Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Here's a link to Mr Rayburns legalpetition. His attorney, John Randolph Smith,practiceswrongful injury and civil law.
http://www.drslawfirm.com/gunsinbarscomplaint.pdf
I'm still reading it, but so far, I've gotten some really good laughs from it.
It basically says, about the sign postage, that Mr Rayburn fears he'll loose business if he post "NO FIREARMS" signs on his doors. Funny, the opponants of this law claim that the majority of citizens don't want to dine with our guns in the room. So, I would think that the only business he would loose would be that of HCP holders that refuse to enter his establishments unarmed. Since we are in a very small minority, I don't see that as a great loss to him.
On the other hand,
Could it be that many of Mr Rayburns regualr patrons have expressed there concern for their safety dining in a GFZ, knowing that these equal "Killing Fields"?
Could it be that these patrons have expressed dissaproval of beingpotential unarmed victems both inside the restaurant and outside in the parking lots?
Could it be that Mr Rayburn knows that when he post signs barring firearms, he's inviting criminal activity to his establishments?
He could be caught between a rock and hard place here, too.
He may be under pressure to post signage by metro and county officials. They may be threatening him with more scrutiny in regards to health and fire codes (or other means)if he allows guns to be carried in by HCP holders.
Here's a link to Mr Rayburns legalpetition. His attorney, John Randolph Smith,practiceswrongful injury and civil law.
http://www.drslawfirm.com/gunsinbarscomplaint.pdf
I'm still reading it, but so far, I've gotten some really good laughs from it.
It basically says, about the sign postage, that Mr Rayburn fears he'll loose business if he post "NO FIREARMS" signs on his doors. Funny, the opponants of this law claim that the majority of citizens don't want to dine with our guns in the room. So, I would think that the only business he would loose would be that of HCP holders that refuse to enter his establishments unarmed. Since we are in a very small minority, I don't see that as a great loss to him.
On the other hand,
Could it be that many of Mr Rayburns regualr patrons have expressed there concern for their safety dining in a GFZ, knowing that these equal "Killing Fields"?
Could it be that these patrons have expressed dissaproval of beingpotential unarmed victems both inside the restaurant and outside in the parking lots?
Could it be that Mr Rayburn knows that when he post signs barring firearms, he's inviting criminal activity to his establishments?
He could be caught between a rock and hard place here, too.
He may be under pressure to post signage by metro and county officials. They may be threatening him with more scrutiny in regards to health and fire codes (or other means)if he allows guns to be carried in by HCP holders.
