Double Naught Spy
New member
Then why don't they put up "No robberies allowed" signs? Guns are not the only tools used for robberies, LOL.
Private restaurant posting a no guns permitted sign
- Thread starter dtaski
- Start date
Evan Thomas
Inactive
By and large, business owners aren't dumb. They know the signs aren't going to prevent them from being robbed. The main reason for posting such signs: liability... liability... liability.
They're not keen on being sued in the event one of those gun-fiddling fools comes in, has a negligent discharge, and injures someone. Also, many businesses -- banks, for example -- have a standard policy that employees are not to resist if they are robbed: they'd much rather the tellers just hand over the money than get caught in the middle of a gunfight. There are both liability and workers' comp. concerns there... (actually in both those cases) -- so they'd rather not have armed customers who may want to play hero in such a situation. Not everyone with a concealed carry permit necessarily has training in using deadly force in such situations, so from the point of view of a business, it's a valid concern. (As far as I'm aware, in most jurisdictions even off-duty police officers are taught not to intervene with force in such situations -- and they do have training.)
Robbery is what they're concerned about -- that's more likely by far than some sort of rampage shooting. They're just playing the odds on keeping their employees safe, and their own exposure as low as possible: if it's just a matter of money, hand it over and write it off.
Just respect the sign and move on.
They're not keen on being sued in the event one of those gun-fiddling fools comes in, has a negligent discharge, and injures someone. Also, many businesses -- banks, for example -- have a standard policy that employees are not to resist if they are robbed: they'd much rather the tellers just hand over the money than get caught in the middle of a gunfight. There are both liability and workers' comp. concerns there... (actually in both those cases) -- so they'd rather not have armed customers who may want to play hero in such a situation. Not everyone with a concealed carry permit necessarily has training in using deadly force in such situations, so from the point of view of a business, it's a valid concern. (As far as I'm aware, in most jurisdictions even off-duty police officers are taught not to intervene with force in such situations -- and they do have training.)
Robbery is what they're concerned about -- that's more likely by far than some sort of rampage shooting. They're just playing the odds on keeping their employees safe, and their own exposure as low as possible: if it's just a matter of money, hand it over and write it off.
Just respect the sign and move on.
Mike Irwin
Staff
What restaurant, please?
Why not identify such a location so people like me, who are from central Pennsylvania and are frequently back can avoid it?
Why not identify such a location so people like me, who are from central Pennsylvania and are frequently back can avoid it?
I don't understand the hostility toward these signs. It's just a private citizen asking you to respect his wishes. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to carry everywhere I go. But if a friend or family member asks me not to carry, or smoke, or swear in their home, I don't.
Of course I also completely support going elsewhere if you don't agree with those wishes. But I see no problem with the signs on private property.
Of course I also completely support going elsewhere if you don't agree with those wishes. But I see no problem with the signs on private property.
And this one, in a local Starbucks:
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/12/28/news/19local_12-28-11.txt
I'm probably twice as likely to be shot by an idiot than by a bad guy.
I don't understand the issue with the signs either, it's private property and if they don't want guns on it then that's their business. I have the choice of either leaving my gun outside or going elsewhere.
This has been discussed here before, and I still believe that your property rights trump my 2A rights every time.
P.S. - This one too, from today:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/01/accidental_shooting_at_medina.html
And this, also today:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...-at-raleigh-gun-show-20130119,0,6098861.story
If you take your gun to a gun show to sell, and you're too stupid to clear it before you go in, then maybe you don't need to own guns after all. In fact that's the one gun control measure I could really get behind: an IQ test.
Last edited:
Actually, since it is open to the public for business, it is not private property in the sense that a home is.
In your home, you do not have to entertain protected class individuals. In a business, such refusal would put you on the wrong side of a civil rights suit.
Personally, I think anybody who wants to deny my right of self defense needs to have a positive system in place to defend me. If not, I ignore such signs - in Missouri, that is my legal option, as signs only have force if somebody notices, then asks me to leave, and then I refuse.
Nobody notices.
In your home, you do not have to entertain protected class individuals. In a business, such refusal would put you on the wrong side of a civil rights suit.
Personally, I think anybody who wants to deny my right of self defense needs to have a positive system in place to defend me. If not, I ignore such signs - in Missouri, that is my legal option, as signs only have force if somebody notices, then asks me to leave, and then I refuse.
Nobody notices.
