Gun-Ban Sign Postings Divide Businesses!

[Rink]

Posted on Tue, Jun. 17, 2003

Gun-ban postings divide firms
BY JENNIFER BJORHUS
Pioneer Press

Local businesses find themselves caught in the middle of the debate over how to enforce Minnesota's new "conceal and carry" gun law.

Do they post a "no guns allowed" sign, and offend some customers — or choose not to post a sign and offend others?

"It's a tough question,'' said Elio Montermini, manager of the Calhoun Square mall in Minneapolis' Uptown district. Like other business managers, Montermini has been lobbied by both sides of the issue — and as of late last week had not decided what to do.

Since Minnesota last month joined more than 30 other states in greatly expanding the number of people who can legally pack a gun in public, organizations have been wrestling with whether and how to ban guns on their property. The law requires operators of gun-free public premises to post a sign and provide some type of personal warning to employees and patrons.

Citizens for a Safer Minnesota — seeking a repeal of the new gun law — is campaigning to get Calhoun Square and Target Corp. to post signs. The gun rights group Minnesota Concealed Carry Reform Now responded with e-mail of its own, urging patrons to tell businesses if they find such signs distasteful.

Montermini estimated his gun e-mails ran about 80 percent in favor of the signs, 20 percent against. Frustrated, he called Minnesota's new gun law impossible to enforce. Signs about guns unnerve shoppers, he said. Yet people have told him they won't shop there without the signs.

Unscientific observations around the metro area suggest that most companies aren't posting signs. A Minnesota Chamber of Commerce survey also indicates that's the case. In early June the chamber informally surveyed its members. Nearly 70 percent of the 250 or so companies that responded already ban, or planned to ban, their employees from carrying guns at work. But only about a third said they planned to post a "no guns" sign and inform customers of the ban, said Tom Hesse, chamber director of labor management policy.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/6104167.htm

[Timberwolf]

Baa-a-a-a-a-a-a Baa-a-a-a-a-a-a Baa-a-a-a-a-a-a

The sheep have spoken...Minnesotans that don't realize the positive influence guns have in keeping them safe...well, let's just say that words fail me. I cannot describe that level of stupidity.

[Rink]

thing of it is here, you have these dorks putting up signs Infringing on the 'peoples' right to bear arms.

I thought only the federal buildings can barr law-abiding citizens from bringing their legally obtained legally bought pistols in the federal buildings only?

If these shop owners can bar perople from bearing arms this sets a very bad precedence for gun owners who are law-abiding and hamstrings people from being able to defend themselves if attacked by criminals.

Cant carry even though you've bought a gun legally and its registered, cant carry even though you went through a background check and gun safety course, cant carry even though you have no problems with the law whatsoever, so what is this? but an outright way to get around the Constitutional guarantees.

This needs to be challeneged in the courts because if this takes hold and becomes legal this can be bad for gun owners.

[Timberwolf]

The only way these "guns not allowed" signs can be successfully fought is under Anti-discrimination laws...and that's only because these businesses serve the PUBLIC and CC is now legal (like it could ever BE illegal). I disagree with anti-discrimination laws, but they ARE the law. I don't see this as a problem b/c those businesses that DO post these ludicrous signs are saying, "welcome, thieves...no guns allowed on the premises" and will be the victim of higher crime rates than those business owners that welcome those that C&C.

We need not get our "panties in a bunch" b/c market forces will eventually remove the wool from the sheep's eyes (I hope).

[Rink]

I most certainly hope you're right.

Just to me their banning signs is patently Un-Constitutional in my simple opinion.

[Timberwolf]

Actually, they aren't. I say that because the Constitution only prohibits the federal and state governments from denying the people this right. The 2nd amendment (just as the 1st) does not apply to the private sector.

Just as I don't have to tolerate your free speech rights in my home or business, neither do I have to honor your right to carry in my home or business...my property, so therefore my rights supercede yours.

But, ANYONE stupid enough to post one of these ludicrous signs in their business is inviting thieves to prey upon them. I would ask these people, "would you post a sign in the front window of your home that said, "we proudly proclaim this home to be gun-free?" If not, why not?"

Thieves, and criminals in general, may be dumb but they're not stupid. They know that an unarmed person/business is much preferred to an armed one.

[Rink]

True, but what if a person wishes to stay protected even tho an establishment is stupid enough to post a sign outside making it a 'gun free zone ripe for thieves'??????

[Timberwolf]

That would get "messy"...if said person actually stopped a robbery b/c s/he was carrying, I guess it would be up to the store owner as to whether charges against him/her would be brought.

But, it is anyone's guess, Rink...and I couldn't really tell ya. Although, if said CCW person was "discovered" by owner or employee, I would imagine they could ask said person to leave the premises.

[Rink]

LOL wont do theier business very good will it, when they refuse law-abiding citezens.

Word of mouth can kill a business fast.

[2nd_Amendment]

Easy decision for a business owner: Any gun owner who complains about an anti-gun sign represents himself and hundreds of others who will no longer do business there. Any hoplophobe who complains about a lack of signage represents only himself and maybe a couple of immediate family members over whom he can exercise dictatorial influence. Typical political numbers: When you see a conservative rally there are 100 times more than that number sitting at home in just the local area...when you see a leftist rally that's it. That's all there be, there ain't no mo'.

[Rink]

I wish upon those dolts the 'darwin awards' LOL would do us good if they got it http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue1.gif

[TheRealLobo]

If it's like Texas law:

The signage has to be very specific. If it's NOT a place already prohibited by the statute(s), then it simply falls under "trespassing".

If you were to carry in such a place, and someone reported you to the owner/employee/whatever, then they could, a) ask you to leave, b) call the cops, who would PROBABLY only ask/tell you to leave, or you COULD be charged with trespassing. I'm not sure what the penalty for trespassing is, but I'm fairly sure it's a misdemeanor.

(Consult a lawyer for the real deal though).

Grins and giggles,
TRL

[Venus]

Rink, I don't want to see the posting of the signs challenged in court. The pro-gunners will lose because a business, as a private entity, has the right to post any signs it wants and keep out people who are doing something lawful, like smoking, or being barefoot or not wearing a shirt or eating or drinking stuff......or lawfully carrying a concealed weapon. They have a right to consider their liability and their balance sheet bottom line, whether their assessments are right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate.

[Venus]

"That would get "messy"...if said person actually stopped a robbery b/c s/he was carrying, I guess it would be up to the store owner as to whether charges against him/her would be brought."

Timber, I don't understand. What could they be charged with?

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Venus said:
"That would get "messy"...if said person actually stopped a robbery b/c s/he was carrying, I guess it would be up to the store owner as to whether charges against him/her would be brought."

Timber, I don't understand. What could they be charged with?

[/ QUOTE ]
Criminal tresspass would be my guess. Although, ANY store owner that would actually do this after having his bacon saved would find himself out of business within 6 months as, NO ONE would shop in his store from that moment forward...not even the gun grabbers.