No gun sign FAILS!


PDA






The-Reaver
April 27, 2012, 11:24 PM
Look what we have here.

One of those magical signs that stops anyone with a gun from entering.

The sign's great powers were set up to keep people from bringing guns into any place posting it - the anti-gunners' version of kryptonite.


http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8299

If you enjoyed reading about "No gun sign FAILS!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rail Driver
April 27, 2012, 11:29 PM
Part of the problem is that some insurance companies give premium breaks to businesses that post these signs.

Sky
April 27, 2012, 11:32 PM
Thanks for the post

mrvco
April 28, 2012, 01:04 AM
The sign is in plain sight, how could they have not seen it? It's sad to think that kids today no longer read and obey signs.

Jim NE
April 28, 2012, 01:08 AM
Sorry, but if I'm going into any privately owned place where the OWNER of said place doesn't want guns on HIS premises, I respect his wishes.

Often that means I don't go into the place, but not out of resentment towards the owner. I've got my rights and he has his.

Romeo 33 Delta
April 28, 2012, 01:12 AM
Great post ... stupid owner!

exavid
April 28, 2012, 02:09 AM
Here in Oregon it's up to your conscience, no guns signs don't have force of law except in the few restricted places designated by state law. If you carry into a business that's posted they can tell you to leave if they know you're carrying. If you comply and leave that's it. If you refuse the police can be called and cite you with trespassing. Oregon has no restriction on guns in bars unless the bar posts "no guns" at the door.

smalls
April 28, 2012, 03:45 AM
I've only ever seen one "no guns" sign. It was outside of Babies 'R Us. Walked right past it, and my conscience wasn't upset. In fact, I felt good about being able to protect my family while shopping for my daughter's new dress.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
April 28, 2012, 04:23 AM
Part of the problem is that some insurance companies give premium breaks to businesses that post these signs.

That is a falsehood. I have called many insurance companies about this and not a single one of them gives a break for posting these signs. Nor do they require it from any insured. That rumor got started from so many people just "thinking" that's why the owners of some places do it. It's also a good lie from owners to keep from saying that they really just don't like people armed and it's much easier to post a sign and say "my insurance company requires it" rather than confess to the fact that they are anti-gun.

Double Naught Spy
April 28, 2012, 04:56 AM
Great post ... stupid owner!

No, stupid author of the article.

Look what we have here.

One of those magical signs that stops anyone with a gun from entering.

The sign's great powers were set up to keep people from bringing guns into any place posting it - the anti-gunners' version of kryptonite.

From the article...
While police continue to sort out the shooting and look for a motive, what is clear from this shooting is the signs anti-gun lawmakers wanted and believe, like some business owners, prevent criminals from entering do not.

I don't know where pro-gun folks get the impression that the signs are supposed to stop the bad guys. It is a really stupid myth. No business owner believes a sign is going to stop criminals. If they did believe it, they would post DO NOT ROB signs, NO FIGHT signs, etc., huh?

More than anything else, the signs are to stop law abiding good guys from bringing their guns in where they might do something stupid that we see showing up on the news with disheartening frequency, like the preacher's daughter that was shot in the head by a church member and her boyfriend to whom the gun was being shown. They were apparently in what, a closet(?) when the gun discharged, went through the wall, and struck her in the head.

How about the guy in Utah at the burger place who shot the toilet? The guy in the Walmart in Arizona who had his own ND when he was fiddling with his gun out of the holster.

All of these incidents and many many more are by law abiding gun owners doing stupid stuff.

I like how the article posted in the OP talks about the failure of the sign. The sign failed and so it is obviously a stupid idea by the anti-gunners somehow, right? Looks to me like the failure isn't with the sign, but Jeff Thomas.

If we follow Jeff's logic, because bad guys took guns into the bar, the sign failed, right? This is where Jeff fails. The sign just isn't the rule of some anti-gunner bar owner. It happens to be the law. So that must mean that the law failed. Funy how Jeff puts the blame on the sign and not on the law. What is the point of laws if people are going to break them, right? After all, Jeff seems to think that there is no point to such a sign if people are going to violate it.

Notice that the author failed as well in that he put his entire emphasis on the sign not working when the bad guys in this incident broke several laws. That would seem to indicate a failure of the legal system, would it not?

