especially when, as in this case, the company policy is in direct violation of the law.
-
State law? or *cough* the 2a
there is a huge diffrence from patrons and employees.
-
n Georgia in 2008, it was illegal to carry or possess a firearm in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Taco Mac serves alcohol. The Georgia General Assembly changed the law when it passed HB 89, which contained a provision that repealed the gun ban in restaurants that serve alcohol so long as the patron is not consuming alcohol. HB 89 also contained a provision that the NRA aggressively pushed that prevented employers from banning employee guns from cars in the parking lot.
Didn't you read the post before your relapse of dipshit ?
-
The artical says she was on the clock.
it does not say where the gun came from, rahter it was on thier person or from thier car.( it hints, but does not say)
Either way, your still in violation of policy, not to mention a lawsuit waiting to happen. = your fired.
-
The artical says she was on the clock.
it does not say where the gun came from, rahter it was on thier person or from thier car.( it hints, but does not say)
Either way, your still in violation of policy, not to mention a lawsuit waiting to happen. = your fired.
Maybe I should have rephrased the question since its obvious your reading comprehension skills rank right up there with your spelling.
Follow closely TAB.
The "she" mention4ed in the article, was the person taking out the trash. Also, It was specifically stated as "HE OR SHE".
The "Manager" was a witness who's gender was also not specified. Further, to quote from the article
"Had the manager honored the "gun ban" in TSRG's Taco Mac restaurants, the outcome could have been much worse -- consider the fate of slain bartender John Henderson at the Standard (who complied with his assailant's instructions) in January 2009.
In short, screw their company policy and your adherence to being a defenseless shmoo.
-
we have no idea what would have happen.
Anything you do on the clock, your employer is responsible for. It sucks, but thats how it works.
Does not mater if what you were doing is legal or not.
I've love to change that, but its not going to happen.
Even armed security companys fire you draw your weapon, its SOP.
Trying being a employer some time, it will open your eyes.
-
so its wrong to fire some one that violates company policy?
If the policy goes against the purity of the right to self defense, then yes. This is the right that the second amendment covers and no company should be able to deny anyone this right, public or private.
In '91, I worked night crew at a grocery store. When the store closed, we had some obviously drunk gang members push their way threw the doors as we tried to lock up. When asked to leave, they got angry and one pulled a snubby revolver. An emergency call went out over the intercom, and about 15 employees came to the front to aid the rest of us (this was a grand opening store and a payroll wasn't an issue). Luckily no one was shot, the guy packing was smart enough to leave and the police arrested the remainder.
After that incident, the store manager, who was a friend of my dad's, gave us verbal permission to bring guns to work. Even the deli girl had a .357 under her sweater. This was against the company policy. In the morning, the manager would have us come into the office to show-and-tell what we were carrying that day. We never had any other incidents while I was working there.
In June of 2003, this former manager had handed in his keys and was finishing his last few weeks as a union employee to lock in his medical for retirement. My wife works at the same store, but had the day off. A 30-year-old bagger that had abandoned his job a couple of weeks before returned wearing a trenchcoat and beret (JUNE). He haunted around inside the store for a while before pulling out a "samurai sword" and slashing employees and shoppers. The first victim was the non-foods manager, who was also within weeks of retirement. She was beheaded. From the witnesses I talked to, my understanding was that my old manager and friend was stabbed though the lung and died on the floor from that injury. Many others were cut between the 2 killings.
Police response was within a few minutes, but understandably not fast enough for us to put aside our right to defense. 3 officers entered the store. One with an AR-15, which was used to stop the attacker, who died from his gun shot wounds.
This manager, who let us carry, and even on occasion wore a holstered black powder gun (unloaded) as part of a halloween costume, toed the company line and went unarmed. This company policy didn't do him or his family any good. Company policy should not be allowed to deny any right. On the company's side, they also shouldn't be able to be held liable for an individual exercising that right either - which would be especially an issue in California.
