What to do when you see a "No Guns" Sign

Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally handle the situation about the same as you do and I have for a long time. How I respond just depends on the situation. If I'm in a hurry and have to be somewhere, then I'll make a mental note and send an email later on or make a phone call. If I'm not in a hurry I take time to speak to a manager or owner.

I never tell the store owner/manager that they have a sign that isn't legal. I don't want them to change it to a legal one and ruin my fellow Texas CHL holders visits. If they have a legal sign, then I'll still confront them about it. Other than the already mentioned Taco Cabana type of establishments where its already been attempted.

What I do is simply ask them 1) why they have a "no guns allowed" sign posted, 2) why they don't want my business and 3) how are they going to protect me while I'm on their property. Most of the time its simply corporate policy. Some people are just anti's and will always be that way. Often times the small businesses I talk to say the sign was on there when they leased the space & they just never took it down. Once in a long while it actual results in someone taking a scraper to the sign and removing it...:)

After reading this thread I'm confused about one thing though...why all the insults and name calling to fellow gun enthusiasts?

If your friends, family or relatives don't agree with you about something, do you insult them and call them names? I'm sure you don't, so why do it on here? Just makes you look immature and childish...which in turn makes all of your arguments lose weight and value.
 
Bogie, I outlined the thought process behind my decision to do as I do. Apparently, there are others who think the same way. If you can't understand such simple reasoning, then I can't help you. Personally, I don't have the energy to devote to being the Second Amendment Thought Police.
 
Tequila Mockingbird writes
I understand your point. The point I was trying to make is that the Constitution protects your rights vis a vis the government, and the enumerated rights in the Constitution are rights that the government may not infringe on. When you are invited to someone else's property, it's on the understanding that you will follow the rules that the property owner has laid down: no smoking, no profanity, no drinking, no firearms, whatever. All of these prohibitions might arguably run afoul of some constitutional right if they were exercised by the government, but a private property owner is within his rights to enforce any of them.

This is half correct. Those rules function just fine with respect to a person's dwelling.

However, a business is different. A business isn't allowed to hang out a sign that says "no coloreds" or "Catholics ONLY" for customers, or to place similar restrictions who they decide to hire or not.

Further, they are required to have insurance, x amount of fire extinguishers, exit signs, smoke detectors, etc etc.

If not, the 'punishment' is revocation of the business licence. I think in addition to all the other demands, to keep your business licence, one should also not be allowed to bar legal law abiding gun carrying citizens from entering armed, as long as they aren't causing a disturbance.

Now, the whole situation isn't perfect. In a libritarian ideal, there would be no business licence, and a business would be free to have no smoke detectors and ban methodists and anyone who has a last name starting with V, and anyone who has a handgun or who had premarital sex.

But that isn't where we are now. If we are going to have business lisences at all, and we are going to tie those lisences to safety AND tolerance of consitutionally protected differences, then we need to do the same for gun rights and gun owners as well.
 
In Utah, they have no force of law, and I therefore ignore them. Only the state legislature may define where guns are or are not allowed. A business may refuse service to anyone, but if you refuse to leave, you are only guilty of trespassing.

I have never heard no said a word about carrying in any of these places.
 
In Michigan, only pistol-free zones are illegal. Other than those areas, I carry, even if there is a sign. The worst that can happen, if they discover the firearm, is to request that I leave. I cannot be arrested for trespass, unless I refuse to leave.
 
anyone else want to be the person about to walk into said store with the sign and see a bunch of masked men with illegal assault rifles. and then stand there as the men look at the sigh and turn to one another and say:
"oh! no guns! crap. looks like we need to find another place to go..back to the car"

i would like to see that.
 
You mean, something like this?

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • gunfreezonecartoon.jpg
    gunfreezonecartoon.jpg
    22.4 KB · Views: 62
If I am at home in Florida, I ignore the signs because they have no legal weight. If I am travelling, I make sure I follow the law in whatever state I'm in. If the sign has no legal weight, I ignore it.
 
Normally I would recommend combatting this prejudice by taking a lesson from Martin Luther King, Jr. Practice civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. Our conundrum is that if we are civilly disobedient, it means we are armed. It's hard to argue that armed people are practicing nonviolent resistance, even though we are. Maybe we need to get the phrase "armed nonviolence" into the public's lexicon.

Let's form a subcommittee to study the issue and make recommendations that we can debate at our leisure. We don't want to do anything too quickly. These are weighty matters that need thoughtful discussion.

The committee should take at least a year to study the situation fully. Two or three years would be even better because it would allow greater depth. Perhaps it could issue its report in time for the 2012 elections.

Then the committee of the whole can deliberate with full knowledge of the situation.

I propose that the subcommitte be named the Deliberative Emergency Action Committee. That name communicates the proper sense of urgency.

In the meantime what can it hurt to support the businesses who want to use our money to prevent us from owning firearms. They can't really be serious. It's our right.

If Rosa Parks had been a gun owner there would have been no civil rights movement. It took courage not to sit in the back of the bus. We don't do courage real well and don't enjoy spending time, energy, or money. But, my oh my, we surely do talk. :)
 
Actually, Rosa parks ignored the signs and sat anyway. If she had followed your plan, she would have gotten off the bus, refused to ride it, and then she would have sent a letter to the bus driver explaining why.

THAT would have shown 'em.
 
If she'd followed your plan, she would have tried to "pass," possibly with aid of a few layers of makeup, and then sat in the front of the bus, with nobody aware otherwise...

She DID something, and she did it so people would see it.

You, sir, are proudly and vocally doing NOTHING.
 
Nothing? I am exercising MY RIGHTS without getting in people's face about it and shrilly whining like some pre-pubescent child.
 
Nothing.

The store owners are not psychic.

As you sneak past them, they are not subliminally getting the message.

Instead, they think that they've increased safety.

And you have done NOTHING to alter that.

And a portion of your money is helping them keep that sign up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top