Here in Oregon it's up to your conscience, no guns signs don't have force of law except in the few restricted places designated by state law.

At best, the sign is just a friendly reminder to law abiding folks who carry guns via a carry permit that they can't bring them into the bar. As we have seen repeated over and over, forgetful but well intentioned law-abiding folks manage to get busted with guns in places where it is illegal to have them. This happens with some regularity at airports and to a lesser extent, in places like courthouses.

what is clear from this shooting is the signs anti-gun lawmakers wanted and believe, like some business owners, prevent criminals from entering do not

Flopsweat
April 28, 2012, 09:40 AM
You know Double, I can't argue with that. I understand people's frustration with silly laws and irrational fears, but you make a good point. The fact that accidental discharges are rare, or that criminals will not obey it, does not change the fact that the sign did not "fail". And we're not going to change anyone's mind by making fun of them. You made me stop and think. Thanks.

Robert
April 28, 2012, 09:45 AM
Often that means I don't go into the place, but not out of resentment towards the owner. I've got my rights and he has his.
I am the same way.

You made me stop and think. Thanks.
And this is why THR is the best. Our members make us what we are.

beatledog7
April 28, 2012, 09:50 AM
The signs stop me from carrying into the establishments on which they are posted because I respect the rights of the owner to set the rules for his place and because I don't go in at all.

1911Tuner
April 28, 2012, 10:04 AM
I have called many insurance companies about this and not a single one of them gives a break for posting these signs. Nor do they require it from any insured.

I've heard the same, but the sign in plain sight provides the owner some protection from lawsuits after the fact. "If you'd have put up a "No guns allowed" sign, that guy wouldn't have shot my son because he'd have left his gun in the car, so I'm going to sue you for not making that rule."

And, there are juries who would find for the plaintiff.

I know a gun dealer who has a sign. "No loaded guns in the store."

On the face of it, it seems odd...but it makes sense. He said that he didn't care if somebody brings a holstered, loaded pistol...concealed or open...as long as they leave it in the holster. He's also had a few people clearing their pistols just before or just as they enter...and light one off. So far, nobody has been hurt except for one guy who put a round through his forearm while clearing a Glock at the front door...but it does understandably make adjacent business owners and their customers a little nervous.

Jim, West PA
April 28, 2012, 10:16 AM
Here in this part of Pa, other than where laws apply like schools ,court houses etc., it is the property owners perogative whether or not to allow firearms on thier premises.
In fact, if asked, a Policeman has to leave his weapon outside also.
We have one local gunshow that won't allow Policemen to carry into the show.
Well, actualy, they , like everyone else, have to unload said weapon and have security install a wire tie into the firearm so it can't be loaded.
Given my druthers, i'd sure rather have trained professionals armed in the building instead of Fife security.

EddieNFL
April 28, 2012, 10:20 AM
I don't know where pro-gun folks get the impression that the signs are supposed to stop the bad guys.

It's sarcasm.

mrvco
April 28, 2012, 10:31 AM
I (a law abiding gun owner) may respect the sign, but that really wasn't the point.

bigfatdave
April 28, 2012, 11:08 AM
Part of the problem is that some insurance companies give premium breaks to businesses that post these signs.
I have yet to see any confirming information on this old assumption.
I'd be delighted to see a citation, or hear a first-hand account about the concept, but I'm pretty sure it is a myth and the signs just come in the bundle of "required" signs any business gets - you know, the pack of; minimum wage, non-discrimination, MSDS info, emergency numbers, etc etc that every business accumulates over time. If some idiot started slipping a gunbuster sign into the packet and selling it as a starter kit, most managers/owners would put it up assuming it meant anything.

Salmoneye
April 28, 2012, 11:12 AM
I have never seen a 'No Guns' sign in VT, except at Federal buildings, etc....

Hacker15E
April 28, 2012, 11:12 AM
The sign is in plain sight, how could they have not seen it? It's sad to think that kids today no longer read and obey signs.

Awesomeness.

WinThePennant
April 28, 2012, 11:25 AM
That is a falsehood. I have called many insurance companies about this and not a single one of them gives a break for posting these signs. Nor do they require it from any insured. That rumor got started from so many people just "thinking" that's why the owners of some places do it. It's also a good lie from owners to keep from saying that they really just don't like people armed and it's much easier to post a sign and say "my insurance company requires it" rather than confess to the fact that they are anti-gun.
Lawyers and corporate risk manager typically advise businesses to display the signs.

