Possible campaign to "compel" businesses to post their gun free policy?

[ezkl2230]

This report appeared in the Grand Rapids Press yesterday, "BBB accepting complaints against retailers charging credit card fees without warning."

Consumers are being urged to file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau of Western Michigan or the Federal Trade Commission if a retailer charges a surcharge for using a credit card without proper warning.

The warning must come in the form of a sign near the entrance of the business and a receipt explaining the percentage and cost.

“Our goal is to educate people before something bad happens,” said Phil Catlett, CEO of the BBB of Western Michigan..."

The choice of a company to pass this fee on to customers is completely voluntary, yet the BBB and FTC both accept complaints about businesses that fail to disclose their policy - essentially forcing them to publicly disclose the policy whether they want to or not. The public's right to know about the policy - and its potential effect on them - trumps the business' right NOT to disclose it.

I'm thinking this may be a way to "compel" businesses to disclose their gun free policies as well. After all, while the choice to enforce a gun free policy is completely voluntary for the business, the public's right to know about it and it's possible effect on them trumps the business' right NOT to disclose it.

So here's what I propose: The next time a carrier is told that they may not carry on the premises of an organization or business entity that fails to publicly disclose their policy, contact the BBB or FTC and lodge a complaint. Argue it all you want, business owners, but the precedent is established that the public's right to know your policy and how it potentially effects them trumps your right not to disclose it.

In the meantime, for you Michigan residents, I am still trying to get the following proposed bill into the hands of a state legislator who will run with it in Lansing:

A BILL TO AMEND MCL 28.425 BY ADDING SUBSECTION P, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF GUN FREE POLICY

28.425P PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF POLICY PROHIBITING THE CARRY OF FIREARMS ON PREMISES; “PREMISES” DEFINED; PRESUMPTION; VIOLATION; PENALTIES; INDEMNITY.

SEC. 5P

(1) ANY COMMERCIAL OR NON-PROFIT ENTITY ENFORCING A POLICY PROHIBITING THE CARRY OF FIREARMS ON THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED PREMISES SHALL CONSPICUOUSLY POST DISCLOSURE OF SAME. SAID DISCLOSURE SHALL CONSIST OF SIGNAGE THAT SHALL MEASURE NOT LESS THAN 5”X7” AND SHALL BE AFFIXED PROMINENTLY AT ALL EXTERIOR ENTRANCES OF PREMISES OWNED OR OPERATED BY SAID COMMERCIAL OR NON-PROFIT ENTITY.

(2) AS USED IN SUBSECTION (1), "PREMISES" DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING AREAS OF THE PLACES IDENTIFIED UNDER SUBSECTION (1).

(3) THERE SHALL BE A PRESUMPTION THAT ANY COMMERCIAL OR NON-PROFIT ENTITY NOT CONSPICUOUSLY DISCLOSING A PROHIBITION OF FIREARMS CARRY AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (1) PERMITS FIREARMS CARRY.

(4) ANY COMMERCIAL OR NON-PROFIT ENTITY ENFORCING A POLICY PROHIBITING THE CARRY OF FIREARMS ON THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED PREMISES WITHOUT CONSPICUOUSLY DISCLOSING NOTIFICATION OF SAME AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (1) SHALL BE GUILTY OF A CIVIL INFRACTION, AND SHALL BE LIABLE FOR COSTS INCURRED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONDING TO A FIREARMS CARRY RELATED CALL OF TRESPASS.

(5) A LEGAL FIREARMS CARRIER ENTERING THE PREMISES OF ANY COMMERCIAL OR NON-PROFIT ENTITY ENFORCING A POLICY PROHIBITING THE CARRY OF FIREARMS ON THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED PREMISES WITHOUT CONSPICUOUSLY DISCLOSING NOTIFICATION OF SAME AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (1) SHALL BE INDEMNIFIED WITH REGARD TO A FIREARMS CARRY RELATED CHARGE OF TRESPASS.

Disclosure is the law of the land. This doesn't require businesses to do anything that isn't already required by law. I would rather not have to deal with gun buster policies in the first place, but if companies are going to enforce such policies then they should be required to disclose that fact. If you can get behind this, then take a moment to send it to the state legislators from your district.

