Posted on 11/16/2006 1:36:55 PM PST by kiriath_jearim
A new set of regulations for signs prohibiting concealed handguns in businesses and organizations are out today.
The design features a black silhouette of a gun on a white background, surrounded by a red circle, with a red slash through it -- the concealed carry equivalent of internationally known signs for ``No.''
Signs must be at least eight inches by eight inches with the graphic at least six inches in diameter. If the sign is bigger, the graphic must be proportional. And no text can be within an inch of it.
The signs have been a point of contention since Legislators overrode Governor Sebelius' veto in March to enact the concealed carry law.
Earlier designs were unpopular among business leaders, who wanted a sign easier to understand _ particularly for people who don't speak English.
What about one with 3 or 4 holes (tightly grouped) in it?
Now, if the criminals, psychos and terrorist would just obey the damn signs, we'd be all set.
This is not a bad idea.
Now we can tell from the street what stores we will NOT patronize.
Really?
I am all for conceal and carry. I am also for a business to determine whether it has the right to not permit it. Business can prohibit all kinds of activity that may be permissible elsewhere, such as speech, so why not give business owners the right (and happily abide by that) to refuse entry to those who legally conceal handguns?
I am against the government from doing it - but more power to private businesses who have the ultimate right to control their own premises.
Do business that refuse to allow concealed handguns in their locations have to not allow employees to have access to guns? In other words, these aren't gun free zones, just they control who has the gun (at least legally).
I would hope they would have the decency to install metal detectors and armed guards.
If you disarm the good guys, you should also disarm the bad guys and provide security for the people you've rendered helpless.
It has been my experience,here in Minnesota, that those that post their establishments do so to make sure that there are no guns in the building. Period. It makes them feel safe. Until a bad guy shows up and ignores the sign.
As soon as the carry law was passed here, many drinking establishments in St. Paul rushed to post "no gun" signs. After many of them were systematically held up at gunpoint, the signs started coming down.
... and millions of dollars in compensation for those who are injured because they couldn't defend themselves.
The signs should say:
Notice. We don't want law abiding citizens with guns in here.
Criminals please don't come in here with guns, OK, pretty please!
In Minnesota there is a statue which allow business to do just that.
Seems to be silly to me. Why not just arm your employees?
Honestly, I'd rather trust myself with a gun then some customer off the street. Most people are trained well, but it only takes one vigilante to turn a tense situation into a bloodbath.
Right - same in Kansas. That is my point - businesses should be allowed to prohibit guns.
Again - why can't the businesses provide the security (through guns or no guns)? We haven't devolved that far yet that the only security is from civilians.
I agree. And we should be allowed to pass laws like the one below.
AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding new section 13-3117:
A.R.S. §13-3117. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.
A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.
That is a stupid amendment never to see the light of day.
You have fallen victim to the Sarah Brady/NRA framing of gun-control (they're opposite sides of the same turd). Which part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand? It ain't about 'trust' anymore than driving on the Interstate is about trust.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people should be armed where they will, with wits and guns. NRA KMA
I think the folks who were at Luby's may want to take that chance.
I'm all for business' warning away people who carry. Makes it easier.
Hey, I'm all for them excerising their right to do so too! And I happily support it. Just not with my dollars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.