Faux "No Firearms Permitted" Signs

longwatch · May 31, 2007

imported post

Saw this on THR. Looks like the stores are in Fairfax.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=279940

Faux "No Firearms Permitted" Signs Mentioned this in another thread but thought I should pass along the word.

Last week I noted a new (and pretty official looking) "No firearms permitted" sign in the front door of the local Dicks. Now I thought this was really weird as they sell firearms and supplies.

Since I know several of the guys there pretty well I thought I'd ask the manager about the sign. He was shocked, had no idea the sign was there and removed it immediately. He said (and I have reason to believe him as I've known him a little while) that nobody in the store would have put one up as there is no such policy.

Last night I get a phone call from one of the salesguys (another cowboy action shooter) who told me that they found ANOTHER sign in the door again and then noticed identical signs in several of the nearby shops. When he asked the managers of the other places they knew nothing about the signs and all removed them.

Now we're suspicious that -somebody- is going around posting these faux signs (maybe as a prank or something, I don't know).

LEO 229 · May 31, 2007

imported post

What about security cameras?

That is too strange for someone to do. I bet they will be back... if not there... someplace else.

longwatch · May 31, 2007

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

What about security cameras?

That is too strange for someone to do. I bet they will be back... if not there... someplace else.

Well I personally have little faith in security cameras, after often seeing the pictures they take of "unidentified" bank robbers.

I think it is a safe bet that it will happen again. Is it a crime to post unauthorized signs like that?

HankT · May 31, 2007

imported post

longwatch wrote:

Now we're suspicious that -somebody- is going around posting these faux signs (maybe as a prank or something, I don't know).

I suspectsome anti-gun/rights zealots.

Although I can't quite see what their logical message would be in doing that.

LEO 229 · May 31, 2007

imported post

longwatch wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

What about security cameras?

That is too strange for someone to do. I bet they will be back... if not there... someplace else.

Click to expand...

Well I personally have little faith in security cameras, after often seeing the pictures they take of "unidentified" bank robbers.

I think it is a safe bet that it will happen again. Is it a crime to post unauthorized signs like that?

Most stores have crappy cameras... A few are so nice!! But if you can see enough to recognise a neighboring store owner.....

BobCav · May 31, 2007

imported post

Yet another reason to ignore those non-binding signs.

longwatch · May 31, 2007

imported post

HankT wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Now we're suspicious that -somebody- is going around posting these faux signs (maybe as a prank or something, I don't know).

Click to expand...

I suspectsome anti-gun/rights zealots.

Although I can't quite see what their logical message would be in doing that.

Who said they were logical?

They want to prevent us from carrying, they can't change the law so they do this.

HankT · May 31, 2007

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Yet another reason to ignore those non-binding signs.

Hmmm, so that means it could be pro-gun/rights zealots....

Means, opportunity....and motive!

longwatch · May 31, 2007

imported post

HankT wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Yet another reason to ignore those non-binding signs.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, so that means it could be pro-gun/rights zealots....

Means, opportunity....and motive!

There you go again, thinking the worst about your own team. :celebrate

HankT · May 31, 2007

imported post

longwatch wrote:

HankT wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Yet another reason to ignore those non-binding signs.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, so that means it could be pro-gun/rights zealots....

Means, opportunity....and motive!

Click to expand...

There you go again, thinking the worst about your own team. :celebrate

Well, that's the way it is with the extremists on any side. Theydo goofy sh*t. Sometimes it's so gd goofy, you can't even tell what their point is.

The extreme-Os on each side are just overhead. Can't live with 'em. Can't get rid of 'em.

longwatch · May 31, 2007

imported post

HankT wrote:

longwatch wrote:

HankT wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Yet another reason to ignore those non-binding signs.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, so that means it could be pro-gun/rights zealots....

Means, opportunity....and motive!

Click to expand...

There you go again, thinking the worst about your own team. :celebrate

Click to expand...

Well, that's the way it is with the extremists on any side. Theydo goofy sh*t. Sometimes it's so gd goofy, you can't even tell what their point is.

The extreme-Os on each side are just overhead. Can't live with 'em. Can't get rid of 'em.

Tell us how you really feel about us Hank.:lol:

Doug Huffman · Jun 1, 2007

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Yet another reason to ignore those non-binding signs.

If signage becomes an issue and I think that it has, based on comments here, try South Carolina's solution. The legally effective sign is precisely described in statute and quite burdensome.

http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t23c031.htm

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.

