Question about sign

[Ironheart]

So the business owner doesn't put up a sign, say a guest or client who comes onto the business does not need to be disarmed since he hasn't been informed?

There is an old saying that goes .. out of sight out of mind Because there is no way on earth, if I am 500 miles away from my home on business, will I turn my gun over to a person who has a sign up saying in other words " Drop off your expensive legal gun here & hope it is here when you return". Like you would be able to think about your work or anything other than your gun until it was safely back in your possession. Seriously what do they expect you to do with it ? I know I don't tote around a small 200 lb safe away on business, do you? Like I said .."Out of sight out of mind" What they don't know wont hurt them . Unless of course they try to rob me ....!
"Merry Christmas everyone" and To my Extravagant Ex Wife Whom I think about often this time of year whether it's wrong or if it's right!!! . Every time I hear the song with these three definitive words that ring so true in respect to you!!!
Ho, Ho, Ho & And to all a good night
:jester: :neo: :sarcastic: :hang3:

 

[shhmitty]

Not to bring an old forum up but I have been looking at different places I go to see if any have a no weapons sign out front while I'm waiting on my CCP to come back, anyhow another theatre in Columbia has a no concealable weapons sign posted and it looks legal but is at the ticket booth instead of the entrance door.If my wife and I went to the movies and she bought the tickets while I parked the car and just walked in I would never see the sign, this can't be proper placement can it? Is it a legal sign if the sign is right but it is at the ticket booth instead of the actual entrance doors.

 

[clintj]

Is it a legal sign if the sign is right but it is at the ticket booth instead of the actual entrance doors.

SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements.

(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.

(B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:

(1) clearly visible from outside the building;
...

 

[cha2ga]

SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements.
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.

(B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:

(1) clearly visible from outside the building;

(2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;

(3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;

(4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;

(5) a diameter of a circle; and

(6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door.

 

[melloyello]

Yeah, the theater posting a sign at the box office is not a legal posting per 23-31-235. But as I have said before, if you run into this sort of thing, engage in a discusion with the managment of the establishment. Explain to them, that the sign is not in compliance with 23-31-235, what the requirements of 23-31-235 are, and why they should not be posting signs like this anyway. I would implore concealed carry holders not to challenge an improper sign by ignoring it, but rather seeking to have to the sign removed by the apropriate authority in charge of the establishment.

Why tell them when we are told that IGNORANCE of the LAW is no EXCUSE.
Are they somehow better or more special than us?
If they want to ban licensed CWP carriers then it is their responsibility to follow the law.
We PAID to be educated, we took the time to LEARN, and we are RESPONSIBLE for our action...

....if we have to educated them then they don't have to be responsible.....

 

[melloyello]

My mistake, I shouldn't try to educate the general public that us gunowners are just like everyone else. I should not use this as an attempt to build bridges to people who might not always be ameniable to the right-to-carry movement. I should not try to sway them towards our ideals of individual self defense and personal responsability.

No, :moil: no, :moil: not at all. Why not use this as an oportunity to build bridges to the non-gunowners? :moil: Why not use this as an oportunity to educate? :moil: The more bridges we build to other groups, the more acceptable gunownership becomes. Like it or not, the news media has demonized us, and we need to take any chance to counter that effort. :moil:

You're reading too far into what I said and referenced....
I didn't say don't educate them about gun owners and the misconceptions people have.
I said don't educated them about the LAW and what they are doing wrong for compliance.leasantry:
If they are still anti-gun after your conversation, then we all lose - pick your battles.

Personally, I think your wasting you time with talking to the anti-gun people directly.
IMO, you're on the right track with the media's negative portrayal of guns.
If media broadcasts the benefits of responsible gun ownership; that would be a credible source.
If media used The Armed Citizen stories, The Armed Citizen that would be a positive approach we need to undo the myths of anti-gunners propaganda.