CommonSense, you're throwing so many questions at me that I feel like I'm in a dodgeball game. (OK, most folks don't know what "dodgeball " is unless they're about my age
).
"Simple training requirements as a person that has either owned or managed businesses all of my life worry me. Please inform me of the differences and why you think one is better than the other."
I assume your concern is that people will not be adequately trained, or at least to a level that you feel comfortable with. What level would that be? The number of hours that police cadets undergo in firearms training isn't all that great, and they're being trained to do things that "citizens" do not need to: chase down suspects, break down barricaded suspects, go into "hot" crime areas, etc. The responsibility of a CCW permit holder is to get his/her butt out of the confrontation as fast as possible, and to use the threat of lethal force as the absolute last resort. Big difference.
My concern with lengthy and expensive training classes are twofold: they address tactics and methods that the average citizen doesn't need; and the cost will prevent those who need self-protection the most from being able to get the training.
As for your point that employees can sue the employer right now: how so? Since it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon, there are no grounds upon which an employee denied the right to carry on the job can sue based upon the argument that, had he been allowed to protect himself, he wouldn't have been harmed. If some slick lawyers can twist that, rest assured they will. But this law, unlike any other I'm aware of, puts the burden of liability for those employers who deny their employees the right to defend themselves right back in the lap of the company. Show me another case in Wisconsin where a defenseless employee sued the company because he couldn't carry a gun.
With all due respect, I cannot fathom your argument against the size of the "no guns" signs. They will be larger than "no smoking" signs, but smaller than "handicapped parking only" signs. They will be larger than some signs, but smaller than others. By the way, nobody has yet tried to answer my question as to why the bill was amended to make the signs 8 1/2" x 11".
As the owner/manager of a business, you are not required by this law to have metal detectors or "greeters." The signage requirement is much the same as the Texas "30.06" legislation: if a permit holder is on your posted business property, you tell him to leave. If he refuses, he gets arrested for trespassing. This is not an unfunded mandate. You or your employer have sole discretion.
"The odds of your survival are greatest if you do exactly as told."
Hmmm. I seem to remember more than a few fast-food and convenience store employees who did just that and didn't come out of the experience alive. And FBI Uniform Crime Report numbers show that those who resist with a weapon are more likely to survive than those who cooperate.
In the end, it's going to come down to the situation at hand. If you have the opportunity to gain the upper hand, take it. If you don't, watch for another opportunity, or just pray. At least with having a concealed weapon, you'll have more opportunities than not.
Lastly, I think I've made it clear that I agree that private property is just that: private. If the business owner doesn't want concealed weapons in his establishment, that's his right.
I hope I've addressed all of your points to your satisfaction. Now I'd like to ask again: what is it about this bill that you feel is flawed?
