Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Business Owners Face Massive Financial Risk Unless They Post Gun-Free Signs

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Business Owners Face Massive Financial Risk Unless They Post Gun-Free Signs

    Just a heads up on the latest from the anti-gun press office! Bloomberg's ilk has funded (what they would have everybody believe) is an expert legal opinion designed to scare business owners (and probably their insurance companies) into posting gun-free zone signs.

    I have't read the so-called legal opinion drafted by these people, but for sure it is a bunch of non-sense. I am curious as to whether or not they even considered the legal exposure that business owner's would face for posting signs which obviously encourage criminal activity.

    http://tinyurl.com/oyc9tt6

    http://tinyurl.com/k44sj2y (legal memorandum here)
    Last edited by OC4me; 04-24-2015 at 11:57 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    The SC state Chamber of Commerce advanced that lie on passage of the 1996 Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act and produced and gave away gun-busters. In the next legislative session we wrote 23-31-235 intended to prevent cheap reproduction.
    SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements.

    (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.

    (B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:

    (1) clearly visible from outside the building;

    (2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;

    (3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;

    (4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;

    (5) a diameter of a circle; and

    (6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Just a heads up on the latest from the anti-gun press office! Bloomberg's ilk has funded (what they would have everybody believe) is an expert legal opinion designed to scare business owners (and probably their insurance companies) into posting gun-free zone signs.
    Hmmm, doesn't appear to be a legal opinion as much as their 5 year business plan....
    Last edited by deepdiver; 04-24-2015 at 01:45 PM.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    Newbie Deacon Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    123
    It seems to me that they're overtly encouraging someone to sue a business because they got shot there. It's basically the inverse of what many of us have suggested: suing the owners of GFZs when someone is rendered unable to resist an attack.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    I wonder if the family of someone killed as a result of the gun-free zone recommendation could sue that frickin law firm? How is that for liability?

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    I wonder if the family of someone killed as a result of the gun-free zone recommendation could sue that frickin law firm? How is that for liability?
    The courts will hold free from harm any lawyer or law firm that recommends a business adopt a gun free zone mindset. Provided it's legal for a business to adopt a gun free zone mindset, then the courts will hold the business free from harm, as well.

    Bottom line, you can't hold either individuals or businesses liable if they're obeying the law.

    Americas' best bet is to vote with your wallet. If you support our Second Amendment, whether you carry or not, and you see a business who refuses to support and defend our Constitution with some commie "No Guns" or "No Firearms" sticker then do your duty as an American citizen:

    1. Don't spend a red cent in their place of business.

    2. Let them know, politely, why you refuse to do business with them. A good way to handle this is to simply hand them a business card ($10 for 500) on which you simply state your reasons, along with a smile. Something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, but I cannot do business with you. Here's why (hand them the card). Thanks for listening."

    3. Visit Friend or Foe (see my signature, below), and enter their business information, along with an appropriate writeup.

    If they change their mind, then change your write-up. If not, you'll have made it slightly less likely they'll be able to remain in business. I know it sounds harsh, but consider this minor inconvenience to the neighborhood as compared what happens to the neighborhood if the libs disarm us all and allow the gangs to run amok.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon Blues View Post
    It seems to me that they're overtly encouraging someone to sue a business because they got shot there. It's basically the inverse of what many of us have suggested: suing the owners of GFZs when someone is rendered unable to resist an attack.
    In WI, businesses have immunity if they don't post.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  8. #8
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,272
    The best course of action, for a business, is no, or little policy. Make policy, and that policy can be dragged into court, not in a good way. Make no policy other than a law abiding business, then no claims can be made. Gun buster business always put safety in their policy, for employees, and clients, IMO this a opening when that safety is clearly not there, proof by injury.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •