Legality of "Gun Free" businesses/places

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MajMikeW

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
35
Location
Panama City, FL
All businesses are required to comply with state and federal regulations, but some have started a trend of posting "gun free" signs denying CCW holders their Constitutional rights and circumventing state law.

While I am for letting business owners control their business as they see fit (within the law), we wouldn't allow them to post "whites only" signs or deny services to Catholics or the disabled. Why then can they simply post a small sign and override state law and a CCW holder's RTKBA?

The states have already placed a number of facilities off-limits, most of which I can live with, some of which are being challenged (I saw another post/thread about finetuning the alcohol thing). Can private citizens now ignore the laws of the state when they don't like them?

Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, I just think there are enough restrictions on ownership/carry already without having folks decide unilaterally to deny me my right to carry.

Thoughts??

MajMike
 
The states that allow the "signs" should pass a law that makes the business criminally liable if a CCW individual is attacked on their property. I believe some states have a law similar to this. When the law gets passed, most of the signs come down............ :)

Yanus
 
we wouldn't allow them to post "whites only" signs or deny services to Catholics or the disabled.
Click to expand...
Actually, we are free to discriminate as we please, except with respect to housing and employment and then only with respect to certain enumerated characteristics (race, religion, age, etc.).

The only way we "don't allow them" to do something is by making it in their interest not to do it. If I post my business "whites only," non-whites would probably honor my wishes and spend their money elsewhere. Most whites would also. This was not the case 50 years ago. We must raise the awareness of our civil rights cause to the point where non-gun owners or non-gun carriers don't want to appear to be bigots by supporting anti-gun bigots' businesses.

My message is to let them know that a "no-guns" zone is dangerous because it attacts criminals in search of a safe working environment. Of course for some leftist exremists, that is a good thing. we have to expose them for the bigots that they are in the same way the "Archie Bunkers" of the past were exposed.
 
All businesses are required to comply with state and federal regulations, but some have started a trend of posting "gun free" signs denying CCW holders their Constitutional rights and circumventing state law.
Click to expand...

As is commonly known, our Constitutional protections only restrict the actions of the state against us. They do not restrict private parties.

How exactly are businesses that post no-carry signs out of compliance with "state and federal regulations"? (unless there is specific state law regulating no-carry signs.)
 
there is a big difference between "no guns" and "whites only" To equate the 2 makes gun owners look stupid.
as gun owners we MUST hold private property rights sacred!! That is the last bastian of freedom.
Now id defense of those companies that have a no weapons policy for their employees. Many of those policies are driven not by their being anti gun, but by the dictates of their insurance carriers.
 
as gun owners we MUST hold private property rights sacred!! That is the last bastian of freedom.
Click to expand...

What he said!

I would further argue that business owners should be able to restrict their clientelle in any way they see fit. I wouldn't personally spend my money at a place that barred people on the basis of their skin color, religion, who they sleep with, whether or not they're carrying a gun, etc, but it's absolutely wrong for the state to interfere in this way.
 
Many of those policies are driven not by their being anti gun, but by the dictates of their insurance carriers.
Click to expand...
Please produce a copy of such a policy. This is just a lame excuse given by a company who has is too ashamed to admit their own irrational fears.

there is a big difference between "no guns" and "whites only" To equate the 2 makes gun owners look stupid.
Click to expand...
How so? Please explain.
 
Here in Georgia, you will only occasionally see a "no firearms allowed" sign. The only place that I've seen one is in a Waffle House in Atlanta.

There is no statute in Georgia authorizing such signs nor is there a penalty for disobeying such.

The Georgia Legislature has specified where concealed handguns may not be carried. Private businesses are not listed. Public gatherings are. The Georgia attorney general has issued an opinion that shopping malls are not public gatherings for the purpose of this statute. If 30 or 40 businesses together aren't considered a public gathering then I don't suppose one business is. I talked about this subject with a veteran state legislator one day. His reply was that the business owner could legally post such a sign but that it had no force under state law and you could then legally ignore it.

But, you know what? Post your sign. I'll take my business elsewhere and be thankful that a bigot exposed himself before I gave him money.
 
Civil Rights

First of all this is not something I am up in arms about (pun intended), just a pet peeve as I said in my initial post.

But, to me it is a civil rights issue. I am being denied my civil rights (set forth in the Constitution and codified in the CCW laws) by these business owners, that is why I compared it to putting a 'whites only' sign in the window.

Business owners choose to operate in the public sphere, at least the ones with an operating site which in open to the public. They must obey a myriad of laws about hiring, firing, safety, etc., why are they then exempted from the laws enabling me to exercise my 2nd amendment rights?

I understand 'no shirt no shoes no service', they want folks to feel comfortable in a family atmosphere. But if I am carrying legally, then my weapon will never be seen by any in the business, how then can the owner say carrying is detrimental to his business?

My weapon will not be seen, but will actually make his business a safer place to be, too bad his 'no guns' sign will tell any criminals that his is a place where they can rob with impunity.

MajMike
 
At the Gunssavelife.com

They have these cards that read NO GUNS=NO BUISNESS. We have noticed your sign, and will respect your wishes BY DOING BUSINESS ELSEWHERE. Then on the back it list what a gun owner must be and do to obtain their license. Final line on the back: "No Gun" signs turn law-abinding customers away while adverising a "safe working environment" to criminals! NO sign=Good Cents"
 
MajMikeW,

Do the signs have any legal force? Is there a penalty under Florida code for carrying into such a business?

