Photo screenshots of IRS security guard pointing gun at armed police officer in uniform.
If you don’t think all the “let’s blame the gun” talk is making America paranoid, take a look at recent instances in which employees don’t even want law-enforcement officers to be armed in their presence. And in many cases, they’re getting away with the disrespectful treatment.
Whether it’s a barista at a coffee shop, a restaurant manager or even a security guard, the anti-gun sentiment seems to be prevailing in spot instances across the country.
Recently in Toledo, Ohio, an IRS security guard held a sheriff’s deputy at gunpoint because he came into the building armed while in uniform.
The security guard actually pointed a loaded firearm at the deputy’s back while he walked out of the office and into the hallway to ride the elevator out. The security guard had told the officer to put his gun in the car, but the police officer was unable to leave his service pistol in the car due to police regulations.
(You really have to wonder how a security agency can justify hiring someone who has such basic disregard for the rules of firearm safety, don’t you?)
The security guard found himself facing criminal charges for aggravated menacing for his outrageous actions against the armed police officer. The police officer has also filed a civil lawsuit. And the resulting criminal case has been referred for mediation.
Consider the incident in which an employee asked six police officers to leave a Tempe, Ariz., Starbucks. Sure, the chain ended up apologizing, but where does someone who makes coffee get the nerve to kick six police officers out of the store and why didn’t someone else step up in defense of our men and women in blue?
A similar case made news in Texas, when the manager of Fogo de Chao asked an off-duty police officer to leave because he was armed. The manager went so far as to say that even if the officer had been in full uniform, he would have been ushered out. Again, an apology came after the fact.
There was a time when law-enforcement officers—especially ones in uniform and armed—were given the red-carpet treatment from businesses. Not so much these days.
So you have to ask yourself, what has changed?
The first answer that comes to mind is that the anti-gunners have ratcheted up the volume of their crusade to disarm America to such an extent that it’s making ordinary people think that the mere presence of a gun is dangerous—even an image of a gun, as in a rifle photo in a newspaper ad or drawing of an AR-15-type rifle on a T-shirt.
Every time a tragic shooting makes the news, various lawmakers wring their hands and profess that something must be done to stop the violence.
And in their quest to make firearms out to be pure evil, they hammer out legislation that makes situations regarding guns about as clear as mud.
In the case of the IRS security guard’s reaction to the uniformed armed police officer, even the police officers who responded to the scene were uncertain as to the intent of the law that defines gun-free zones in certain governmental buildings, discussing between themselves whether a deputy in uniform could be armed. Fortunately, prosecutors filed charges against the security guard and now the court case is headed for mediation.
If police themselves don’t understand the parameters of the law, how good is it?
As for the private businesses that are letting employees be the judge of what’s appropriate, maybe it’s time for some training and an understanding of what law-enforcement officers do and that they are supposed to be armed when in uniform in some jurisdictions.