Gun buster signs and NO-GUN employers

[OldVet]

"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.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[tacman605]

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.

[noway2]

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.

[Phillep Harding]

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."

[CaveJohnson]

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.

[tacman605]

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.

[DroidGeorge]

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

[Gladiator]

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.

[Pythius]

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.