posted "no guns"

[Geezer59]

No one has any rights that trump the owner's right to set his own conditions for dealing with the public. If you won't disarm yourself before entering then you have the choice not to enter. Nothing else is morally acceptable.

I find this sentiment somewhat fallacious, as property rights are secondary to civil rights. And business property rights are not as protected as private property rights, when you open an establishment to the public for profit, you're subject to certain restrictions. If you object to the limits, don't open the business.

As a citizen, I have an almost absolute right to self-defense (subject to justification, reasonable force, etc.). As a property owner doing business with the public, you cannot deny me that right. If you choose to do so, you are implicitly taking responsibility for my safety - and are thus liable for damages should you fail to provide that protection.

Even private (non-business) property owners are subject to certain liabilities - i.e., "attractive nuisance" ordinances that force you to limit access to your swimming pool by neighborhood children, etc.

Bottom line: your "owner's right" is already trumped, and properly so IMHO.

 

[chuckusaret]

"No Guns" Hey, If I were a bad guy, with a gun, thats the place I would do my business

 

[TEDDY]

Carry

I like SC law in part.you can put up the sign but has to be a certain size and place ,if not it is not legal,and if you go in its ok but if told to leave you go.
I dont like the part where you must totaly conceal or you get charged with brandishing the gun..In Mass the Permit is a permit to carry period.any way.
most carry in a case or concealed.the south is just getting where they allow carrying(last 20 yrs?)but any one who wants to commit a crime has done it.
notice that a lot of states are passing castle laws that state any where legal.I carried with out permit for many yrs and the chief knew it. I do believe the second is being revued by SCOTUS and is going to get strict scrutany.we are winning but little at a time.it is not going to be sudden.we lost most a little at a time.people are geting fed up with crime,I think the liberal tables are turning.and I have seen a lot in 84yrs.this s***t has mostly been going on since 1960s.

 

[Kleanbore]

Check the law where you live and ignore it at your own risk

Where I live, if a person carries a concealed weapon onto posted private property, the person is trespassing, and the proprietor or manager may ask the person to leave (no one is likely do that) and if he does not, the police are to be called (likely the proprietor's first course of action. There is no penalty the first time. For a second offense the CCW license is suspended, and things get worse after that.

I'm told that in some states the penalty is much more severe (class B misdemeanor in KS, class 6 felony in VA, for example).

The fact is that the "no guns" sign will not govern the behavior of a crook (other than to possibly incite him to choose a posted location to commit his crime) but in many states the property owner can prohibit the carrying of weapons, but that does not seem to dissuade property owners from putting signs on their premises any more than facts and logic seem to influence those who would ban guns.

 

[MedWheeler]

I understand the OP's id, but the decision is, ultimately, that of the proprietor.
Private property owners have the right to determine what does and doesn't happen on their property. My wife and I have a two-month-old baby, and are glad the law doesn't say we have to let smokers light up in our home if they wish.
As Americans, we enjoy many rights, not just the one focused on in a firearms forum. One of those is the right to own personal and real property.
I respect "guns prohibited" postings in general. They are rare, however, where I live. In fact, I've only seen them in medical buildings around here (some other places are gun-free zones per Florida law.) I either don't go to them, or don't disclose.

 

[Grey_Mana]

I think a 'no tresspassing' sign is more to the point than a 'no guns' sign for private property.

I certainly don't want strangers bringing guns onto my personal property. If you are a friend, welcome. If you are a stranger - that's what phone and email are for.

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

In IN you are not required to notify the landowner/business that you are carrying. the chief of police did tell me however that it is generally a courteous thing to respect their wishes...

which seems to me like they can kick me off their property if they want, but they cannot prohibit me from carrying.

 

[TAB]

As a citizen, I have an almost absolute right to self-defense (subject to justification, reasonable force, etc.). As a property owner doing business with the public, you cannot deny me that right. If you choose to do so, you are implicitly taking responsibility for my safety - and are thus liable for damages should you fail to provide that protection.

gun does not equal Self defence... never have, never will. how did people defend themselfs before we had guns? How does most of the world defend itself now?

 

[X9ballX]

there is nothing that should stop a man from buying a gun other than if that man has used a gun in a unlawful manner or eats crayons and rolls his turds into balls

 

[gregormeister]

Unless I am caught redhanded and asked to leave the premise by the owner or it is a law then I will continue to carry my CCW...

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

X9ballx,
what if he was a serial killer who used knives? by your definition he should be allowed to have a gun. i disagree. i do agree with the rolling turds into balls, that is unacceptable.

anyways, back to the OP...
posting no guns would attract bad attention IMO. if i was looking for someone to rob/kill, it would certainly be in an area where there was next to no chance they were armed. (hypothetically speaking)

 

[Treo]

how did people defend themselfs before we had guns?

A more appropriate question would be, how are you going to defend yourself without a gun against a maniac with a gun?

How does most of the world defend itself now?

With guns.

 

[TAB]

Treo we are one of the few countrys in the world where you can carry a gun. Most you can't even own them.

 

[Treo]

Have you ever left the U.S?
Guns are available all over the world the criminals certainly seem to have them.

How about the rest of my post?
How would you defend yourself unarmed ( because you gave up your rights to Wal Mart) against some wako W/ a grudge who didn't honor the no guns sign?

 

[TAB]

yes I have left the US... More crimals in the US have guns, then in the place I have traveled too.

There are so many what ifs, you can't answer that question.

lets see I can't carry a gun now as my sheriff will not issue CCWs... I guess that leaves me helpless... oh no, I'm going to die... boo hoo, boo hoo.

The chances of me getting shot in a mass shooting are less then me being struck by lighting... guess which one I'm more worried about?

 

[chuckusaret]

Why did our fore fathers include gun ownership in the Constitution? To allow the people to protect ourselves against our elected/appointed leaders.

 

[chuckusaret]

My past job required me to travel the world, Germany, Russia, Pakistan, Egypt, Vietnam, Korea, England, Demark, Africa, plus others. I can truthfully say all had problems with BG's with guns, but England had the best handle on it. Where guns were banned they had a larger problem with the armed BG.