Gun Free Zones - What's the point?

[chief357onYouTube]

Here's a opinion video on Gun Free Zones. I created this video with the intent of passing along my thoughts on gun free zones..... I don't really understand what their purpose is. I'm not talking about schools, bars, government buildings, etc. My video and question pertains to businesses who choose to make their establishment or property a gun free zone. Sometimes that business is a mom&pop type place, only 1 location exists. But sometimes, that business is a nationwide chain that makes it a blanket policy across all stores....Target for example.



Let's say that a particular business decided that they don't want anyone carrying a gun inside their store. That is their right, it's their store and I understand that part. If I don't like it, I don't have to shop there..... My question is, what type of problem or behavior are they trying to prevent or discourage?



Thanks for watching!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzAqbnfljrI

[Double Naught Spy]

That is one LOOONNNGGG video to make a point being made on this forum numerous times in the past.

What problem (asked in the video) are these companies trying to solve by putting these policies in place? Simple. They are trying to keep your fine, law abiding idiot gun holders from having NDs in their stores and harming their customers. They already know that they can't control lawbreakers, but they can control law abiders. They can't stop bad guys from shooting people and they know they can't count on good guys to step in and protect them without potentially harming other good people, but they can stop law abiding folks from carrying guns and having NDs in their stores...and these happen with some frequencies, complete with injuries and often deaths.

Before ask whether or not this policy makes sense, it all depends on your perspective. Their stores and their rules, plain and simple. You don't have to agree with them and you don't have to shop in them. You think your logic is better. They think their logic is better.

[sig-gunner]

Gun free zones were originally about having extra penalties for being caught in them with a gun. Supposedly this would deter gun use around schools etc.

Now they seem to be about the community (or a group of politicians in the community) stating that they are against guns in general. <-------- my opinion, not supported by facts, just conjecture

I think they're as silly as the no guns allowed signs we see on some retail stores etc. Only law abiding people will obey those signs.

[Double Naught Spy]

Well that is the idea. Gun free zones are not about trying to stop criminals. Only anti-gun free zone people seem to think they are to stop criminals.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

"My question is, what type of problem or behavior are they trying to prevent or discourage?"

They're trying to protect themselves from lawsuits. Whether or not it actually makes anyone safer or even unsafe is none of their concern.

[raimius]

Liability. If someone does something stupid/illegal with a gun in their store, and someone tries to sue the store, they can say "We told them not to bring one in here. It's not our fault!"

[Louca]

I am kinda wanting to agree with Armed_Chicagoan and raimius in that it might be liability related. Always follow the money first.

But my related question is: is it really illegal to carry in a store that just puts up a "no guns" sign? From what I read in my state laws, for "Prohibited Premises" it does not say anything about stores that put up signs. I mean the store could put up a "No fat people allowed" sign to avoid the liability of someone having a significant medical event (like heart attack or stroke) in their store, and then suing the store (which they would do). Is that legal? I doubt it.

And then sometimes I think the store just wants to be politically correct by making the statement, actually thinking they will somehow make people (incorrectly) think they are safer in their store.

[sig-gunner]

is it really illegal to carry in a store that just puts up a "no guns" sign?

In my state the concealed carry issuing entity, the state patrol, has among the criteria and rules for obtaining a permit (state patrol licensed training, fingerprint FBI background check, etc etc etc) the provision that the permit holder must obey any "no guns" signs anywhere, whether at a home, retail store, church etc.

In addition there is a list of "no gun zones" such as government buildings, schools, sports events, etc.

[Indawind]

But my related question is: is it really illegal to carry in a store that just puts up a "no guns" sign?

And here in lies a question some must ask themselves. Not is it illegal, but HOW illegal is it.

Here the force of law behind the signage is minor so an example of the question to ask boils down to this event.

A guy buys some stuff at a local Mall. The entire property is a "gun free zone" according to the owners, and is posted as such. The guy has a gun pulled on him by some youths that want his stuff. The guy pulls HIS gun and kills the kid. The only charges placed were on one of the kid's buddies.

So the "Bad guy" had no issue with carrying in a gun free zone, and the shooter made the decision that his life was worth the risk of being asked to leave a gun free zone. The shooters decision seems to be a prudent one, he walked away rather than being carried.

I suppose the decision comes down to understanding that Big Boy Rules apply when it comes to guns. It's a personal decision.

[Double Naught Spy]

But my related question is: is it really illegal to carry in a store that just puts up a "no guns" sign? From what I read in my state laws, for "Prohibited Premises" it does not say anything about stores that put up signs. I mean the store could put up a "No fat people allowed" sign to avoid the liability of someone having a significant medical event (like heart attack or stroke) in their store, and then suing the store (which they would do). Is that legal? I doubt it.

The no fat people sign would be a form of discrimination against people, which is generally illegal. No guns is discrimination against an object, not a person, and is generally legal to do. So the comparison isn't parallel or comparable.

[sig-gunner]

I feel like I should be able to carry (concealed) whenever and where ever I want to. But I generally comply with the rules the state patrol here has in place for the permit. That means noting where the signs are and not going back with my business; I'll take my money elsewhere.

Also, if it's a court building or school sports event etc I'm going to, I leave the gun at home.

I just don't want to lose that permit privilege. I carried before the days of cc permits, where it was legal to do so.

The whole thing of feeling defenceless because I'm in a place where it's not legal to carry a gun is the big irony about all this. I want to keep my permit, but I don't think I should have to have a #$%^*&! permit in the first place.

