So… then why have the stupid sign?
Maybe not patrons but every gun range I’ve been to requires its employees to carry a sidearm. A police officer/gun safety trainer told me once that it’s amazing how many goofballs think it’s a great idea to rob a gun shop. Hence the proliferation of armed employees.
There’s a smoking hot redhead clerk at my local range that looks so hot with that .38 on her hip.
As a gun owner, my standard answer to a person asking me why I own a gun is that it is my right, and I choose to do so.
As a property owner, my standard answer to why I choose not to allow people onto my premises with guns is that it is my right, and I choose not to do so.
The ban on peyote has a religious exemption. For whatever that’s worth.
Because they don’t want guns on their property. Why they don’t is of no concern to you. It’s their property, their rules.
“No guns allowed” signs are as ubiquitous in Minnesota as “No smoking” signs. Practically all business and public places have them.
Only reason I mentioned peyote is that the seminal case in this area, Smith v Unemployment Division dealt with peyote. If an exemption has been made since, it doesn’t alter the controlling law that religious exceptions to generally applicable laws are permitted but not required.
This is one reason why. A gun being fired off inside a place of business isn’t always an intentional act.
This is not correct. In states that permit businesses to enforce a “no guns” policy they must have a sign attesting to that policy posted prominently, and the sign must be the proper one and not some “NO GUNS” sign written in black magic marker or it can be legally ignored. To gun owners it is called “placarding”. Even so, all they can typically do is tell him to leave and call the cops to have the gun owner arrested for trespassing if he refuses to do so.
Now, can they refuse to serve a gun owner wearing it openly and legally? Probably. But gun owners have a way of getting the word out on those sorts of businesses so a business owner will be faced with the choice of principles or profits, and few owners can afford to give up money.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
What do you mean. Booze + guns. What could possibly go wrong?
[/QUOTE]
If history is any guide, nothing.
Legal carry should be properly distinguished from illegally carrying a weapon. Criminals don’t typically draw attention to themselves, and carrying a gun openly on your hip is a BIG attention getter.
There’s a distinction to be made between states where businesses can set policies that ban guns, the same as they can set any other policy (provided it doesn’t impinge on the civil rights of a “protected class”, like a restaurant banning black people)–as noted, this is pretty much all states–and states where businesses can set policies that ban guns, and those policies will have the force of law.
If a restaurant requires gentlemen to wear ties, a man who walks into the restaurant without a tie has not committed a crime. (If, upon being informed he must wear a tie to be seated, he pitches a fit and refuses to leave, he might at some point be charged with a crime, like criminal trespass.) (In fact, I believe most restaurants that require gentlemen to wear ties will also keep a few spare ties on hand to outfit any tieless would-be customers. So, a restaurant that required that gentlemen must wear a coat and tie and carry a firearm would probably have a few loaner pistols on hand along with the loaner ties and jackets. I suppose it could happen if there’s ever a Zombie Apocalypse.)
In some (but not all) states, a policy banning guns from an establishment is different from a policy requiring (or banning) ties from an establishment, in that a gun-ban may be given legal force. Often, this will require the posting of signs, and the law may specifiy that the signs have to be a certain size, color, and wording. In those states, if the requirements of the law are met, then a person who enters a posted establishment while armed has committed a crime, not merely violated a private policy of that business.
Actually, last year Starbucks made news by refusing to enact a no-firearms policy on their premises. Their position is basically, if it’s legal for a person to openly carry firearms in that state, then it’s OK with them.
Whoops!
Right you are. Well, good for them.
Yes, it is; see below.
In other words, what I said was correct. A business establishment may maintain a “no guns” policy even in jurisdictions where open carry is legal.
It’s true that such a policy may not have what’s called “legal force” (i.e., it may not mean that a violator of the policy is committing a criminal act, as MEBuckner explained in the posts above), and I never claimed it did.
But it certainly is legal for a merchant to maintain such a policy as part of their individually chosen conditions for doing business, as I stated.
There’s a No Guns Allowed sign at my Arizona church. The sign is meant to give a quick and legal reason to remove people that are carrying guns as a political statement.
This came about after the people who stood outside Obama’s speech at Arizona State University openly carrying firearms. This church is pretty liberal and was the home to an ecumenical prayer service opposing SB 1070.
Yes it is.
So, should any business or pvt property, etc. be allowed to enforce a metal detector check as you enter & leave the property to check for guns if they have the proper ‘No Guns’ signs up? Do you think they need a warning about the metal detectors or can they be hidden or do they have to be obvious?
We accept hidden cameras as a general rule so what about hidden metal detectors?
You mean like the anti-theft RFID check devices they already use at walmart? You know the ones you pretty much have to step through to come and go?
Questions of “should” don’t really go in GQ, but:
1.) I suppose it would probably be legal for a private business to put up metal detectors at the entrances.
2.) For the vast majority of businesses, it would be deeply unpopular, and probably result in the place going bankrupt in very short order. Maybe, I dunno, a bail bondsman or something could get away with it. Your average restaurant or grocery store or shopping mall would simply result in droves of baffled and frustrated customers taking their business down the street to the not-loony-paranoid place that doesn’t have the three-hour wait to get in the door while everyone’s cell phones, iPods, car keys, loose change, 9-mm semi-automatics, pocket knives, belt buckles, and bra underwires get inspected and allowed or excluded from entering.
The OP question reminds me of the scene in River’s Edge where the store guy refuses to sell beer after 2:00 a.m. because it’s a state law. So they pull a gun on him, not to rob the beer, but to buy it. :dubious:
It does make you wonder how does one refuse service to an armed customer.
Actually, in Wisconsin, Cops might be. Here is a section from a FAQ document put out by the Wisconsin Department of Justice regarding the new CCW law that goes into effect November 1st, 2011.
31. Can an off duty active law enforcement officer carry a concealed weapon in a business which prohibits concealed weapons?
Probably yes. The hesitation is because this is a murky area of the law. It is generally accepted that law enforcement officers are able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the state at any time, though department policy might prohibit it. Therefore it would seem that in the absence of a statute limiting the law enforcement exception to an officer on active duty (e.g. the school grounds prohibition), an off duty police officer could carry in a business, which prohibits concealed carry through appropriate posting.
**
33. Can an employer prohibit an employee, who is also a law enforcement officer, from carrying a concealed weapon on the job?**
*No. The Act allows an employer to prohibit a CCW license holder from “carrying” on the job but the prohibition does not extend to active law enforcement officers. 175.60(15)
*