MLeake, carrying is a behavior, a choice, an action. A business owner can deny you service or access based on this in the same way as if you weren't wearing a shirt and shoes. Not the same as discrimination.
But I suppose that brings us back to ignoring those signs and OP's question about consequences. Sorry for the slight derailment
But I suppose that brings us back to ignoring those signs and OP's question about consequences. Sorry for the slight derailment
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in "places of public accommodation" based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The definition of "places of public accommodation" includes hotels, motels, theaters, and restaurants. Now, while a person obviously has no control over his/her race, color, or national origin, the same cannot be said for religion. I choose to practice Christianity just like other people choose to practice Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or even Atheism. As such, religion could be argued to be a behavior itself and thus the argument for carry not being defined as a civil rights issue becomes rather weak.
Also, as MLeake pointed out, a business that is open to the public does not enjoy the same latitude as a person's home or even businesses that are not open to the public such as private clubs. Businesses that are open to the public bear a certain degree of responsibility to provide a reasonably safe environment for the people that they are inviting onto their premises. This is why businesses have to abide by regulations such as fire codes and why they can be found liable for injury or death of their customers if it can be proven that said injury was a result of the business failing to provide a reasonably safe environment for its customers.
By abridging my right to carry a firearm for self-defense without providing adequate security against violent attacks, such businesses put me and my family at unnecessary and, in my view, unreasonable risk when patronizing said establishment. This would be akin to a business barring its customers from bringing fire extinguishers onto its premises while at the same time refusing to have a sprinkler system or fire extinguishers of its own.
This argument fails a simple logical (and smell) test. Go. Somewhere. Else.
The businesses don't put you and your family at unnecessary risk, you do so yourself by patronizing them. Go elsewhere. Why would you patronize an establishment with no fire control system that barred you from bringing your own, if fire was your primary concern?
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." And I reserve the right to go somewhere I'm comfortable.
WyMark, I realize gun owners are not a protected class. I am saying that the moral argument of "private property" has already been shown not to be absolute with regard to businesses open to the public, and therefor I feel no moral anxiety at lawfully - if covertly - thumbing my nose at business owning antis.
In my state, if they notice, and ask me to leave, I leave and there is no crime of any type committed. If I argue, it becomes simple trespass. I would not argue, but they have not noticed in any case.
If they ever do notice, it will be because I needed to display or use a gun, and in such a case I really would not care about the business owner's feelings.
I am not advocating breaking the law, and the law differs by state. I am just talking about the moral side of the house, and if the business owner isn't screening potential bad guys, he is in no moral position to strip me of part of my ability to defend myself.
Edit: part of my ability, because one who trains to fight with his bare hands is never fully disarmed; but, an armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity...
In my state, if they notice, and ask me to leave, I leave and there is no crime of any type committed. If I argue, it becomes simple trespass. I would not argue, but they have not noticed in any case.
If they ever do notice, it will be because I needed to display or use a gun, and in such a case I really would not care about the business owner's feelings.
I am not advocating breaking the law, and the law differs by state. I am just talking about the moral side of the house, and if the business owner isn't screening potential bad guys, he is in no moral position to strip me of part of my ability to defend myself.
Edit: part of my ability, because one who trains to fight with his bare hands is never fully disarmed; but, an armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity...
Well, I certainly hope you don't own a business without adequate fire protection because if you do, you're likely in for a very unpleasant surprise if there's ever a fire. You can say go somewhere else all you like, but the fact of the matter is that there is copious regulation regarding businesses providing safe environments for customers and employees and I fail to see how security is any different. After all, if going somewhere else is the answer to it all, why can a business be sued when someone slips in a puddle? That person had a choice to patronize a business that didn't leave puddles in the middle of their floors didn't they?
My point here is not that I think all businesses should be legally required to allow carry, but rather that there is a distinct double standard applied to carry and other safety issues. I do not believe that "no guns" signs should carry force of law; if they don't have to recognize my right to self-defense then it should be up to them to enforce their policy. I also think that businesses which ban carry and fail to provide adequate security of their own should be open to civil liability for their unwise decisions just as they would for other safety concerns. Were this the case, I think that you'd see a lot of "no guns" signs taken down as insurance and liability is a large part of the reason that many businesses prohibit carry on their premises.
I also agree with MLeake about ignoring "no guns" signs that do not carry force of law. I've never once seen a private business that has both a "no guns" sign and armed security. Since said business obviously feels no moral obligation to provide for the safety of their patrons, I feel no moral obligation to concern myself with their asinine policy.
