I have argued in favor of such things several times.
Unfortunately it is likely to become necessary to prevent a concealed carry license from becoming meaningless.
If the only place you can carry is in your car or the sidewalk but not into the many places you need to visit, then you won''t typically be able to carry outside either because you will be on your way to or from a place prohibiting carry. In places that have the weight of law in prohibiting licensed carrying this is a big deal.
People simply don't realize how big of a deal it is yet because many businesses have been unaware of concealed carry and it is relatively new in much of the country, but as they become more aware and the occasional problem happens corporate policies will adjust.
I understand the desire to let businesses do as they wish, but corporate HQ of franchises and chain stores will generally come to the conclusion that a no weapons policy is standard.
This is because lawyers hundreds of miles away will always determine that not letting people have guns won't risk any money, but letting them have guns might. Just as they generally will have a policy that prevents employees from being armed and will fire them if they are found to be.
They would rather an employee die and owe no money as they are not responsible for the actions of a criminal but are responsible for the actions of an employee. Better to let them or anyone in that store die than take any risk of liability for what someone employed by them does and potentially owe lots of money.
Well that same policy is often extended to the customers as well.
They don't value the human beings. They are taking the route of least likely financial risk, no matter the cost to the individual. A no guns policy will never cause a criminal to not bring in a gun who is planning a robbery or violence. But it may stop people from having tools to defend themselves from those criminals.
The only real way to even the odds is to make them feel they are at risk of losing money either way, then they start from a neutral position in determining what they want.
If you prevent people from being able to defend themselves while providing no armed security, checkpoints that screen for weapons (and even those don't stop the guy that uses force against the person at the checkpoint and enters anyways but does insure everyone past the checkpoint they will encounter won't pose armed resistance) or other protections then you are in fact putting them at greater risk.
We are a society with widespread weapons, including guns, the only security that can deal with armed people is an armed security. Most loss prevention staff are not armed, even if they were inclined to help someone facing violence (and that is a big IF.)
A business open to the public is in public in my opinion, and under the law in some states.
Nobody forces a business to be open to the public, that is a choice the business makes.
These are not private businesses closed to the public, these are businesses choosing to be open to the public, and as such I think people should have the rights they do in other public areas, but if a business chooses to restrict those rights they should face liability if it has a negative consequence.
We tell them they can't discriminate on customers based on a number of things, you don't get to do what you want as a business in our society on several other issues.
Yet this doesn't even go that far, it tells them they can in fact ban guns if they want to, but they may face consequences for doing so.
Telling them they are liable for failing to provide for the safety of their customers if they choose to specifically prohibit the standard method of providing for their own safety makes perfect sense to me.
