Christcorp, you seem to have a pretty firm stand on respecting property rights, even when the "property owner" doesn't really own the property. I admire that, I really do. But I have a question for you.
How would you feel about a sign that reads, "No loaded guns for Negroes here"? Or handicapped? Or women? These people have an equal right to self defense as anyone else, do they not? Would you say, "Well, they can have their own "separate but equal" gunshows (and schools, and drinking fountains)"? What if a tavern owner posted a sign that said, "Drunken brawls, armed robbery, and murder condoned here"? Would it be okay to commit those crimes just because the sign said so? Are the "property owner's" (or insurance company's) rights so broad that they should be able to set any rule they wish and have it stick, once they have opened "their" property to the public for commercial trade? I think not.
As individuals, one of our derivative rights is that of association, i.e. the right to deal with who we choose. A business owner accepts certain limitations of that right when he opens his doors to the public. No matter what his ideology or his demands, when on his premises for lawful purposes the customer still retains the rights to freedom of religion, non self-incrimination, voting, trial by jury, etc. His right of association does not extend to infringing the rights of others merely by virtue of the location (on "his" property). And going into a restaurant bare footed and bare chested is not protected by the Bill of Rights.
As I discussed with another member by PM, if the business owner incorporates, he should be prepared to accept further limitations to his right of association. A corporation is an artificial entity with an artificial status, created and bestowed by government, which modifies the equal standing we had as private citizens. Why would you go through the process of incorporating your business unless you felt you had some advantage to gain that you couldn't enjoy as a private citizen? I'm not saying you can't make corporate policies, just that as an entity with a government-granted artificial status, your corporation can't infringe on the Bill of Rights. Or to put it another way, if the government is (or should be) bound by the BOR, they have no authority to grant a gun-show promoter an exempt status from it.
In addition, your corporate policies don't carry the force of law. If a customer disregards those policies, your recourse is limited to breaking off the transaction, unless a contractual agreement provides otherwise.
As other posters have stated in the thread, my carrying a loaded handgun harms nobody, unless and until they make an attack on my person. The gun show promoters and vendors all agree with my RKBA in a grocery store, a construction site, or while driving in my car. My safe gunhandling discipline is good enough for them in those locations, but then they feel that when I enter their show, I become a dangerous bumbler. Or they restrict my RKBA because of other dangerous bumblers they've seen, and it's easier to blanket all the attendees than to figure out which ones are and aren't, or better yet, to take steps toward educating and improving those who are.
The thinking behind the "no CCW" rule is almost identical to the anti-gunner's "all gun owners are potential criminals" idea. As member heviarti says, it's "kindergarten law". It's also hypocritical to an extent, because it denies to others what they reserve for themselves (I happen to know that the show security staff are loaded at the shows here, because I've seen them unholster their piece, drop the loaded mag and clear the chamber, and then show it to somebody).
When gunshow promoters post "no CCW" signs in my state, they are elevating themselves to an authority higher than the state legislature, which entirely pre-empts the field of firearms laws in RCW 9.41. I'm not buying it.
Parker