While companies can still set policies like this, it's kind of along the same lines as, "better to be judged by 12, then carried out by six." I'd rather get fired and go home to my family, then get killed by a nut and leave my wife to sort out the aftermath.
-
Hasn't TAB beat this horse into a bloody pile before? ::) ::)
You can keep puttin' the saddle back on it, pal...............but it ain't gonna get up and take you to town.
-
The US cons protects you against the federal goverment. The states were added later. It does not protect you against private enterprize.
-
Hasn't TAB beat this horse into a bloody pile before? ::) ::)
You can keep puttin' the saddle back on it, pal...............but it ain't gonna get up and take you to town.
TAB has 2 good points.
One, the right to property, meaning the right to set the rules in the space you own, is as important as any other.
Two, fairly or not, because of this, you as owner (employer)are responsible for anyone carrying out your orders.
This being said, when I was in school I was an assistant manager (facts being vagued up here to protect the guilty) at a commercial enterprise, in a state bordering DC. I had to close the shop and walk to the back of a poorly lit parking lot to my car carrying the days receipts. I then went to the bank (equally deserted) to stick them in a bank drop box. The state decided I didn't need a ccw, and company policy forbade me to carry. If, speaking hypothetically, I decided that being fired and facing a misdemeanor charge would be the least of my worries, I flouted both; it just shows that while I think TAB has valid points, I chose otherwise.
FQ13
-
just beforewarned. having fired for violating weapons policy on your resume, will make you basicly unemployable.
-
Not bashing TAB here.... you just haven't been privileged to the same old rhetoric some of the others on here have.
Hell, sometimes I agree with his points, but many times Ol' TAB likes to compare apples to oranges, and seems to love a good beating...especially from Tom Bogan.
This was in Georgia and we have different laws than Kalifornia, and without all the facts, we can only go by what was posted in the original story.
Bottom line: Company policy should never trump Constitutional guarantees.
I keep hearing this little voice in my head whispering, "....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED..........."
Of course, this is just my opinion....which combined with a $1.50, might buy you a coke.
8)
-
just beforewarned. having fired for violating weapons policy on your resume, will make you basicly unemployable.
If you threaten your coworkers yes. But do you seriously think that if this guy sends in a resume with a clipping of what went down it won't help him as much as hurt him (depending on the views of the prospective employer)?
FQ13
-
just beforewarned. having fired for violating weapons policy on your resume, will make you basicly unemployable.
Resumes can be fudged a bit, while still not lying. Employees can sometimes also pick employers who may be friendly to our views.
Being dead will make you even less employable.
As far as the States and Feds and private enterprise. Individuals are what came first and their rights should never be put after those of any of the other groups. There are decisions being made now about incorporation of the 2nd and when that gets finalized the States may no longer have a say in this one.
The Constitution aside from this discussion, shouldn't a right to defend oneself just be understood as just a basic human right, even if we had no law stating so?
-
I have never seen a app that does not have a "reason for leaving" section. In this case, the reason would be termanation, I don't know any employer thats not going to call and find out why you were termanated. Chances are very good your going to talk to some one that has no idea what happen. If you don't list the job on your app, they are going to wonder what you did for a living during that time. Lieing on your app is grounds for termantion. You would be amazed at what info is out there if you know where to look.
You don't need a gun to defend yourself, its just a tool.
-
Of all the employees I've terminated, the few future employers who called just wanted to know, they're capabilities, and maybe their weak points but not why they were terminated. California is such a sinkhole. Bellweather state my ASS. It is so ridiculous that Idaho ranks above it. I like Idaho by the way.
-
I'd be willing to bet, most of the people lied on thier apps. Its very common, its like the NCIS check, they only catch the dumb ones. Thats why you do back ground checks, pull credit reports, google, etc etc.
-
I'd be willing to bet, most of the people lied on thier apps. Its very common, its like the NCIS check, they only catch the dumb ones. Thats why you do back ground checks, pull credit reports, google, etc etc.
how much are you willing to bet ;)
-
You don't need a gun to defend yourself.
