No need to exit our state thread, you are welcome to post anytime. I always like to hear the viewpoints of others from other locales.
Just as free trade benefits people from different locations, so does the free exchange of ideas and information.
Let me provide a contrasting view. Or rather, several ways to look at this that leads to a different conclusion.
1-Most firearm bans create a hazardous situation while providing zero material benefit to the entity enacting the ban. Non-enforced gun free zones rely on the honor of society's least honorable: violent criminals. Maintaining such bans are akin to disabling fire sprinkler systems or chaining emergency exits shut. These latter two actually save the company some money, short term, while banning guns saves them nothing.
As we often say regarding civil damages when the government violates our rights, "Money to your survivors won't make you less dead." Relying on some after-the-fact civil judgment when someone is injured or killed because a business created a dangerous environment is the proverbial ambulance at the bottom of the hill rather than a safety rail at the top of the hill. Some say our right to life derives from a property interest in ourselves. I say that our right to property derives from our right to life and that
life trumps property. I believe that minimal intrusions on the rights of business property owners to fully control their property so as to provide material safeguards to human life and limb is appropriate.
2-For a business, open to and inviting in the general public, the tort of trespass generally requires some notion of loss or injury to the property owner. What exactly is the loss or injury to the business property owner if he and I have a voluntary exchange of goods/services for money while I am in (perhaps un-noticed) possession of a personal item that someone in the corporate chain doesn't like? In other words, does any tort or violation of rights occur until some material harm is inflicted?
3-For better or worse--and most folks will say for better--society has determined that businesses open to the public do not get to discriminate based on "immutable traits" like race, sex, age, or disability. Ditto for chosen characteristics like political or religious affiliation. Sexual orientation is being added to that list in a growing number of jurisdictions. Those who lawfully carry firearms for self defense are quickly becoming the only identifiable minority against which overt discrimination, overt attempts to exclude us from society, is legally and socially permissible.
While I do not believe gun carriers can afford to violate laws with civil disobedience the way some minority groups have in the past in their quest for full equality, I do not believe we are under any obligation to abide bigoted, but not legally enforced policies.
Today, when we see the following image, whose rights do we really believe are being violated: the owner of the lunch counter, or the peaceful protestors who are being assaulted simply for expecting the same service and access as given to others in society?
Is it good political strategy to accept on-going discrimination in the face of legal protections for virtually every other minority group?
Even for those who would end all anti-discrimination laws we might then ask, Will the other side ever have reason to end such laws so long as the laws never impose anything offensive on them? So long as the law only imposes unwanted associations on the other guy, there is no reason to ever back down. Adding gun possession to anti-discrimination laws may actually inject a dose of sanity into where to draw the line between business owner rights and the right of the public to get service.
4-Why should we assume that some standard sign in the window of a business actually confers the desires of the owner or manager of the business relative to us personally? If a restaurant had a sign that read, "Formal attire required" would we feel a moral obligation not to see if the owner/manager was willing to seat and serve us despite only being in a suit and tie, or even business casual? If they ask us to leave that is one thing. But if they seat and serve us do not their actions speak louder than any signage?
Going back to the insurance underwriters, the worker's comp laws, the HR policies flowed down from some law firm in NYC, just because a business owner feels compelled to put up signage, doesn't mean he feels compelled to actually try to enforce it. If he wants to not notice my gun what is wrong with me not noticing his signage?
Or to state this point another way, why would we assume that the business owner is operating in any more fully free environment than we are? Any number of external constraints from threats of boycotts to government regs might convince him--however erroneously--that he "needs" to put up anti-gun signage. Actions speak louder than words or signs. If he asks me leave, fine. If not, I assume my peaceful presence with my gun isn't actually causing him any heartburn.
Now, if a business "actively" attacks my RKBA I may well choose to withhold my business lest I contribute to their profits from which they fund their attacks on my RKBA.
But if a business merely passively requests--with zero legal backing--that guns not be paraded around their stores, well, I'll avoid parading. I might even be discrete in my possession. What is in my pocket or under my jacket/shirt is none of their business.
And I believe it would be all but impossible to live modern life if one refused to interact with any business that had an anti-gun employment policy.
Put simply and succinctly, while I can respect those who choose not to patronize businesses with "no gun" signage, so long as such signage doesn't carry force of law I can also think of several different angles from which I can draw a conclusion that I don't necessarily feel obligated to forego services in such establishments.
Charles
