cyphertext wrote:Since the congressman was quick to point to other states who have the gunbuster type signs like Oklahoma, I wish someone would have pointed out that those signs have no force of law. I'd be fine with going with the gunbuster sign, provided that it had no force of law or penalties by just carrying past it.
Florida is another example.
We are not talking about an onerous regulation being placed on a business by the government. We are simply saying that if a private business wants to have the free use of law enforcement officers to enforce their business policies, then they need to put up a specific type of sign.
What we should be talking about is why anyone thinks it is appropriate to use publicly funded law enforcement officers to enforce a businesses' policies. Someone not following all of your rules should not be a crime unless they refuse to leave when asked.
And let's just conveniently ignore that we are talking about an underlying policy that is definitely NOT in the public interest since it increases the risk of injury and death for everyone in that location. If anything, police should be used to prevent the enforcement of dangerous business policies such as this.