Alaskan
April 28, 2012, 03:16 PM
Lawyers and corporate risk manager typically advise businesses to display the signs.
Unfortunately, I work in a place that has these signs on every entrance. The signs read "No Guns, Knives, or Weapons allowed on this property"

The employers Attorney explained that all we can do is ask them to take the weapon back to their vehicle since it is not a law in Alaska.

Patchbunny
April 29, 2012, 01:05 AM
Police arrested 19-year-old Michael G. Thompson charging him with illegal possession of a gun inside a liquor permit premise, a third-degree felony.

Given that you can carry in Ohio, but it's illegal to carry inside the bar, the sign may well have been put up to remind CCW folks they can't bring their guns inside.

lgcal20ga
April 29, 2012, 01:23 AM
But in Ohio, now anyway, you can carry in a bar, provided you are not consuming any alcohol at all. That change occurred just in the last year sometime. The bar didn't have to post anything before, but now they can if they want to.

grasssnake
April 29, 2012, 10:39 AM
I changed banks recently because of their little sign on the window. I told them too why I changed banks and the lady did not even know the little sign was there. I told the new bank why I changed too. Waffle house has lost hundreds of dollars over the last 40 years by having that sign up. I love waffle house but have not been in there in years. A barbecue place here had a little sign up and I would go over there ever so often stop and look at it and look woeful and turn around and walk off. Done that several times just for fun. Now it is out of business. There is no point in barring those that would protect your life from being in your business establishment. When anyone carries in my business, I thank them and tell them "you might save my life sometime"

mgkdrgn
April 29, 2012, 05:05 PM
This is the "gun" sign I have posted in my shop:

kenjabroni
April 29, 2012, 08:54 PM
HAHA

Love that sign. Accuracy is appreciated.

shep854
April 29, 2012, 10:44 PM
Academy Sports has a sign that requests guns being brought in for repair, etc be unloaded and cased, but in the next line states that they respect local laws regarding personal carry.

Carl N. Brown
April 29, 2012, 11:49 PM
"If you'd have put up a "No guns allowed" sign, that guy wouldn't have shot my son because he'd have left his gun in the car, so I'm going to sue you for not making that rule."

How much door space is there to list everything that could be misused? Does failure to list something that could be used feloniously or recklessly actually make the owner of the premises liable for a criminal or reckless act, including accidents?

And why just guns?

How about anything else that can be used for mayhem? If someone tosses a portable heater in a swimming pool and the owner does not have a "No portable heaters allowed" sign, would that be grounds for a law suit?

In the Happy Land arson fire where 87 people died, there was no signage "No gasoline allowed". Did the owners get sued?

On fact, has any property owner been sued for a criminal act or accident caused by someone else bringing a gun onto their property with or without signage?

inclinebench
April 30, 2012, 12:02 PM
But people do sue, and often win.

Ryanxia
April 30, 2012, 12:37 PM
I've never understood that. If a gun is in it's holster it is relatively safe. If people have to handle their loaded firearms to disarm before entering a store/business I think that's more dangerous than leaving it right where it is on your person.

Carl N. Brown
April 30, 2012, 01:29 PM
^ I had the same question, when I had to disarm to enter the superette to pay for gas (no carry because they had beer in the cooler for take-home consumption). Removing the gun from its holster to stash in the vehicle not only could unnecessarily alarm someone in the parking lot, but would leave the gun vulnerable to theft.

mrvco
April 30, 2012, 11:33 PM
The "no gun" sign thing might make sense with regards to Open-Carry... But it doesn't make one whit of sense in terms of Concealed-Carry. If anything the sign should say "If you witness a criminal act on these premisis and you are cc'ing, please don't protect, defend or save us, just leave your gun holstered please".

Rail Driver
April 30, 2012, 11:43 PM
The "no gun" sign thing might make sense with regards to Open-Carry... But it doesn't make one whit of sense in terms of Concealed-Carry. If anything the sign should say "If you witness a criminal act on these premisis and you are cc'ing, please don't protect, defend or save us, just leave your gun holstered please".
Where I live, the signs don't have the force of law - That's what I take them to mean. Should something happen that threatens me or my family directly, however, I won't hesitate.