(C) If the premises where concealable weapons are prohibited does not have doors, then the signs contained in subsection (A) must be:

(1) thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size;

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

(3) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal and must be a diameter of a circle whose circumference is two inches wide;

(4) placed not less than forty inches and not more than ninety-six inches above the ground;

(5) posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.

I don't see Costco putting up three-feet by four-feet 'No Guns' signs though law allows and company policy seems to require such.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

HankT · Jun 1, 2007

imported post

longwatch wrote:

HankT wrote:

longwatch wrote:

HankT wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Yet another reason to ignore those non-binding signs.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, so that means it could be pro-gun/rights zealots....

Means, opportunity....and motive!

Click to expand...

There you go again, thinking the worst about your own team. :celebrate

Click to expand...

Well, that's the way it is with the extremists on any side. Theydo goofy sh*t. Sometimes it's so gd goofy, you can't even tell what their point is.

The extreme-Os on each side are just overhead. Can't live with 'em. Can't get rid of 'em.

Click to expand...

Tell us how you really feel about us Hank.:lol:

I'm not referring to what you call "us," LW, I think. I'm talking about people in the tails. Pretty much like this:

Say, about 5% of the total, the people who are in the red portions. Those are the extremists and dullardsthat I refer to.The greater bulk of the distribution is fine. They do and say relatively 'normal' stuff.

The people in the tails, those are the ones that do and say goofy sh*t. :shock:

BobCav · Jun 1, 2007

imported post

Hold on thar Baba-luie!

That graph is from a University of British Columbia (UBC) Biology 300: Biostatisticsclass.

To find out where a pic is hosted, you mouse over the pic, right click and down to select "properties". Then you'll see the address of where it's hosted, in this case:
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~whitlock/bio300/LectureNotes/OneSample/Image19.gif

HankT, are you a Canadian college student attending University of British Columbia studying under Dr. Michael Whitlock, Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology ?http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~whitlock/bio300/

Kind of odd that you would have access to, or even be aware that graph was buried all the way in there without some kind of firsthand knowledge. Perhaps that's one of the courses you've taken that taught you about "stats"

Just trying to get to know you better!

Shotgun · Jun 1, 2007

imported post

I prefer pie charts myself.... or better yet, screw the chart, just give me some pie!

:celebrate

Hawkflyer · Jun 1, 2007

imported post

John Pierce · Jun 1, 2007

imported post

HankT wrote:

The people in the tails, those are the ones that do and say goofy sh*t. :shock:

I think you are looking for the term outliers. An outlier is an observation in a data set that is numerically distant from the rest of the data and which may belong to a different population than the rest of the data set.

John - Surfing the outlying reaches of 3 sigma

HankT · Jun 1, 2007

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

I prefer pie charts myself.... or better yet, screw the chart, just give me some pie!

:celebrate

Apple, OK.

HankT · Jun 1, 2007

imported post

jpierce wrote:

HankT wrote:

The people in the tails, those are the ones that do and say goofy sh*t. :shock:

Click to expand...

I think you are looking for the term outliers. An outlier is an observation in a data set that is numerically distant from the rest of the data and which may belong to a different population than the rest of the data set.

John - Surfing the outlying reaches of 3 sigma

Thanks, John, but not really. I'm referring to members of the same population--but who are more than 2 standard deviations from the mean (on some construct/measure). These would be extremists in my references. Just because an observation is more thand 2 SD doesn't mean it is an outlier. (Outlier determination, btw, is a rather controversial subject in and of itself. There are rules therefore andmany arguments about it.)

But you bring up a good point, for sure. I do not mean outliers.
BTW, do you mean the reaches of six sigma?

BobCav · Jun 1, 2007

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Hold on thar Baba-luie!

That graph is from a University of British Columbia (UBC) Biology 300: Biostatisticsclass.

To find out where a pic is hosted, you mouse over the pic, right click and down to select "properties". Then you'll see the address of where it's hosted, in this case:
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~whitlock/bio300/LectureNotes/OneSample/Image19.gif

HankT, are you a Canadian college student attending University of British Columbia studying under Dr. Michael Whitlock, Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology ?http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~whitlock/bio300/

Kind of odd that you would have access to, or even be aware that graph was buried all the way in there without some kind of firsthand knowledge. Perhaps that's one of the courses you've taken that taught you about "stats"

Just trying to get to know you better!

ahem....

Faux "No Firearms Permitted" Signs

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

State Researcher

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

State Researcher

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

State Researcher

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Banned

State Researcher

Founder's Club Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Founder's Club Member

Administrator

Attachments

State Researcher

State Researcher

Founder's Club Member