I somewhat understand a mandatory sign (although for the most part I still disagree)
Well, then I want to have a different handicapped sign at my business. The reason for the same sign is simple: to keep guns out if they want, then there is no question on EITHER side.
Churches do have the right to ban have guns if they post. But they don't want to post like the law says.
I see what your saying, and I agree now. (not trying to hijack this thread) But could this mean that our rights, even that of property, are limited?
having to notify people at the door is outrageous.
The dems didn't want to vote on the bill in the senate, so the bill was attached to another bill to get the vote. They could have got this removed, but they refuesed to hear the bill.
Not to sound hostile, but I really don't care how the bill was passed, or who could have made it different. I'm trying to debate on the principle of the bill itself, not on who did what to make it pass.
I am not advocating that churches ban guns on their property either, just that they have the choice.
They do have the choice, they are just whining about it. They couldn't win in the legislature, so they want ONE judge to overturn the whole law.
Yes, they have the choice they just have to notify people at the door. Once again, I'm not saying that they are going about this in the right or wrong manner, I'm simply debating the principle of the bill itself.