It sounds as if it might be similar to the situation in Georgia: some businesses posting signs not realizing that there is no legal penalty for completely ignoring it.
 
There is no statute in Georgia authorizing such signs nor is there a penalty for disobeying such.
Click to expand...

It's called tresspassing. It may even be called armed tresspassing in your state, which may carry more serious penalties. No, you can't be charged with disobeying a no-guns sign, but you certainly can be charged with tresspassing if they ask you to leave and you don't. The court may consider the no guns sign to be the act of the property owner asking you to leave.

But, to me it is a civil rights issue. I am being denied my civil rights (set forth in the Constitution and codified in the CCW laws)
Click to expand...

You are confusing Constitutional and Civil rights. They are different. They are treated differently. A civil right is one that is codified by the legislature, i.e: you have the right not to be discriminated against because of your race when applying for a job. This applies to both public and private employers. There are many other civil rights. I'm sure you can think of some.

Constitutional rights are set forth, in varying degrees of specificity, in the federal and state constitutions. The RKBA is our favorite. Constitutional rights are not so much powers that the individual has, but instead restrictions on the power of government. In theory, the government cannot restrict your RKBA. Constitutional rights do not apply to (do not restrict the actions of) private parties. Since the RKBA has not been codified by the legislature as a civil right, it can't be enforced as such.

Now just because the legislature has codified CCW laws, does not make CCW a civil right. In fact, in most CCW states, you are licensed or "permitted" for CCW. Rights, Constitutional or civil, are not subject to licensing or permitting.

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, I'm just saying this is the way it is . . . .
 
We have a number of businesses that post no gun signs here in Ohio, and I support their right to do so. I just won't shop there.

I do not support trampling people's property rights, even to protect my right to carry a gun.

We must fight the misinformation that causes businesses to post such signs with information. We need to convince businesses that anyone who would obey such a sign isn't a threat while carrying a gun. The signs do not stop criminals, they only stop law abiding citizens.
 
the best part of CCW, is that its concealed. even if it says gun free zone, they will never know you are carrying and therefore wouldnt be able to deny your rights. if you are in that store and have a gun, some guy robs the place, you shoot him, what are the odds that the "gun free zone" sign comes down the next day. people just need to get their heads on straight
 
Still waiting for a single actual example of a liability insurance policy that requires a business to prohibit firearms. *** crickets chirping***
 
being as i hold a job in the commercial insurance industry, i can attest to the fact that there is no nationwide ISO form placed on liability policies that specifically states employees must be disarmed.

its usually a suggestion made by OSHA to (according to them anyways) curb workplace violence.

is put into employee handbooks more as a defense against someone who might sue the company because an employee starts massacring coworkers. that way, the company can lay the blame on someone else.

i sat through a seminar that OSHA put on a few years back. he went on and on about how workplace violence usually occurs because 'no one recognizes the signs' of a troubled employee. i asked him point blank whether or not firearm prohibitions in the work place really do any good, since the troubled employee will not care one whit about company policy. he had to agree, it was a feel good measure.


p.s. when we get inspections of premises for policies we write, the inspector almost always inquires whether or not firearms are kept on the premises. if there are none, it gets put in the report. i can only assume when the report doesnt reference the question, there likely are firearms kept by the insured for protection.
 
No, you can't be charged with disobeying a no-guns sign, but you certainly can be charged with tresspassing if they ask you to leave and you don't.
Click to expand...

Uh, excuse me. But unless your state's statute which contains the "no patronizing while armed" sign wording specifically exemts you as a CCW permit holderfrom your state's trespass laws then you can be charged with trespass if asked to leave anywhere.
 
Uh, excuse me. But unless your state's statute which contains the "no patronizing while armed" sign wording specifically exemts you as a CCW permit holderfrom your state's trespass laws then you can be charged with trespass if asked to leave anywhere.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is.

Please note that the laws in some states are silent about no-guns signs on private property.
 
MajMikeW.. I noticed you are in Panama City, FL. Where have you seen these signs? I know of no FL law saying these signs are legall.
 
PC Florida signs

CZ-100

The local mall had them up, and I think they still do. That was the one that annoyed me the most, not sure about others.

MajMike
 
Quote:there is a big difference between "no guns" and "whites only" To equate the 2 makes gun owners look stupid.
Click to expand...
How so? Please explain
Click to expand...

I will try to explain clearly for you:

people are BORN with a skin color. people CHOSE whether or not to carry. big diffrence
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Seattle Mayor and Anti-gun group call for "Gun Free Businesses" "
Replies
24
Views
2K
OilyPablo
OilyPablo
S
  • Locked
Liability for Discriminating Against CCW?
Replies
22
Views
782
Standing Wolf
S
L
  • Locked
Are Tennessee "GUN BAN" signs legal?
Replies
2
Views
395
Logistar
L
J
  • Locked
Too many "No Guns" signs in AZ
2 3
Replies
59
Views
5K
harrygunner
harrygunner
General Geoff
  • Locked
NJ - fixed place of business - case law needed
Replies
10
Views
423
mp510
M
Back
Top