TAB, no offense, but I don't need you or anybody else to tell me what I do or do not need when it comes to protecting myself and my family! Don't you get it? The "you don't need...." argument is the same one the anti's are trying to use to reinstate the asinine ban of so-called "assault weapons"!! And the fact that you are willing to repeatedly come on this forum and spout that line of bullshit indicates that you are either a SEVERE masochist who enjoys getting his ass verbally kicked, or you lack certain fundamental judgement and intelligence. Please spare me the "you know nothing about hos business works" crap. I DO know how the real world works. Apparently you do not. Trust me dude, there are other colors in the rainbow besides black and white.
its just a tool
Forgive me for saying this TAB, but sometimes so are you.
-
TAB is a notorious anti CCW asshat. He shoots and likes guns but he hates the idea of people taking responsibility for their own safety. He has drank to much of the Ca BS Kool aide.
-
TAB is a notorious anti CCW asshat. He shoots and likes guns but he hates the idea of people taking responsibility for their own safety. He has drank to much of the Ca BS Kool aide.
I am anything but anti CCW... I just think employers have the right to restrict things coming to thier place of biz... I also beleave in things like the tx 30.06 law. Where a sign, clearly in view, with in the templet the law provides is the same thing as a verbal warning and going past it is a crime. if there is no punishment, there is no reason to obey the law.
I also don't think getting a CCW should be as simple as filling out a form and paying a fee. There needs to be training and demostrating you can safely operate a fire arm. Then again I am also of the mind that if you have a ND, you lose your CCW as you just proved you can not safely handle a firearm.
-
I am anything but anti CCW... I just think employers have the right to restrict things coming to thier place of biz... I also beleave in things like the tx 30.06 law. Where a sign, clearly in view, with in the templet the law provides is the same thing as a verbal warning and going past it is a crime. if there is no punishment, there is no reason to obey the law.
I also don't think getting a CCW should be as simple as filling out a form and paying a fee. There needs to be training and demostrating you can safely operate a fire arm. Then again I am also of the mind that if you have a ND, you lose your CCW as you just proved you can not safely handle a firearm.
Do I need to do the quotes from your previous posts thing AGAIN, crap, this is starting to be an annoying habit. OK heres a couple;
While not specicly CCW related it's a gem.
Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
1963 Member Section / Down Range Cafe / Re: Concerning the Second Amendment on: 03 January 2008, 15:39:03
Now as far as the coment about its the gun graber throwing the mud, you are way off base. Its the US Constitution itself that has made it unclear. The US cons is a Living document, being a living document is it up for interpretation. Lets just take the 1st ammendment.( since its less "polarizing" then the 2a.... remember the US cons is not A La Carte, if it applys to one part it applys to all.)
1964 Member Section / Down Range Cafe / Re: Concerning the Second Amendment on: 03 January 2008, 06:30:57
the 2a is about as clear as mud. Even if it was made crystal clear( thru say an amendment to change the text), the supreme court would still be the only group that would be able to tell us what it means. Which I am hoping they will do this year.
If you take in for the "1700" interpretation( of which there are several "versions") there is still alot of grey areas.
1761 Member Section / Politics & RKBA / Re: Ted Nugent on gun control, the police, and Ted Kennedy on: 25 May 2008, 19:52:12
n many ways I resepect The nuggee... when it comes to his stance on CCW I DO NOT RECPECT HIM. Not for where he stands, but his applcation of where he stands... IE he is a "full time LEO" which I call BS on.
This one is a classic
1734 Member Section / Down Range Cafe / Re: Zero Intelligence - Man with picture of fake gun on T- shirt not allowed to fly on: 03 June 2008, 15:53:08
I'm all for our basic rights( free speach... yadda yadda yadda)
Airlines are a business, and as a business, they can choose who they want to do business with.
Don't like that idea... I hate to pop your cherry when it comes to the real world, but that is how the world works.
Its late and I'm sick of reading through TABS old posts