No Guns Allowed here! - Page 2

daywalker627 · February 13, 2009, 01:36 PM

I do not know if this will help. I frequent a website for Virginia in which I live. This site posts Unfriendly gun owner places of buisness.

Here is the link

http://www.vcdl.org/static/gue.html

Like I stated. I do not know if this will help you or not. Just thought it was close to what you are thinking of doing.

johnwilliamson062 · February 13, 2009, 02:18 PM

In ohio these signs are pretty much the norm. Any restaurant that serves alcohol must post them. many others have been told by lawyers that they must as part of meeting their responsibility to create a safe work environment.

sailor99 · February 13, 2009, 02:57 PM

In Oregon, if a business posts a sign no guns allowed and you carry one in, concealed handgun license or not, you are trespassing; and subject to all the criminal penalties that go along with that. Personally, I totally agree with that. It is their property, it is their right not to allow anyone on it if they doing something that they don't agree with, such as carrying a weapon.

Kjeil · February 13, 2009, 04:58 PM

I think another idea would be to provide information on their internal policies that they subject their employees to.

For example many large companies prohibit employees from having guns in their parked cars which drastically limits their ability to carry. Employees have to choose between being defenseless on the way to and from work versus the risk of getting fired if they get caught. All this is just to prevent their legal exposure in case of an employee shooting.

Huey Long · February 13, 2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

True, as would I but in NY, at least my area, I have never seen a "no guns" sign in my entire life.

Hardly anyone is legally allowed to carry a gun in New York, so "no guns" pretty much goes without saying there.

OTOH, "no guns" signage is much commoner here in Arizona.

DG45 · February 13, 2009, 10:36 PM

I'm not a lawyer and nothing in this post should be interpreted or construed in any way as legal advice. It's strictly my laymans questions and laymans opinions, but someone earlier in this post mentioned that businesses restrict guns on their premises as a way of limiting their liability. I'm not sure that's the way things are going to finally work out for Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech first banned guns on their campus thereby denying all their law-abiding students -ie., 99.999% of them - a right guaranteed to them by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, then Tech failed miserably and completely to enforce that ban against the 1 student among their many thousands of students who no one in his right mind would have wanted to have a gun on that campus. I don't know if Tech has settled all the claims yet but I imagine they will eventually find out what real liability is if there are as many brilliant ambulance chasers in Virginia as there are everywhere else. Think about it: When someone, anyone, steps in and in effect says "You are required by our authority as (fill in the blank here - business owner; university bigwig, or state government) to check your Constitutional Rights as a US citizen at the Door" (of our business, or of our university, or of our state) before you come in, then it seems to me that particular entity who has forced you to compromise your rights in order to make a purchase, go to college, or travel through that state on your way to another, has accepted some serious liability for your safety from crime while in that business or on that campus or in that state. Any lawyers on the forum? Anybody care to comment? (By the way, why doesn't our side cover up the other side in lawsuits like they do us?)

daywalker627 · February 14, 2009, 02:08 AM

I myself am very unsure of how I feel about private company's not allowing conceald guns into their place of buisness. I have mixed feelings towards it. On one hand, being a CCW permit holder, I would not want my right infringed upon to where I can and can not carry my fire arm. Now on the other hand, should I infringe on the buisness owner rights to determine wether they want CCW allowed in their buisness? I for one would choose not to do buisness with that company, and that would be my right. Within this country, everyone is suppose to have certain rights to things. Every day, everyone is trying to put "their rights" in front of the others. Example, I have the right to clean air, Joe has the right to smoke. I say my right to clean air should have presidence over Joe's right to smoke. In the end, there are places that ban smoking in their establishment. Guns is close to that type of argument. I have the right by the 2nd admendment to carry a firearm. Joe has the right as an antigun person to determine if someone can carry a gun in a place of buisness in which he has to put his own money up on rent or morgage payment on the building plus items which he purchases to sell.

All I know is this, I have the right to CCW. The state issued me my permit and states that I pass every criteria required to have the permit. I carry mine with me at all times and go by the don't ask, don't tell. If I see a sign in the window that states no guns allowed, I will respect their right and practice my right by sending my buisness elsewhere. I love the idea of having a site that I can visit that lists places that do not allow guns so that I can maximize my time and plan on going to another buisness to do my spending.

I hope what I have typed makes sense. If not then I appologize for waisting what little precious time we all have. I wanted to add my 2 cents to the conversation on what I believe in. As I think on it longer, my belief may change. Then again, I may still be right where I am. I know that everyone's right is a never ending circle as far as one person's right over the next person's right for anything.

Huey Long · February 14, 2009, 02:36 AM

Quote:

I myself am very unsure of how I feel about private company's not allowing conceald guns into their place of buisness. I have mixed feelings towards it. On one hand, being a CCW permit holder, I would not want my right infringed upon to where I can and can not carry my fire arm. Now on the other hand, should I infringe on the buisness owner rights to determine wether they want CCW allowed in their buisness?

Mos businesses are incorporated and corporations have no rights. In fact, IMO, corporations come close to being extensions of the state and should probably be bound by the Rill of Rights the same way the government is.

