AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh
As gun owners, many of us are used to being told we’re not welcome in various places. After all, what are gun free zone postings other than a warning that we’re not welcome unless we turn ourselves into helpless sheep?
However, there are people that I think everyone should be able to agree are best armed. In particular, law enforcement.
Unfortunately, one jewelry store made it clear to a sheriff’s deputy that he wasn’t welcome because he was armed.
Every kiss begins with Kay, huh? I guess the same is true of the phrase, “kick in the balls.”
Bear in mind that this wasn’t even an off-duty deputy. No, he was on-duty and, presumably, in uniform. He was still barred from entering the establishment.
Before any of you get too upset at Kay’s, though, the chain probably isn’t all that happy with what happened either.
A company spokesperson for Kay Jewelers, David Bouffard, responded to the sheriff’s office’s post, stating that the company is “reaching out to the customer and the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office to sincerely apologize for the mishandling of this matter.”
The company further stated, “We have tremendous respect for law enforcement, and we thank the Office for bringing this to our attention. We will be sure to reinforce store training regarding our firearm policy with specific regard to uniformed law enforcement.”
However, I think it would be in Kay Jewelers’ best interest to scrap its existing firearm policy completely. No one should be barred from its stores’ premises because they’re lawfully carrying a firearm.
Frankly, I have yet to hear of a jewelry store heist that was thwarted by a firearm policy.
“Yeah, we were going to rob this jewelry store, but they didn’t allow guns. How messed up is that? How are we supposed to rob a place if they won’t let us have guns?” asked no one ever.
Criminals who want to rob a place will rob that place regardless of any signs warning them that guns aren’t allowed.
I get that this might be an insurance issue rather than a corporate-designed policy originating with Kay Jewelers, but it might also be time to start fighting that fight as well. Any time someone is forcibly disarmed due to a store’s policy, they should be held legally liable for any violence that befalls those people not just in the store, but at any point between when they are disarmed and when they can potentially rearm themselves.
I wonder how insurance companies would feel about that?