Gun buster signs and NO-GUN employers

This is a discussion on Gun buster signs and NO-GUN employers within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; "Open to the public" does not mean you have a right to be there. " Correct. That's a fancy way of saying open to wholesale ...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 69 of 69
Like Tree25Likes

Thread: Gun buster signs and NO-GUN employers

  1. #61
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,890
    "Open to the public" does not mean you have a right to be there. "

    Correct. That's a fancy way of saying open to wholesale and retail customers in general and not "members only" like Sam's or Costco are. It's an invitation only.
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Phillep I agree is is risk mitigation and also agree that a robbery is more likely to occur Billy the grocery sacker was a very basic example.

    Oldvet. Thank you for that post I learned something from it.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  4. #63
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,841
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Threads like these usually do come down to these main topics because those are the main issues that surround it. If there is something new you wish to add please do.
    I wish I had a more constructive suggestion. Unfortunately I can only see two options, both of which are problematic. One, is find some sort of means to qualify individuals to enable them to carry. Essentially the old problem and question of would you support a higher grade of permit in exchange for removal of restrictions? This would be to address and weed out the shouldn't carry a spork group. Two, is an extension of the concept incorporated by many states that GB signs, extended to other types of restrictions, are meaningless but let the someone feel good. As far as employment goes, if it becomes a big enough issue, like parking lots did, one group will eventually try to cram its 'righs' down the other sides throat by (legal system) force.

    Personally, I am starting to see a more comprehensive training and permit program as being the best, if not only, real answer. Setting aside the 'shall not be infringed' line, from a practical standpoint, an advanced permit, along with some legal liability and protection doctrine is about the only way I can see to address both sides, both of which are right.
    I also, personally, see a distinction between residences and businesses. That is just my view and I would support rules or legislation in line with it, recognizing that others won't.
    tacman605 likes this.

  5. #64
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Phillep I agree is is risk mitigation and also agree that a robbery is more likely to occur Billy the grocery sacker was a very basic example.
    That's the way I took it; "This sort of stupidity," not as a "this specific stupidity".

    Still stands, especially with added warnings "Better have a good reason for your gun going off, or you are fired." "Careless or negligent handling of any weapon, including knives (used for product) will get you fired."

  6. #65
    Ex Member Array CaveJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    329
    My employer "officially" doesn't allow weapons, but I still carry a blade. I am in close proximity to subsidized housing and it's a lot of scary drunks and psychos around here. I've almost gotten into fights and someone that lives nearby was attacked with a pipe once.

  7. #66
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Noway. I believe the State of Michigan is doing or considering just that. An upgraded permit that would require more training but would exempt the carrier from gun free zones.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  8. #67
    Member Array DroidGeorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Smith, Arkansas
    Posts
    151
    Sometimes it is in the details. Most hospitals and such have 'no weapons allowed' on their doors in Arkansas. However Arkansas statute says the sign must say 'no firearms allowed' specifically. So if you are doing a proper job of concealment, no one is going to know and you are legal in the eyes of the law.

    George
    Smile. It makes people wonder what you are up to

  9. #68
    Member Array Gladiator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    I wish I had a more constructive suggestion. Unfortunately I can only see two options, both of which are problematic. One, is find some sort of means to qualify individuals to enable them to carry. Essentially the old problem and question of would you support a higher grade of permit in exchange for removal of restrictions? This would be to address and weed out the shouldn't carry a spork group. Two, is an extension of the concept incorporated by many states that GB signs, extended to other types of restrictions, are meaningless but let the someone feel good. As far as employment goes, if it becomes a big enough issue, like parking lots did, one group will eventually try to cram its 'righs' down the other sides throat by (legal system) force.

    Personally, I am starting to see a more comprehensive training and permit program as being the best, if not only, real answer. Setting aside the 'shall not be infringed' line, from a practical standpoint, an advanced permit, along with some legal liability and protection doctrine is about the only way I can see to address both sides, both of which are right.
    I also, personally, see a distinction between residences and businesses. That is just my view and I would support rules or legislation in line with it, recognizing that others won't.
    Ah, the voice of reason in some very muddy waters. There are so many pros and cons about this subject you will never please everyone. I suppose I could support an upgraded permit but I don't think many business owners would give a whit about that. I think citing firearm accidents is a terrible argument and completely irrelevant. I agree that there is a distinction between businesses and residences and the application of law should reflect that distinction.

    When Arizona did away with the requirement for a permit CCW instructors had to find another job. I understood at the time how people got nervous about it. Still, there has been no rise in firearm accidents or gun crime so their fears seem unwarrented. People are more responsible with firearms than they are driving a car. CCW training is important though and perhaps a permit to carry in posted businesses might be a solution to this argument.
    Best
    Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Retired SCPO USN
    NRA certified Instructor
    Arizona CCW instructor

  10. #69
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    now, Congress decided that the Interstate Commerce Clause allowed them to pass anti-discrimination laws for businesses & employers. Could the same argument be made to pass laws banning "no-gun" signs for private restaurants, stores, & employers?

    perhaps. Though discriminating against people is one thing, while discriminating against an object...is another.


    though, the right to own & carry a gun is enshrined in our Constitution, while the right to wear baggy pants is not.

    it would be an interesting SCOTUS case.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment metal sign
,

2nd amendment protest signs

,
bill of rights article 2 tin sign
,
does the 2nd amendment apply to no gun signs
,
employer weapons posting massachusetts
,

gunbuster signs

,
marlin bill of rights tin sign
,
metal signs that say property protected by guns
,
powered by mybb injury lawyers queens
,
powered by mybb teacher training in the uk
,
powered by mybb women in business suits
,

this house is protected by the good lord and a gun metal sign

Click on a term to search for related topics.