I guess what I'm saying is its such a subjective issue. So let's say he was going to drink, so he leaves the guns at home. This is fine and responsible in my opinion and no one would ever complain about him or the house of blues. But that would throw the argument that he was disarmed while he was bound by his profession to be armed out the window and the world was less safe that night because of the house of blues.EEllis wrote:Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.Texsquatch wrote:So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?
Maybe the guy was not a drinker, or maybe he is OK to have a couple beers, or maybe he was the DD that night. But again, if you live by absolutes and say he should have been allowed to carry because of his job, then he either should have went home, or as I said he'd have to be real careful what he does and consumes that night and every other time he goes out regardless of the venue.