Yes, Another Gun Free Zone....A lot of Good that Sign Did

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by banyon

It's implied, throughout the tone of Mr. Lott's article.

He is saying (admittedly indirectly) that the current law isn't good enough. He doesn't advocate any kind of boycott campaign or anything.

I see what you are looking at now. Thanks.

It is indirect. So much so that I didn’t read into it the same thing that you did.

I personally don’t advocate forcing a private business to change by law. But I’m all for boycotts and more media exposure about the benefits and risks of a no guns policy.

[Value Pack]

This experiment termed a Gun Free Zone is long past due to come to an end. It is a horrible experiment that continues to use people as the lab rats & the body count continues to mount as the experiment proves over & over again that Gun Free Zones are not working.

While I would stop short of requiring our legislature to pass new laws, (free-marketing) I would like to see the lawyers get started suing these businesses for not making a reasonable effort to ensure that the site is truly gun free. Just sticking a sign on all the entrances is not enough. The law abiding are leaving their weapons in the car and the nutcases are using these sites to maximize their shooting time.

When this happens at one of our schools, just how long does it take our police to mobilize in force and respond? I suppose I should be asking not how much time but how many people will be shot before the police respond to the action?

The police are not bodyguards. They can't be everywhere. All they can do is respond after the fact.

[Zeb]

Don't forget, that without the sign ANYONE can walk threw your business with a rifle and there is nothing you can (legally) do if they do not threaten anyone.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Zeb

Don't forget, that without the sign ANYONE can walk threw your business with a rifle and there is nothing you can (legally) do if they do not threaten anyone.

Actually... no.

that sign applies only to concealed carry. In Topeka there's a city ordinance against carrying an exposed weapon so you couldn't just pull it out and carry it.

And rifles... Well that's just an extreme.

[Zeb]

Where does the sign state it is for concealed weapon only?


Yes a rifle is extreme, but I know one company that could not prosecute some one that caried a rifle through a business because there were no signs.

[Highwayman]

But isn’t the big fear about the concealed carry permit holders? Were businesses putting up these signs before the carry law was passed?

[Zeb]

For us, No there were "no signs" before the concealed carry law.

Then the incident happened, and found out that nothing could be done to prosecute because there was no laws broken on private property.


The signs went up, and now we can prosecute anyone that carries a "firearm" into the building because of the law.

The sign is actually a "NO FIREARMS" sign.

[notyoubob]

How about this sign? We shoot back!!

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Zeb

For us, No there were "no signs" before the concealed carry law.

Then the incident happened, and found out that nothing could be done to prosecute because there was no laws broken on private property.


The signs went up, and now we can prosecute anyone that carries a "firearm" into the building because of the law.

The sign is actually a "NO FIREARMS" sign.

I think that you might have just jogged my memory Zeb.

Wasn’t that the deal were the guy was a little squirrelly and close to falling off the edge but since he didn’t nothing happened to him? Scared the heck out of folks. Didn’t he get put on a mental watch or something?

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Zeb

For us, No there were "no signs" before the concealed carry law.

Then the incident happened, and found out that nothing could be done to prosecute because there was no laws broken on private property.


The signs went up, and now we can prosecute anyone that carries a "firearm" into the building because of the law.

The sign is actually a "NO FIREARMS" sign.

that's not hwo I read the statute.