I saw a neat proposal some place: If a business bars you from carrying a gun, then they must provide armed security. I like the idea of making people own up to what they’re doing when they disarm people, though I’m not sure I fully support enacting this law on libertarian ground. Maybe instead a law where if you make people disarm on your premise, they’re now fully liable for any violence that happens to anyone there. For instance, everyone in the Aurora shooting would be able to sue the movie theater as if they caused the death and injury. If you’re saying I can’t defend myself and I’m violently attacked, it does seem like that’s your fault. And if you choose to disarm people and make yourself more liable, that should be factored into your insurance costs.
What do you think?
i think that you take your business elsewhere
Maybe if they have a ‘no guns’ policy, it’s the responsibility of the business to provide security, on the other hand, if you let somebody else, whether it’s a business or the government tell you that you can’t protect yourself, and something happens, it’s your own damned fault for letting them do it. If the second amendment doesn’t mean anything to you personally, if you’re willing to lay off your duty to protect yourself and your family on some business owner, then you gave up your right to bitch about the consequences. Wanta be a free citizen? Act like one.
I still do not understand why there are not numerous lawsuits against the movie theater.
I guess lawsuits about everything anti-leftist are just a “liberal” thing.
It would cause insurance premiums to go up in cost and of course would further enrich lawyers…other then that I don’t think it would do much good. I agree with springeraz if you want to be a free citizen act like one.
I’d be ok with just full disclosure, like a sign that says:
“No firearms allowed and we have no armed security on premises”.
Or, more bluntly:
“Rob me and kill my patrons”
The coin laundry by me has a sign inviting patrons who have carry permits to bring their guns.
it sounds like a private property issue. But since the govt has already banned private property and regulated every form of commercial relationship, and gotten away with it, i don’t see why this would be any different. Civil rights act of 1964 declaired private businesses as public accomodations and subject to federal law in hiring and customer service. Federal housing law tells you who you must sell or rent your house /apartment to. it is a bit lat complaining about this.
I can understand how some types of jobs might make being armed problematic (people who work in clean rooms, anti-static environments, prison employees who work inside the fence, Etc).
But if no firearms are allowed in the business, then nobody at the business has a gun, so they can’t stop you bringing one in, right?
More seriously, the owner of the business can make pretty much any rules that he wants – you have to wear a coat and tie if you’re a man, you have to wear a dress if you’re a woman, you have to wear one of those suits that the sperm cells wore in that Woody Allen movie if you’re John Kerry, etc.
This is inspired. Though I share your Libertarian qualms about such a policy, it would be an excellent way to introduce a new wrinkle into the debate. Plus I’d love to see their faces when you tell the anti gun people they have to pay more money at their coffee shop to pay for the armed security because they are against people owning guns of their own!
speaking of the civil rights act, what if my gun is black and has a name like kunta kinte?
in most states, “no guns” signs on private property carry no force of law and can be treated as requests. if you have a concealed carry permit you can still legally carry as a patron of the establishment. if you are discovered carrying you can be asked to leave and you’re trespassing if you don’t leave when asked to do so. it is up to the establishment to enforce the “request”. you’re under no obligation to help… in most states. I avoid the states where that is not the case. short of posting guards at every entrance with metal detectors, patdowns, and checking every bag for everyone entering there’s no way to enforce it.
That’s exactly the way we did it here here in Wisconsin when we became the 49th state to allow concealed carry. Businesses can post a sign (size, location, and appearance stipulated in the law) banning patrons from bringing guns in. If they chose to do so, they are liable if anyone brings a gun in and starts shooting. If they catch you bringing a gun in, they will show you the door. It is akin to a tresspassing offence, and they can probably cite you for disturbing the peace and the like. I suppose that would only be if you refuse to leave – I don’t see how they could detain you until the cops come.
And there’s already been an instance here at an Aldi’s that had the sign posted. A thug came and put a shotgun in the cashier’s face. A customer who had a concealed carry in the store ran up on the thug shooting, and chased him off, hitting the thug at least once. I don’t believe the cc holder was prosecuted.
Joe Biden was un-available for comment.
@12 – You’re right, he wasn’t prosecuted. Here’s the story you mentioned:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/aldi-customer-wont-be-charged-in-shooting-sk42et0-138688529.html
Key sentence:
“He said he did not notice the sign at Aldi prohibiting weapons in the store, and that if he had, he would have gone elsewhere.”
I guess the robber didn’t notice it either.
Anyway, memorize that line, folks, and carry everywhere.
Pingback: To Carry Or Not To Carry…You Want My Money, I’m Carrying | That Mr. G Guy's Blog