Aw. So Devastating.

Store Goes Overboard With Its Anti-Gun Policy | The Daily Caller

A furniture store in Takoma Park, Maryland that calls itself a “Weapons Free Environment” took its policy a bit too far on Independence Day.

That’s when a loss prevention officer at IKEA approached Alan Goldberg, who carried a visible, holstered firearm into the store, telling him he would have to leave the premises or place the weapon in his vehicle, according to NBC Washington.

The request caught Goldberg off guard: he is Takoma Park’s chief of police, and he was in uniform during his visit.

Too freaking bad.  If law abiding citizens can’t carry in this Ikea, I see no reason to give cops a pass. 

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


Aw. So Devastating. — 2 Comments

  1. If law abiding citizens can’t carry in this Ikea, I see no reason to give cops a pass.

    Nah. That is not why you don’t give cops a pass. You don’t give cops a pass because you look at the numbers. When the average gun-toting citizen fires his weapon, he stops shooting when the threat drops (he might even stop shooting too quick). Cops don’t, they empty the gun, reload, empty, reload, empty, call in backup and they empty. Cops do that because they are trained to do it, and there is no downside. If a cop shoots it is a ‘good’ shooting, and you know it.

    • You’re applying the lowest level of scrutiny to the situation, “rational basis,” which makes a decision based on the notion that, from a rational POV, cops are more dangerous with guns that armed citizens are.

      I prefer strict scrutiny, which says that the policy violates a fundamental right, the RKBA, and as such, is on its face unconstitutional. Therefore, if the right is violated, it must be violated for all. Actually, it shouldn’t be violated, period, but that’s a different argument.

Leave a Reply