Anti gun stores

[SiG Lady]

The local area firearms academy is located on rural property on which also lives one of the owners in his own home. Once in a while we'll do a lunch break at his house during a shooting class day, and he has an interesting house-rule for his home premises: "Guns are mandatory in the house!" We are, after all, an academy that supports Concealed Carry and other related issues, so wearing guns is basic for the likes of us. But we get a kick out of his house-rule every time we hear it especially in light of the B.S. we all see pretty much ELSEWHERE,

[JFD]

I remember when Blockbuster started posting these signs and the response they got made them give up on that policy quick.

I believe posting signs like this means they have taken direct responsibility for the safety of their customers. I would think that alone would be scary for them from a legal standpoint (more than not posting the signs), so I'm confused why they do it. At some point these signs should result in huge damages being awarded (not that I'm wishing for a "crazed gunman" attack), and that may change their minds.

With the number of parking lot robberies we have at our largest mall, it still amazes me that they post the sign, basically disarming their customers. Carrying in a store that posts the sign isn't a felony in SC, so I go with the "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" theory.

[safarihunter]

The stores that post signs are doing the CYA routine. They feel better at corporate but still know if someone is injured by a firearm in or around their store they will be sued.

[walangkatapat]

Scuse me, but if I can carry legally, then your talking about violating a corporate policy, not committing a criminal act.

Except in those cases where violating such a posted notice is, in fact, a crime (for example TX law 30.06 - and yes, that really is the number)

Like HR1022 how ironic.

[walangkatapat]

Here is their response.

"Thank you for taking the time to contact our corporate office in writing.

The concealed weapons policy has been put in place for all of our corporate

stores and was implemented for the protection of our customers and our

business. We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you.

Thank you for your inquiry.

This is an automated email. Please do not reply to this message."

Notice no way to write back.

You would think after VTECH they would learn that disallowing the legal guns doesnt protect anybody but the deranged shooter or criminal.

Sounds like they do take full legal responsibility for the customers protection.

[cdfcapt]

Its not illegal. Here if you are found out they can ask you to leave and if you dont then they can call the police who can cite you for trespassing.

Amazingly this is the law in Calif too. The Police will ask you to leave once before they cite and remove you in most cases.

Edited August 6, 2007 by cdfcapt

[Rob Boudrie]

Amazingly this is the law in Calif too. The Police will ask you to leave once before they cite and remove you in most cases.

This is not amazing at all when you consider the history of CA. If you told us you had a CA CCW from an area near LA. that would be amazing .

There are the "old" carry permit states where the CCW laws were written when the purpose was to limit those carrying to so-called responsible members of society, and "new" carry permit laws written based on public demand from citizens who wanted the ability to legally carry.

In general, the newer the carry permit law, the more limitations have been added, in the form of "prohibited places", "ability of a business to post a legally binding sign", etc. States including CA, MA, CT, RI, and NY (NY state permits exclude NYC though) have very few limitations on where the permit is valid and no "sign posting" law (although the ability to get a permit in these states can depend on where you live and/or who you know), whereas states that have recently implemented "shall issue" carry permit systems such as TX, VA, AZ and FL have more limitations and conditions as they were born in the face of organized opposition and deal making. Someone moving to a pro-gun state such as TX, AZ or VA from the anti-gun meccas of NY or MA would have to get used to considerable additional restrictions on carry they did not experience before moving from the "anti gun" state to a "pro gun" state.

One particularly interesting example of this is MI - when that state when from "may issue" (i.e., persons of privilege, power and influence only) to "shall issue", new restrictions and limitations were added - reducing the number of places that a MI carry permit covers within that state.

[cdfcapt]

Amazingly this is the law in Calif too. The Police will ask you to leave once before they cite and remove you in most cases.

This is not amazing at all when you consider the history of CA. If you told us you had a CA CCW from an area near LA. that would be amazing .

There are the "old" carry permit states where the CCW laws were written when the purpose was to limit those carrying to so-called responsible members of society, and "new" carry permit laws written based on public demand from citizens who wanted the ability to legally carry.

In general, the newer the carry permit law, the more limitations have been added, in the form of "prohibited places", "ability of a business to post a legally binding sign", etc. States including CA, MA, CT, RI, and NY (NY state permits exclude NYC though) have very few limitations on where the permit is valid and no "sign posting" law (although the ability to get a permit in these states can depend on where you live and/or who you know), whereas states that have recently implemented "shall issue" carry permit systems such as TX, VA, AZ and FL have more limitations and conditions as they were born in the face of organized opposition and deal making. Someone moving to a pro-gun state such as TX, AZ or VA from the anti-gun meccas of NY or MA would have to get used to considerable additional restrictions on carry they did not experience before moving from the "anti gun" state to a "pro gun" state.

One particularly interesting example of this is MI - when that state when from "may issue" (i.e., persons of privilege, power and influence only) to "shall issue", new restrictions and limitations were added - reducing the number of places that a MI carry permit covers within that state.

Wow that was very interesting information More restrictions on issue = more places to carry less restrictions = less places to carry.........Is that a conundrum?

Edited August 6, 2007 by cdfcapt

[lynn jones]

here ya go chuck! this should answer you question about anti gun stores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeo05uPMmn4

lynn