They can have such a policy because it is based off their private property rights.
The solution is not to go there. Screw them. Why willingly go into an advertised gun-free zone? Fish in a barrel.
Besides, ccw folks are not cops, we are not charged with protecting others that decide to go around unarmed. We don’t want to be cops and we have no immunity protection cops have, when they screw up on duty.
We reluctantly may have to deal with a threat, we don’t look for them or relish the idea of being forced to defend ourselves.
Obviously in a case like this ccw holders, if armed, would have defended themselves,depending where they were, and if they’d figure they-d have a good chance at not injuring others while firing at the armored asshat.
>>They can have such a policy because it is based off their private property rights.
That right ended with the abolition of the “negro lunch counter”.
When one operates a place of public accommodation he has an obligation to make it as safe as reasonably possible. Banning firearms makes the venue less safe.
Anywhere there are large numbers of people is a potential target for criminals. Therefore it is reasonable to expect patrons will encounter a situation in which they need to defend themselves from a criminal or criminals. Banning the most effective self-defense tool creates a less safe environment and creates a tort when a patron is harmed by a criminal at that venue.
It is no different than blocking a fire exit, leaving a wet floor with no warning sign, or any number of practices that create greater risk for patrons and employees. Businesses create unsafe situations all the time and get away with it, but when something happens they have some degree of responsibility.
Once one business pays big money for banning firearms, very few businesses will take the risk of banning them and everyone will be safer.