[rickyrick]

Gun free zones work.
Has caused many of you to leave your guns at home.
GFZ has caused me to leave mine at home before.
That's one gun that didn't shoot anyone, and if we save just one... It's all worth it.

[Double Naught Spy]

The whole thing of feeling defenceless because I'm in a place where it's not legal to carry a gun is the big irony about all this.

If you feel defenseless because you don't have a gun, then you probably need to really reevaluate your self defense preparedness. A gun is an improper tool for the vast majority of self defense situations.

[raimius]

I would recommend reading through handgunlaw.us and your state's page on carry regulations if you are unfamiliar with the specifics in your state. Some states have legal penalties for disregarding private "no guns" signs, while others will simply treat it as trespassing if you do not leave after your firearm is noticed.

[sig-gunner]

If you feel defenseless because you don't have a gun, then you probably need to really reevaluate your self defense preparedness. A gun is an improper tool for the vast majority of self defense situations.

Nothing to re-evaluate, except maybe my posted wording here and there. Could/should have been something like, "...I could feel potentially defenseless in a deadly situation which would otherwise necessitate the need for a gun not allowed in various locations.."

But I think you knew that because it is implied, but you just felt like jumping in with a condescending response, big guy. Because you're so rough and tough and all that.

[Louca]

The no fat people sign would be a form of discrimination against people, which is generally illegal. No guns is discrimination against an object, not a person, and is generally legal to do. So the comparison isn't parallel or comparable.

Yes, Double Naught Spy, you are correct and thanks for pointing that out. I readily now admit that was an incorrect example. I would argue however that the "no guns" sign is not just discrimination against an object, but also discrimination against a citizen's rights, rights that are Constitutionally ordained and State licensed (in the case of a carry license).

I suppose if a state says that putting up a sign constitutes a binding legal statute, then an arrest could be made. Otherwise, I would think about all they could do is ask the person to leave. And that might be a little difficult to do if a handgun is truly concealed and not visible.

[44 AMP]

I would argue however that the "no guns" sign is not just discrimination against an object, but also discrimination against a citizen's rights, rights that are Constitutionally ordained and State licensed (in the case of a carry license).

And you would essentially be correct.

HOWEVER...

You are dealing here with PRIVATE property rights, and while open to the public and having to allow certain protected classes, legally armed citizens are not one of those protected (by law) classes.

Our constitutionally ordained rights do NOT apply on other people's property, absent their permission, nor do their rights apply on ours.

Your state license allows for legal carry in PUBLIC (on public property) with certain noted exceptions. While you or I might hold the opinion that a "no guns" policy is not proper behavior, it is entirely legal.

The guy running a snack bar downtown isn't going to lose much if he puts up a "No Shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. The guy running the snack bar at the beach would lose most of his business if he did.

It's their place, their rules, don't like them? Don't go there.

[JimPage]

44...: That's true in the most part, but not in totality. Most glaring example is that you can't enslave anyone even on your own property. The person maintains his rights there, too.

[Louca]

Very good point 44. I had not previously considered the private property aspect of all this. I suppose the legal vs. illegal subject in all this comes down to a trespassing issue.

I suppose that is a huge advantage of knowing martial arts in that you cannot be thrown out of a place just for knowing something. Just don't let them see your black belt! :-)

[steve4102]

Louca, ya might want to read this from HandgunLaw on your State of MI concerning NoGuns signs.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/michigan.pdf

And again here.

http://miopencarry.org/faq#7

[Louca]

Wow, although not a legal document, that is a very good read. Thanks Steve.

[Double Naught Spy]

Yes, Double Naught Spy, you are correct and thanks for pointing that out. I readily now admit that was an incorrect example. I would argue however that the "no guns" sign is not just discrimination against an object, but also discrimination against a citizen's rights, rights that are Constitutionally ordained and State licensed (in the case of a carry license).

You know, it isn't even discrimination against a citizen's rights in a legal sense when the "rights" are subject to the permission of the land owner (as clarified by various state and federal laws and rulings). That means your rights are limited (as held up by the Supreme Court) and that your rights do not supersede the rights of another. So unless otherwise stipulated by law, your "right" only means that it is okay with the government so long as it is okay with the proprietor of the premises. Many folks seem to forget this.

So a landowner disallowing gun carry may be discrimination, but it is without a rights violation (assuming all applicable laws are followed).

[thallub]

My doctor is a concealed carrier, shooter and hunter. He did not have a no gun sign. Then some idiot was fondling his Glock in an examining room and had a negligent discharge. The bullet went through several walls, narrowly missing a nurse.

My doctor now has a no gun sign.

[44 AMP]

Most glaring example is that you can't enslave anyone even on your own property. The person maintains his rights there, too.

Because enslaving someone is a crime. We kind of fought a war with that as a major issue back in the 1860s. You can't enslave someone on your own property because you can't enslave anyone, anywhere, and the property owner's legal right to determine what goes on, on their property does not supersede that.

Just don't let them see your black belt! :-)

I let 'em see my black belt, AND my black suspenders! (and my black cane..)

.. your rights do not supersede the rights of another.

One of the operative phrases describing this idea is "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.."

The law provides the framework we use to determine who's rights, about what, take precedence, and when.

Generally speaking, property owners rights, on their property, are given more weight than the rights of an individual on someone else's property.

[rickyrick]

I'll always respect private property rights, just as I wish mine to be observed. Even outside of the law as a courtesy.

Say, for example, a feller has a no guns allowed sign in an establishment, the local laws do not give the sign any legal weight, I will still respect the owner's wishes. Most likely I'll comply by not entering the premises. If it's something I have to do, I'll disarm.