Skribs
May 1, 2012, 03:28 AM
The gun establishments I go to generally have separate rules for carry guns or guns you're bringing in. One of the guys at the local-ish range said they basically don't care if it's cased, CCW, or open carry, but it better be in a safe position (basically, trigger guard covered and it's not pointing at anyone).

I personally am of the belief that, regardless of whether the sign is posted "to stop bad guys" (like most of us seem to think people post that sign for) or like Double said, that it's posted to prevent NDs (someone stupid enough to cause an ND probably didn't read the 4 rules, though, so they probably wouldn't read the sign), I would personally rather not be disarmed.

Mgkdrgn, I would personally have said "recommended" instead of "permited". But I love that sign.

1911Tuner
May 1, 2012, 08:29 AM
On fact, has any property owner been sued for a criminal act or accident caused by someone else bringing a gun onto their property with or without signage?

Don't know, Carl, but even if it has never happened doesn't meant that it won't. If somebody can sue and win...and win big...for spilling hot coffee in her lap while driving without a lid on the cup...they can pretty much sue and win for anything in this age of litigation.


Look at it like the warnings on electric hair dryers that state: "Using this product while sitting in the bath can result in electrocution."

Carl N. Brown
May 1, 2012, 09:41 AM
^ It helped in the McDonalds coffee case that there were prior complaints that McDonalds kept their coffee twenty degrees hotter than regular coffee (less spoilage for McDonalds) and had previous complaints about the coffee being too hot to drink as served. There was abody of complaints, not just a hypothetical argument.

Life ruled by possible lawyer hypotheticals, not by actual events people face in real life ? Reminds me of something. Let me check my archives.

Sci-fi series farscape season 2 episode 8 "Dream a Little Dream" aka "Re:Union":

The space travelers land on planet Litigara, evolved to where only 10% of the population need to do anything useful, 90% of the population are lawyers and the major economic activity is litigation.

Crazy stuff, that science fiction.

I never heard of posted "No guns signs" until licensed/permitted carry started becoming popular starting 1987 or so in Florida, 1996 or so in Tennessee, so as far as I am concerned, the signage is directed at legal carriers. Especially the Texas regulation 30.06 signs.

1911Tuner
May 1, 2012, 10:10 AM
I think, too that...the signs are there so that the gentle folk will feel safer spending their money in a "gun-Free" zone...never once considering that somebody who would commit and armed robbery would likely also disobey the posted rules.

But, the McDonald's coffee case is only one example of silly litigation that has netted large settlements for people doing stupid things. Evidence of that is no more clearly demonstrated that with Ruger's unpopular billboard warnings on their barrels and most other manufacturers' owners' manuals directing the buyer to never load the gun until they're ready to shoot it. You can about bet that somebody shot themselves with one of their guns, and sued them for not providing ample warning that they could hurt themselves with it.

Skribs
May 1, 2012, 11:59 AM
I think, too that...the signs are there so that the gentle folk will feel safer spending their money in a "gun-Free" zone...never once considering that somebody who would commit and armed robbery would likely also disobey the posted rules.

I know it never gets old, but if they don't believe in the right to defend yourself, then I will respect their beliefs and not defend them.

oldbear
May 1, 2012, 02:01 PM
Reaver, you should know as well as anyone, that only people willing to obey them respect signs or laws. I assume you are one of them.

"Police arrested 19-year-old Michael G. Thompson charging him with illegal possession of a gun inside a liquor permit premise, a third-degree felony. Thompson was one of the injured and still has a bullet in his hip.

Police also are seeking another man, 22-year-old Dominique Durr. He faces the identical charge as Thompson, who is his cousin. He also has a criminal history that would bar him from obtaining a concealed carry license.

Police said a gun recovered following the shooting was stolen. A detective said Thompson can be seen in a video from the bar surveillance camera holding a gun. Thompson also is facing a felony concealed weapons charge from an arrest during a traffic stop several weeks before."

It does not sound as if the two mentioned above are upstanding citizens and paragons of virtue.

bigfatdave
May 1, 2012, 04:40 PM
Carl N. Brown, that was one of the weaker episodes, but it does apply to our "overabundance" of lawyer types.

If you enjoyed reading about "No gun sign FAILS!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!