Waffle House continues company policy to ban permitted concealed handguns for civilians at their restaurants

Apr 23, 2018 | Featured

On Sunday, April 22, 2018, 4 people were killed by Travis Reinking at a Waffle House in Antioch, Tennessee.  As is far too common, the Waffle House was a gun-free zone (pictures shown below).

Waffle House has continued to have a gun-free zone policy.  Here is a statement that Waffle House issued in October 2015 after an attack that was stopped outside their restaurant by a permit holder:

Waffle House has even gone so far as banning armed, National Guard soldiers (September 30, 2015):

An armed National Guard soldier in uniform has been refused service at a Kentucky Waffle House.

Billy Welch was in full military gear, with his holstered gun at his side, when he visited the Nicholsville restaurant in the early hours of Sunday morning.

But when he went to order his food, he claims he was taken aside by a waitress who told him Waffle House did not allow sidearms. If he wanted to get served, he would have to leave his gun outside.

Military policy means weapons should not leave a soldier’s side for a moment, according to Welch.

Yet when he tried to explain to staff that he did not ‘feel comfortable taking my firearm away’, he says he was simply told that it was part of the chain’s no firearms rules, AOL reported.

Faced with eating or breaching military code, Welch said he had no alternative but to leave and go hungry. . . .

Here are two pictures of a sign at the Antioch Waffle House.

Allowing police to carry in the restaurant is fine, but if an attack is going to occur, a uniformed officer will be the first target.  A terrorist has a huge strategic advantage.  Concealed handgun permit holders limit that advantage.

Waffle house has been the scene of numerous attacks over the years, but they have yet to change their policy.

One of our supporters sent us this:

I called the corporate headquarters and asked when their policy was on guns in their restaurants.  I was routed to the security department and the woman who answered was very evasive.  She never gave me a straight answer and accused me of being “insensitive” by asking that question after last weekend’s events.  The number is 770-729-5700.

We have tried calling them up this afternoon at 4:20, but have been told that neither their PR person nor their security department were available for comment.  Their legal department talked to me briefly and then has kept us on hold from 4:47 to 6:23 PM.  If others have interactions with Waffle House, please let us know.

Mass public shooters keep targeting gun-free zones for their attacks.  These guys might be crazy, but they’re smart enough to understand that some targets are more vulnerable than others.

The list of fatal shootings at Waffle House restaurants is significant.

Within hours of the attack, we found quite a bit of detail about what time of person the killer, Travis Reinking, is.  Here is an article in the Nashville, Tennessean early the next morning after the attack:

The 29-year-old Illinois man accused of carrying out a fatal shooting Sunday morning at an Antioch Waffle House previously had weapons removed from his possession after a 2017 arrest near the White House. 

Newly obtained Illinois police records also show the suspected shooter thought he was being stalked by Taylor Swift and had previously threatened people with an AR-15 rifle. . . .



  1. Cynthia

    SHAME ON WAFFLE HOUSE! We will continue to carry. Waffle House does not want us to be able to defend ourselves! Screw their leftists asses!

    • Scott C

      Just carry elsewhere and stop patronizing businesses that want you to be unarmed. It’s their right, but it’s our right to spend our money elsewhere.

  2. ScienceABC123

    I would expect that Waffle House carries a legal obligation to provide security if they prohibit people from providing their own.

  3. HD Allen

    Here’s a quick thought. Before the GOP looses its majorities, it should introduce legislation establishing a federal “duty of care” for location where concealed (or open) carry is prohibited. Quite simply if anyone is going to deny a citizen their constitutional right to effective self defense, then that person or corporation is therefore responsible for that citizen’s well-being in respect of any risk that may have been addressed by a firearm. The standard of care could be reasonableness in light of the circumstances (i.e., a tort standard). You would also have significantly limit qualified immunity so that this effectively applied to governments and government agents (in fact it might be worth imposing personal liability on law enforcement or lawmakers who enforce and enact, respectively, any such bans).

    Of course the legislation won’t pass, but it would be worth the debate. I can see the debates, e.g.: “OK so let me get this strait, you’re telling me that you’re going to take away my ability to effectively defend myself AND you’re not going to be responsible for my safety?” This sort of argument turns the Warren vs. DC logic on its head (or at least its side).



  1. ‘Second Amendment Guy’ Ben Stein Should Learn Before Presuming to Teach - Patriot Gun News - […] a few months later after a known nutjob who’d had his guns taken away twice before shot up a “gun-free”…


64% of Likely Voters describe current situation with migrants at the border with Mexico as an “invasion” of the United States. Democrats, Liberals, those making over $200,000/year, and with graduate school education are the least likely to believe that.

64% of Likely Voters describe current situation with migrants at the border with Mexico as an “invasion” of the United States. Democrats, Liberals, those making over $200,000/year, and with graduate school education are the least likely to believe that.

As shown in previous surveys, the highest income people, the ones with the most education, are least likely to be very concerned about illegal immigration. The data for the Rasmussen Reports Survey is available here....