If the business is owned by an individual and not a corporation, then his house, his rules.

Kjeil · February 14, 2009, 03:13 AM

I certainly know what you mean about the vicious circle of rights but I think there is certainly some middle ground here.

I can agree that it makes sense for companies to be able to set policies as to what you can bring into the building and if they choose to now allow me to bring my gun inside then fine I can live with that.

But the problem is that most companies also consider the parking lot as part of their policy. So employees don't even have the option of leaving it in their locked car. As a result the employee must either risk his job or be defenseless on the way to or from work and anywhere he stops along the way.

So in other words, in the name of protecting people at work employers are limiting the protection their employees have away from work. That's where I think they go too far.

Many states are pushing laws this year to prevent this problem.

daywalker627 · February 14, 2009, 12:29 PM

I can understand and appreciate where you are coming from.

DG45 · February 14, 2009, 04:04 PM

Airlines ban guns; so do courthouses. Law-abiding Americans read the signs at airports and courthouses and don't go in with guns; but the airlines and the courts know that those signs only affect the law-abiding, so they go the extra mile and deter those who are not law-abiding from bringing guns in too. They put metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances and egresses to make sure that the criminal element can't come in with guns either. Virginia Tech on the other hand "banned" guns on its campus but did not go the extra mile of assuring that non law-abiders too would be unable to bring guns onto the campus. By disarming the law-abiding among their student body while not disarming the criminal, the school allowed a deranged gunman bent on mass murder to penetrate their campus and rain down mass murder on the law abiding students who the school had first disarmed and then betrayed by not disarming the criminal too. I'm not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion but I don't see how the school can escape being liable for that to the tune of billions of dollars. So, the argument that businesses make that they are avoiding liability by their so-called gun bans while all along they know, that like Virginia Tech, they are just "banning" guns among the law-abiding, while not taking any steps to assure that the criminal element can't bring in guns either, may prove in the end to not be a wise business decision.

shortwave · February 15, 2009, 03:27 PM

I don`t believe anyone`s rights should be infinged on. IMO if a person has a business and a no gun sign posted, thats their right and I respect it. I will absolutely not patronize that same business. I try to find owner of business and politely give him/her a 'no gun =`s no $' card. Their competitor gets my business. Thats my right

.

mold maker · February 15, 2009, 04:08 PM

My favorite eatery posted the no guns sign. I asked the owner for a written statement, that he personally assumed the guarantee of our safety.
My family, being regular customers, then departed.
Several days later, the owner called, to say the signs were gone, and I was welcome, including my CCW. He had really never thought about what the sign implied.

February 13, 2009, 02:57 PM	#28
sailor99 Member Join Date: January 9, 2009 Posts: 15	Trespass In Oregon, if a business posts a sign no guns allowed and you carry one in, concealed handgun license or not, you are trespassing; and subject to all the criminal penalties that go along with that. Personally, I totally agree with that. It is their property, it is their right not to allow anyone on it if they doing something that they don't agree with, such as carrying a weapon.

February 13, 2009, 04:58 PM	#29
Kjeil Member Join Date: December 29, 2008 Posts: 32	I think another idea would be to provide information on their internal policies that they subject their employees to. For example many large companies prohibit employees from having guns in their parked cars which drastically limits their ability to carry. Employees have to choose between being defenseless on the way to and from work versus the risk of getting fired if they get caught. All this is just to prevent their legal exposure in case of an employee shooting. __________________ Since everbody asks: "Kjeil" is pronounced "Kyle" "If thou hast not a sword, sell thy cloak and buy one" Luke 22:36

February 14, 2009, 03:13 AM	#34
Kjeil Member Join Date: December 29, 2008 Posts: 32	I certainly know what you mean about the vicious circle of rights but I think there is certainly some middle ground here. I can agree that it makes sense for companies to be able to set policies as to what you can bring into the building and if they choose to now allow me to bring my gun inside then fine I can live with that. But the problem is that most companies also consider the parking lot as part of their policy. So employees don't even have the option of leaving it in their locked car. As a result the employee must either risk his job or be defenseless on the way to or from work and anywhere he stops along the way. So in other words, in the name of protecting people at work employers are limiting the protection their employees have away from work. That's where I think they go too far. Many states are pushing laws this year to prevent this problem. __________________ Since everbody asks: "Kjeil" is pronounced "Kyle" "If thou hast not a sword, sell thy cloak and buy one" Luke 22:36

February 15, 2009, 03:27 PM	#37
shortwave Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2007 Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO Posts: 5,970	I don`t believe anyone`s rights should be infinged on. IMO if a person has a business and a no gun sign posted, thats their right and I respect it. I will absolutely not patronize that same business. I try to find owner of business and politely give him/her a 'no gun =`s no $' card. Their competitor gets my business. Thats my right.

