No Guns Allowed signs?

[Rocketgeezer]

After giving it a little thought,I decided to call management. I explained why I was not going to patronize their store. There is now one less employee and the sign has been removed. He did say that if I were to carry concealed in the store, I would not have been asked to leave. The sign was supposedly place there, so no one would accidently bring in a loaded firearm for service or to sell or trade.

Thats pretty much comon sense, I'm sure the counter people or gunsmith dont want to be suprized, even though safe gun handleing would avoid accidents

 

[buckfynn]

I have NEVER seen a store with a sign proclaiming that guns are not allowed. I have not even seen them on banks or hospitals. Where do you have to live to see such things? I never even saw them in Kalifornia when I lived there. I currently live in Idaho.

You need to go no further than Buffalo Wild Wings in Meridian, Idaho located near the Franklin and Eagle intersection. Personally I refuse to patronize Buffalo Wild Wings since they display a no firearms allowed sign.

 

[IdahoCarry]

I will have to check that out since we now have one of those in Twin Falls.

 

[ezkl2230]

Okay. This is the Founders On Firearms document:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson

This quote is attributed to Jefferson, but in reality he was quoting from Cesare Bonesana's (Marchese Beccaria, 1738-1794) treatise entitled, Of Crimes and Punishments.

Of false Ideas of Utility.

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For
example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular
more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of
mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who
would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or
trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of
their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who
knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those
only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to
prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the
most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will
respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of
which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the
execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear
to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent
to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty?
It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the
assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it
requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

...Finally, that is a false idea of utility which,
sacrificing things to names, separates the public good from that of
individuals.

 

[cwm1611]

In Ks the sign must be no smaller than 6" diameter on the circle (the one with the slash through it), be unobstructed, be between 4&6 feet off the floor, be within 12" of the entrance.

I know several places where they have "unacceptable" (ie.. not enforceable -- so said our state AG) signs to pacify the people who freak over the thought of guns in places where kids are.

Also, if you are found carrying in a properly posted area (meaning you probably had to present and/or use it due to a lethal threat) the fine for the violation (because the anti crowd will definitely scream that you can't ignore the violation) is $50 first offense, $100 second offense, only on third does it become a 3rd degree MISDEMEANOR).

 

[kerb]

Went to a local "Outfitters" business, AKA Gun shop. There is an 8 1/2 X 11 sign, stating no loaded weapons inside store. So I went back to my car, disarmed myself and went in to find every employee carrying. I told them at the cash register, they just saw the last of my money, and why. What did he say? "We don't need your fuckin' business". Nice huh? I will refrain from naming the shop, thats' not my point, they have that right, no matter how much it costs them.

I wouldn't mind knowing what shop it was so I don't make the mistake of going there.

 

[Blue Spader]

Is business responsible for defenseless victims?

If I am injured by a product and the manufacturer "knew or should have known" that the product could cause such harm and did nothing to protect me then I can sue for damages. When businesses post "no guns allowed" signs they know, or should know, that the sign will not deter the bad guys. It seems to me that if someone is shot in such a place that the business owner should have culpability since they caused me to be unarmed but did not prevent the shooter from being armed on that property. Any attorneys out there with thoughts on this?

 

[dustoffuh1]

There's only one place in my town that displays, No firearms allowed on premesis. Our medical clinic.

 

[keiter]

Californicator's know better than to even think about having a gun. That's just something they see on TV.

 

[Nightmare45]

In Texas unless it is a 51% sign or 30.06 sign screw them.

 

[blarg]

If I am injured by a product and the manufacturer "knew or should have known" that the product could cause such harm and did nothing to protect me then I can sue for damages. When businesses post "no guns allowed" signs they know, or should know, that the sign will not deter the bad guys. It seems to me that if someone is shot in such a place that the business owner should have culpability since they caused me to be unarmed but did not prevent the shooter from being armed on that property. Any attorneys out there with thoughts on this?

I believe there several lawsuits were filed against the Colorado movie theater on exactly this basis.

 

[Gr8gunz]

If I am injured by a product and the manufacturer "knew or should have known" that the product could cause such harm and did nothing to protect me then I can sue for damages. When businesses post "no guns allowed" signs they know, or should know, that the sign will not deter the bad guys. It seems to me that if someone is shot in such a place that the business owner should have culpability since they caused me to be unarmed but did not prevent the shooter from being armed on that property. Any attorneys out there with thoughts on this?

DANG! Why didn't I think of that?

 

[wolf_fire]

If I am injured by a product and the manufacturer "knew or should have known" that the product could cause such harm and did nothing to protect me then I can sue for damages. When businesses post "no guns allowed" signs they know, or should know, that the sign will not deter the bad guys. It seems to me that if someone is shot in such a place that the business owner should have culpability since they caused me to be unarmed but did not prevent the shooter from being armed on that property. Any attorneys out there with thoughts on this?

First.... that store owner did NOT cause you to be disarmed.
Second.... YOU chose to disarm yourself in order to consciously make the decision to go into that store.
Third.... if you had a problem being disarmed in that store you should have not gone in, you did anyways and YOU disarmed yourself. Unless of course the store owner forced you to patronize his/her store? Could that happen? Could you have been against your will and forced to enter? Could you have no choice in the matter? Unlikely.
Fourth... Why would you support a store that has a policy like that?

I see absolutely no case since it is your choice to enter into a store that has a sign like that. The entitlement mentality that has crept into the minds of America makes us think we have the right to go into any store we want. The cold hard reality is that any store owner can prevent whomever he/she wants from being in their store. The cold hard truth of this matter is that if YOU choose to patronize a store with a no guns policy, and YOU choose to disarm yourself, it is YOU who has placed yourself in danger. How dare you even contemplate that the store owner had any duty to protect you.

 

[Blue Spader]

Reasonable if rather assaultive response. In my case includes only theaters around as well as any hospitals. I do choose not to patronize some businesses for that reason but if I need a lab test I go unarmed. The anti-gun folks don't hesitate to sue.

 

[ffrandy]

Here's one from Great Wolf Lodge

 

[PaidTriot]

In NY a sign is not enough to keep you from carrying concealed legally.
They can ask you to leave the store if they somehow find out you are carrying and you must, other-wise it is a trespass.

It is legal to carry in NY public places that are not State owned.

 

[Stengun]

Howdy,

In Arkansas if a "No handgun" sign is posted you cannot enter with your handgun. To do so is illegal and can cause you to lose your permit.

Paul

 

[LoneStarTx]

Yep we got um in Texas. They have to be exactly as prescribed by law. No "Gun Buster Signs". One legit sign is a very big one at IKEA. I'll never go there again.
I equate no gun signs to "KILLING ZONES". That's what the shooters in Newtown and Aurora did.

 

[3gunshooter]

I see them all over Oklahoma. One of the reasons I moved here was because they were gun friendly. I thought.

 

[LoneStarTx]

That's not an answer to signs. For starters we as law abiding citizens don't make CCW look very good carrying where we should not. Especially if you end up having to use your gun.

"don't make CCW look very good carrying"
Do humans have X-ray vision.

"Especially if you end up having to use your gun"
I'd rather pay a fine than be dead.

As citizens of constitutional based country we are limited by only Constitutional laws.