Max
Regular Member
I suspect the antis will try to persuade as many organizations, businesses and individuals to post "no guns allowed" signs as possible. This was in the Journal Sentinel,
"But under the bill, private individuals and groups that allow concealed carry on their property would have blanket immunity from any legal liability from that decision. Those who post signs prohibiting concealed weapons would not receive that immunity."
This is a crucial piece of information in the upcoming gun ban skirmish. If they ban guns, they increase their liability. It might be a good idea for all of us to have fliers informing folks of the increased liability with us so that if we encounter a "no guns allowed" sign, we can leave the flier with those in charge. Your thoughts?
Here is a link to that article, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/124289954.html
"But under the bill, private individuals and groups that allow concealed carry on their property would have blanket immunity from any legal liability from that decision. Those who post signs prohibiting concealed weapons would not receive that immunity."
This is a crucial piece of information in the upcoming gun ban skirmish. If they ban guns, they increase their liability. It might be a good idea for all of us to have fliers informing folks of the increased liability with us so that if we encounter a "no guns allowed" sign, we can leave the flier with those in charge. Your thoughts?
Here is a link to that article, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/124289954.html
Last edited: