HBecwithFn7

Mossberg JM Pro

The original post was about Waffle House, and that's all that concerned me. I believe it's foolish to generalize about franchise agreements as they can change at the drop of a hat, and I would not put it past any company to require of their franchisees to follow certain "corporate brand" policies. As I stated, I seriously doubt that McDonald's would allow any franchisee to change the "Golden Arches" to "pink" or some other color. If these sorts of incidents continue, I would expect that many franchise agreements will change. So you say...

That's precisely what I'm saying. We're on the same team here!

If that's what you want, then God Bless... I prefer not to provoke a confrontation.

Actually, it doesn't take "years of experience...." just a little Google Fu. 2A Check - Waffle House... Bearing Arms - Customer Shoots an Armed Robber at SC Waffle House... So, apparently, franchises are allowed to adjust the policy for "local conditions." Not sure about this particular franchise, but hopefully, it means there won't be any retribution.

Don't the franchisees have to agree to "brand" their franchise to corporate standards to get the franchise? Otherwise, I'd wonder how a corporate owner could control the brand. Imagine a McDonald's with "pink" arches instead of "gold," simply because the franchisee likes the color pink and wants to be "different." Point being, even if it were a customer who shot, if the corporate branding standards required franchised stores to be GFZs, the franchisee would be breaking the franchise agreement by servicing ccw customers. Are Panera stores not franchised? I wonder how they get away with forcing all of them to be GFZs?

Hopefully, he won't face any "discipline" from the natl. HQ at Waffle House. We'll see. And good on the LEOs for taking the right position on it.

Absolutely! And it's the one place where we can reach all the sheeples, unlike the liberal MSM which continues to censor us. We need to take every advantage of it. If we don't, it's on us!

In fact, it's what Shaneen Allen had (a Philly carry permit). Hope she gets/got it back.

Never had such a restriction in any of the ranges I used in PA, etc. There were prohibitions on "rapid fire," but nothing limiting the number of rounds in a given mag.

The story has been plastered all over Yahoo for the last few days. I'm wondering, though if it might have been possible for them to "relocate" to a friendlier county, rather than shut down completely. It would seem that a total shut down would give the anti's their "b**ch slap" moment they wanted. If I could have, I'd have tried to relocate as close as possible to my original site, but in a friendlier county. I gather the costs and the regs would have taken them too far away from their customer base and into territory where the competition is higher. Ah well...

Which is why I never put such bumper stickers for anything on my car. Never had personalized plates, never a "red" sports car, etc. etc. etc.

When I was living there, 45 min. to Heritage Guild.

Nope. I d/L'ed it just fine.

I bought mine from Steve (remixer) on this forum. Check with him. He should be able to fix you up.

NJ Fish & Wildlife - Hunter Education... You need the hunting license to shoot at any of the state WMA ranges (where it is permitted), of which this is one. In fact, this particular one is where the HQ office is and where much of the training happens. Some ranges only allow rimfire (rifle) but some allow clay shooting, etc. You can invite a number of guests to shoot with you on your license. So when these shotgun shootouts are done, at least one person has to have a hunting license.

Now, if only they had Katz's Deli franchises in Florida!

*Nearly*.... The reps in my former district (24th) are strongly pro-2A.

I wouldn't have had any problems with "extra scrutiny" or an RSO in the port with me, or anything of that nature. At least, I'd be able to rent the firearm and attempt to qualify to rent "on my own" eventually. And, assuming I had purchased an an annual membership prior to implementing such a policy, I'd still be able to shoot, and to use it (the membership).

As stated in an earlier post, I respect your right to run your business as you see fit. That said, had you had these policies in effect when I was just starting out with firearms (and not owning any weapons for myself), it is highly unlikely that I would have become a customer of yours as I'd not be able to meet those policies, given my own situation. Are you willing to accept the potential loss of new business from this policy? How do you define "first time" and what would advance a person beyond their "first time" such that they could rent from you? Individuals who are at least 18 are legal adults, and are allowed to "own" their own long guns, provided they meet all the state eligibility requirements (FID, no criminal / mental background, etc.). I'd think this particular policy might pose a legal liability risk for you (i.e. discrimination lawsuit), should you choose to enforce it. I'd run it by your legal team.

I can look at this from a number of different angles. First, When I started, I had a membership at Heritage Guild in PA. I was 3 mos. into it, and renting their weapons regularly, not owning one of my own. Then, the same incident happens there. The on-line and media chatter pointed towards them stopping rentals to those who don't own their own weapon. Thankfully, they didn't, or I'd have been screwed, having just purchased a full annual membership with no way to use it. Second angle, is that I understand the position of the range owner. S/he has to do what's best for the business. If that meant restricting rentals, then so be it. I just hope they'd be willing to work something out with any affected customer(s), as was I, almost. Third, I also see it from the point of the EMS responders. As it so happens, I serverd for 5 years on the Randolph Rescue Squad. So it very well could have been me responding to that call. My prayers are with all who had to deal with this, and with the surviving family.

Better late than never.

Does it matter? The fact that one had such a record with the county will still be made known to the investigating PD. The SP-066 was changed to add a check box that says "Expunged." For any PD looking to discourage ownership, I'd venture that would be enough for a "denial," or at least, more documentation as to the nature of the activity there.

I don't think so. Washington DC is in the 4th circuit. NJ in the 3rd.

At this point, I'd also consider reporting them to ANJRPC, as part of Operation Strikeforce.