Here's another victim zone!!

[Renegade]

NO GUNS ON PREMISES

Is that a request, or statement of fact?

Someone should replace the IXTAPA RESTAURANT sign with one that reads "Hey Criminals Take Note Below"

[OnTexasTime]

“It’s a liability thing�

I wonder whether the strip center owner or the businesses decided it was a good idea to advertise it to everybody driving by that guns should not be on the property? Are we free to assume they provide security? Are we free to hold the property owner and the businesses liable if we are injured because they did not insure that people were obeying their sign?

I’m not a legal eagle, but I suspect you would have a very hard time making that stick, especially since I don’t believe they are inferring any additional level of safety or protection from the criminal element.

It would be kind of like you posting your property No Trespassing and while someone is visiting your home a BG enters the property and robs them. I think they would have a hard time holding you responsible just because you posted it…Others on the forum disagree with me.

I am sure you are right about it not going anywhere in a courthroom. I was just throwing out the questions I would asking the property owners who say its just a liabilty issue.

I am a property owner and I am not going to go putting up signs telling somebody they can't defend themselves if they are legally able to do so.

In the other thread about apt complexes, I have a couple of them. If someone runs across the common areas waving a gun, we are going to be working to move them off the property. But, I am not going to post a sign telling someone they can not have a gun on them while they go out at night to check their mail or do some landry. (knock on wood, no gun problems ever on our properties)

[srothstein]

How far is the donut shop?

Either way, they cannot get there at 850fps!

You haven't seen the way we drive, have you? Especially on the way to donut shops.

Nahh, since are cars are maintained by the lowest bidder, I guess 850 FPS is still a little over our capabilities.

[Big Calhoun]

I thought of a twist concerning signs such as the one posted here. Could that sign, with the appropriate verbage of course, be used as a 30.06 and void the entire shopping plaza from CHLs? So instead of each individual shop having their own 30.06, they just add it to that marquee. Would that be applicable?

[jbenat]

If a high crime area business was smart they might post a sign offering a discount to CHL holders. Lots of them and it would make your business much safer. Most of the sheeple that aren't CHL holders don't know what it means anyway since most of their life is spent in condition white.

I know it won't happen!

[lrb111]

If a high crime area business was smart they might post a sign offering a discount to CHL holders. Lots of them and it would make your business much safer. Most of the sheeple that aren't CHL holders don't know what it means anyway since most of their life is spent in condition white.

I know it won't happen!

We all need to start suggesting it. Same as some restaurants offering freebies to LEOs.

I think we need to start a silent campaign to get employee pricing at Academy, Walmart, Gander Mt, Bass pro, etc.

[Sangiovese]

“It’s a liability thing�

I wonder whether the strip center owner or the businesses decided it was a good idea to advertise it to everybody driving by that guns should not be on the property? Are we free to assume they provide security? Are we free to hold the property owner and the businesses liable if we are injured because they did not insure that people were obeying their sign?

I’m not a legal eagle, but I suspect you would have a very hard time making that stick, especially since I don’t believe they are inferring any additional level of safety or protection from the criminal element.

It would be kind of like you posting your property No Trespassing and while someone is visiting your home a BG enters the property and robs them. I think they would have a hard time holding you responsible just because you posted it…Others on the forum disagree with me.

Actually, the "no trespassing" sign is a horse of a completely different color. Here's the big difference... When my guest crossed the no trespassing sign, it did not impede their legal ability to defend themselves - therefore I have not shifted the burden of their defense from their shoulders to mine.

When I disarm in order to comply with a "no guns" policy, the person enforcing that policy has limited my ability to defend myself. In my opinion, if someone impedes my ability to defend myself, they have just taken on the burden of providing an equal level pf protection.

Would it stick in court? Probably not, if it were some place that you chose to go, because you could have always just avoided the place and gone somewhere else. But if a few of these types of liability lawsuits popped up, people might stop using the "it's a liability thing" excuse for having anti gun policies.

Would it stick if it was somewhere that you had less choice about going to (like an employer)? Maybe. Who knows... In the case of an employer, they could always say that you can go find a different job - but the reality is that for many types of employment, the overwhelmingly vast majority of employers have this type of policy. And I truly believe that would change if a couple people brought legitimate cases to court of injury due to violence that could have been prevented had they been able to be armed.