 

[Andrew49417]

Possible campaign to "compel" businesses to post their gun free policy?

No thanks. Concealed is concealed. I would rather not get arrested for not seeing a posted sign. Plus, this would make businesses post signs that may not have thought about it before. Our tough nerd governor is trying to make posted signs have the force of law here in MI.

 

[TroutStalker]

Possible campaign to "compel" businesses to post their gun free policy?

Signs don't have the force of law in WV but I still would not want to set off this vicious trend. Bring it up on the radar and they will post. Next thing you know they will actively work to change the law in your state to make signs have the force of law behind them. Bye bye CCW! This one can of worms you dont want to open. I'm out

 

[ezkl2230]

No thanks. Concealed is concealed. I would rather not get arrested for not seeing a posted sign. Plus, this would make businesses post signs that may not have thought about it before. Our tough nerd governor is trying to make posted signs have the force of law here in MI.

Snyder is already trying to give them the force of law. This does nothing of the sort.

All it says is there can't be any more surprises.

Right now, Michigan law says that all a business has to do is make a reasonable effort to communicate their policy. They don't have to disclose it unless they happen to discover that you're carrying - then they can walk up to you in front of everyone and tell you to leave the store unless you are willing to go back out to your vehicle and leave it there. At Riverside Crossings mall, they won't even do that. If they happen to discover that you're carrying, you won't know about it until the police, whom they called without your knowledge, come and inform you that you are violating mall policy and ask you to take four pistol out to your vehicle. Does that sound like a reasonable effort to communicate their policy to you?

So as it stands right now, business owners who know that posting such signs might actually lead to more crime in their business (but who still don't want you to carry anyway) can have it both ways: they can let criminals THINK someone who is armed might be in the business and use that as a deterrent, and they can still kick you out of their business if they discover that you are carrying. Nothing reasonable about that.

 

[Cowbilly32]

Leave it alone.

 

[BBman]

bbman

Leave it alone.

As you may know, Gov. Snyder (of Michigan) just vetoed a bill that would have eliminated the School Gun Free Zones. As a result, they are ALL posted with Gun Free Zone signs. I see no downside to also requiring every other gun free zone (read Business) to be posted. As a lawful gun owner and carrier, I do NOT want to give my money to any business that would deny me the right to protect my family in their establishment. AND, I would hope that YOU would feel the same way. When they are REQUIRED to post, you can then make your decision NOT to patronize their business. As it is now, you may be giving your hard earned money to a business that is hostile to your right to protect yourself and your family. When I find out a business does not allow gun carry, both concealed or open, I make sure to tell them that I, and everyone else I can tell, will not be spending our money in their business. On the flip side of the coin, when I see or hear of a business that welcomes gun carry, I ALWAYS make sure to tell them that one of the reasons that I use their business is BECAUSE they cater to gun owners!!

 

[Arney]

Boycott is the only answer

 

[ezkl2230]

Boycott is the only answer

And this idea will tell us who to boycott!

 

[ezkl2230]

As you may know, Gov. Snyder (of Michigan) just vetoed a bill that would have eliminated the School Gun Free Zones. As a result, they are ALL posted with Gun Free Zone signs.

That is only partly correct. Yes, Snyder vetoed SB 59. But under existing Michigan law and the federal gun free school zones act exemption, you can still OC on school property if you have a CPL and there is nothing they can do to stop you.

Under SB 59, open carry would have been done away with (Snyder demanded this as a condition of signing the bill) and only a select few would been permitted to carry on school property once they jumped through all the hoops. If Snyder had his way and the language he really wanted had been included in SB 59, even if you had gotten all the additional training and received your exemption to carry on school property, schools and public (government) buildings would have been given specific authority to "ban firearms" (Snyder's words), so you still would not have been able to carry in those places. He vetoed SB 59 because the only compromise he could get was to do away with open carry.

 

[tattedupboy]

Just because a business isn't hosted doesn't mean it isn't anti. Don't start giving people ideas.