The bank at which I conduct my business does not have a "no guns" sign nor do they have obvious armed security. I do not frequent other banks so I cannot speak for them. The only place, outside of government buildings, I can think of that has both a "no guns" sign and armed security (uniformed city police to be specific) is the local hospital. The hospital, however, is a county hospital that accepts some public funding so I do not count it as a private business.
Mike Irwin
Staff
I've not seen armed security in a financial institution in probably 30 years, and I currently live in Washington, DC.
Last armed security I saw in a business was in a grocery store in Stamford, Connecticut, in the 1990s.
Last armed security I saw in a business was in a grocery store in Stamford, Connecticut, in the 1990s.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I've never seen a bank in NY with a No Guns sign.
Double Naught Spy
New member
They have a responsibility to abide by the letter of the law. Any other responsibilities you think they should have are your own personal ethics. Anything they do beyond the letter of law is what they may consider to be their responsibility and part of their ethics, which may have nothing to do with your ethics.
Businesses do not have to protect you from robbers and bad guys. The police don't have to protect you either. You can go elsewhere or you can secretly thumb your nose at the anti-gun business and if legal, carry inside, supporting the business while making your secret protest.
DNS, don't get me wrong, I try to avoid giving business to such places. But...
... when it is Christmas season, and the only shopping mall in the area is posted, I am not driving thirty miles to the next city;
... if my wife or family really want to go to a place, I will also make an exception on a limited basis, but I will carry.
I used to be on the "just don't go there" side of the aisle, but then I realized that just lets the antis convince more and more businesses to post. So, while I try to give most of my business to places that do not post, I am not going to induly inconvenience myself for thr antis.
In Arizona, where any reasonably understandable sign carries force of law, then I go somewhere else.
In Kansas, where ignoring the sign is a $50 citation, I will most likely go elsewhere - not sweating the $50, but not wanting the citation.
... when it is Christmas season, and the only shopping mall in the area is posted, I am not driving thirty miles to the next city;
... if my wife or family really want to go to a place, I will also make an exception on a limited basis, but I will carry.
I used to be on the "just don't go there" side of the aisle, but then I realized that just lets the antis convince more and more businesses to post. So, while I try to give most of my business to places that do not post, I am not going to induly inconvenience myself for thr antis.
In Arizona, where any reasonably understandable sign carries force of law, then I go somewhere else.
In Kansas, where ignoring the sign is a $50 citation, I will most likely go elsewhere - not sweating the $50, but not wanting the citation.
You're missing my point. I know full well that no one other than myself has a duty to protect me from violent criminals. My point is that private businesses are held legally responsible to provide reasonable accommodation for certain aspects of their patrons' safety such as fire protection, but not others such as violent crime and that represents a double standard. I fail to understand why a business should be able to be sued for damages if I'm injured or killed in a fire because they failed to provide adequate fire protection, but they're immune to liability should I be killed by a violent criminal when they not only failed to provide adequate security, but refused to allow me to provide for my own.
As I said before, I'm not in favor of private businesses being legally required to allow carry. All I'm saying is that if a business both bans carry on their premises and refuses to provide security of their own, they should be open to to civil liability just as they would for choosing to ignore any number of other potential safety issues. Conversely, if we're going to apply the "go somewhere else" standard to carry, then we should also be applying it to other safety concerns such as fire protection and clear walkways.
I also belive that with a very few very specific exceptions, "no guns" signs should carry no force of law for private businesses beyond a trespassing charge if the carrier refuses to leave when asked. The way I see it, if the law has no say in a private businesses' policy, then it also has no responsibility to to enforce those policies for them.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
In Austin and San Antonio, Whole Foods used to have no gun signs and armed guards. They ditched the no gun signs when the law was modified to make the sign truly large.
Some banks here have armed guards - bored minimum wage with 38 SPL RNL.
Go elsewhere? - the hospitals have signs - I prefer not to die or not see a competent physician. I can undestand the doctors not wanting a gun to be on the loose when you take off your clothes - so give you a locker.
Some banks here have armed guards - bored minimum wage with 38 SPL RNL.
Go elsewhere? - the hospitals have signs - I prefer not to die or not see a competent physician. I can undestand the doctors not wanting a gun to be on the loose when you take off your clothes - so give you a locker.