February 15, 2009, 04:08 PM	#38
mold maker Junior Member Join Date: September 27, 2002 Location: Piedmont of N. C. Posts: 3	No guns boycot My favorite eatery posted the no guns sign. I asked the owner for a written statement, that he personally assumed the guarantee of our safety. My family, being regular customers, then departed. Several days later, the owner called, to say the signs were gone, and I was welcome, including my CCW. He had really never thought about what the sign implied. __________________ still kicken

February 13, 2009, 01:36 PM	#26
daywalker627 Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 2008 Location: Dublin VA Posts: 105	I do not know if this will help. I frequent a website for Virginia in which I live. This site posts Unfriendly gun owner places of buisness. Here is the link http://www.vcdl.org/static/gue.html Like I stated. I do not know if this will help you or not. Just thought it was close to what you are thinking of doing.

February 13, 2009, 02:18 PM	#27
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	In ohio these signs are pretty much the norm. Any restaurant that serves alcohol must post them. many others have been told by lawyers that they must as part of meeting their responsibility to create a safe work environment.

February 13, 2009, 10:36 PM	#31
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	I'm not a lawyer and nothing in this post should be interpreted or construed in any way as legal advice. It's strictly my laymans questions and laymans opinions, but someone earlier in this post mentioned that businesses restrict guns on their premises as a way of limiting their liability. I'm not sure that's the way things are going to finally work out for Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech first banned guns on their campus thereby denying all their law-abiding students -ie., 99.999% of them - a right guaranteed to them by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, then Tech failed miserably and completely to enforce that ban against the 1 student among their many thousands of students who no one in his right mind would have wanted to have a gun on that campus. I don't know if Tech has settled all the claims yet but I imagine they will eventually find out what real liability is if there are as many brilliant ambulance chasers in Virginia as there are everywhere else. Think about it: When someone, anyone, steps in and in effect says "You are required by our authority as (fill in the blank here - business owner; university bigwig, or state government) to check your Constitutional Rights as a US citizen at the Door" (of our business, or of our university, or of our state) before you come in, then it seems to me that particular entity who has forced you to compromise your rights in order to make a purchase, go to college, or travel through that state on your way to another, has accepted some serious liability for your safety from crime while in that business or on that campus or in that state. Any lawyers on the forum? Anybody care to comment? (By the way, why doesn't our side cover up the other side in lawsuits like they do us?)

February 14, 2009, 02:08 AM	#32
daywalker627 Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 2008 Location: Dublin VA Posts: 105	I myself am very unsure of how I feel about private company's not allowing conceald guns into their place of buisness. I have mixed feelings towards it. On one hand, being a CCW permit holder, I would not want my right infringed upon to where I can and can not carry my fire arm. Now on the other hand, should I infringe on the buisness owner rights to determine wether they want CCW allowed in their buisness? I for one would choose not to do buisness with that company, and that would be my right. Within this country, everyone is suppose to have certain rights to things. Every day, everyone is trying to put "their rights" in front of the others. Example, I have the right to clean air, Joe has the right to smoke. I say my right to clean air should have presidence over Joe's right to smoke. In the end, there are places that ban smoking in their establishment. Guns is close to that type of argument. I have the right by the 2nd admendment to carry a firearm. Joe has the right as an antigun person to determine if someone can carry a gun in a place of buisness in which he has to put his own money up on rent or morgage payment on the building plus items which he purchases to sell. All I know is this, I have the right to CCW. The state issued me my permit and states that I pass every criteria required to have the permit. I carry mine with me at all times and go by the don't ask, don't tell. If I see a sign in the window that states no guns allowed, I will respect their right and practice my right by sending my buisness elsewhere. I love the idea of having a site that I can visit that lists places that do not allow guns so that I can maximize my time and plan on going to another buisness to do my spending. I hope what I have typed makes sense. If not then I appologize for waisting what little precious time we all have. I wanted to add my 2 cents to the conversation on what I believe in. As I think on it longer, my belief may change. Then again, I may still be right where I am. I know that everyone's right is a never ending circle as far as one person's right over the next person's right for anything.

February 14, 2009, 12:29 PM	#35
daywalker627 Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 2008 Location: Dublin VA Posts: 105	I can understand and appreciate where you are coming from.

February 14, 2009, 04:04 PM	#36
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	Airlines ban guns; so do courthouses. Law-abiding Americans read the signs at airports and courthouses and don't go in with guns; but the airlines and the courts know that those signs only affect the law-abiding, so they go the extra mile and deter those who are not law-abiding from bringing guns in too. They put metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances and egresses to make sure that the criminal element can't come in with guns either. Virginia Tech on the other hand "banned" guns on its campus but did not go the extra mile of assuring that non law-abiders too would be unable to bring guns onto the campus. By disarming the law-abiding among their student body while not disarming the criminal, the school allowed a deranged gunman bent on mass murder to penetrate their campus and rain down mass murder on the law abiding students who the school had first disarmed and then betrayed by not disarming the criminal too. I'm not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion but I don't see how the school can escape being liable for that to the tune of billions of dollars. So, the argument that businesses make that they are avoiding liability by their so-called gun bans while all along they know, that like Virginia Tech, they are just "banning" guns among the law-abiding, while not taking any steps to assure that the criminal element can't bring in guns either, may prove in the end to not be a wise business decision.