Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Really?
Did you miss posts 34, 40, 46, 58, 60, 63, 73 etc?
It's actually not such a good point.
carrying at your local shop
- Thread starter Old Yeller
- Start date
- Status
Did you miss posts 34, 40, 46, 58, 60, 63, 73 etc?
It's actually not such a good point.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
In which case a "no loaded guns" sign would do exactly nothing, because the Cletii think the gun is already unloaded.
I think a "All guns in cases or holstered" is a safer approach, IMO, and it has the additional benefit of allowing responsible carry.
As to gun stores not allowing carry, I think would be a bit hypocritical to ban CCW in their store but sell CCW guns and offer CCW classes. Thankfully, I can't remember the last time I saw a gun store posted no-carry.
There's also the issue that any gun store that bans carry, or bans loaded guns in holsters, is *requiring* people to unholster and/or fiddle with loaded guns in their parking lots, as Tam has pointed out. Almost all AD's/ND's occur when someone is fiddling with a gun, not when it is sitting in a holster.
No open carry in FL of which I am aware (in my time here since 1988) except of course on private land.
mg.mikael
Member
It has everything to do with insurance/liability issues, read post #40. Not some conspiracy theory that gun store owners are against the people that actually support their business.
Last edited:
Inebriated
Member
Which range was it?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Read post 46. Rebuttal unanswered.
I am friends with a local gun store owner, and he has a "All guns are to be unloaded and cased" sign on his door. I'm totally fine with that. Here's why:
Not everyone who owns a gun frequents The High Road or cares about their 2A rights. Not everyone knows how to follow the 4 basic rules or even knows what the heck they are. If the sign keeps one unsafe person from bringing in one loaded and potentially unsafely handled gun into a crowded store, then that's good.
He told me that the sign on the door is just that. A sign on the door. It's a lose rule that he as an owner can enforce or not enforce depending on the customer. All of his employees have to take off their carry pieces and store them (still within reach) behind the counter, but he takes no offense to someone carrying concealed and chances are if the gun is open and secured in leather, they probably won't make a peep about it if you aren't doing anything stupid.
We have to remember that because the 2A is a RIGHT, we have to consider the lowest common denominator of gun owners out there. Before stomping off in a huff, maybe just ask the owner to clarify. I would much rather having a meeting of the minds between myself and the owner about the "hardness" of the rule than go into a place where a bad accident is waiting to happen. I doubt very much that the sign on the door of many places is "law" more than a guideline to make sure you can be trusted to enter the establishment without being a danger to yourself, the other patrons, and the employees. Once again, I'm not talking about High Roaders. I'm talking about clueless idiots that handle firearms unsafely.
Not everyone who owns a gun frequents The High Road or cares about their 2A rights. Not everyone knows how to follow the 4 basic rules or even knows what the heck they are. If the sign keeps one unsafe person from bringing in one loaded and potentially unsafely handled gun into a crowded store, then that's good.
He told me that the sign on the door is just that. A sign on the door. It's a lose rule that he as an owner can enforce or not enforce depending on the customer. All of his employees have to take off their carry pieces and store them (still within reach) behind the counter, but he takes no offense to someone carrying concealed and chances are if the gun is open and secured in leather, they probably won't make a peep about it if you aren't doing anything stupid.
We have to remember that because the 2A is a RIGHT, we have to consider the lowest common denominator of gun owners out there. Before stomping off in a huff, maybe just ask the owner to clarify. I would much rather having a meeting of the minds between myself and the owner about the "hardness" of the rule than go into a place where a bad accident is waiting to happen. I doubt very much that the sign on the door of many places is "law" more than a guideline to make sure you can be trusted to enter the establishment without being a danger to yourself, the other patrons, and the employees. Once again, I'm not talking about High Roaders. I'm talking about clueless idiots that handle firearms unsafely.
Since I would have to disarm in order to ask an employee for clarification, I'll just turn around at the door and find somewhere else to go. I wouldn't want to disarm and I wouldn't want to disrespect a private property owner's rights. Nor would I want to give any money to somebody who wants me disarmed.
This "lowest common denominator" and "if it only saves one ___" argument is the exact same thing the gun grabbers use when they tell us that all carry should be prohibited. The parallels are eerily similar. It's almost like the anti script was taken, a few words were altered, and there you go.
Fortunately I can open carry a loaded handgun in my LGS, and I also carry a slung rifle most of the time I bring one of those to shoot.
GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
Take that sign off the door of a gun store and put it on a bowling alley, then people around here have a problem with it. Banning guns suddenly becomes ok when it's a gun store doing it.
Not me, I won't tolerate attempted restrictions on my ability to defend myself from anyone, and I'll vote with my wallet and my feet and any other way I can on that subject.
That's entirely your prerogative if you choose if to do so. I'm simply saying that if someone GENUINELY wanted to know why a sign is posted it wouldn't be totally out of the question to ask...feel someone out. Learn why someone does something. If you don't want to go in unarmed, pick up the phone. I'm just the curious sort that likes to know the meaning behind stuff.
Generally these signs are lip-service or a polite way to be able to defuse a customer who is NOT following the 4 rules and not some anti-2A propaganda. If you bring in a gun for trade or service or to fit it to a holster or whatever, if it's on your hip it's probably loaded. If it's in a case it may still be loaded, but it's less likely be handled badly by some one who does it for a living behind the counter.
He's not worried about the gun on your hip. It's the gun in your hand. Common sense isn't all that common, and there are idiots out there that will sweep you with their finger in the trigger guard without a second thought.
Precaution and general safety isn't exactly suppression of rights.
Jed, thank you for that! Very helpful!
I would at some point love to see an actual rider or policy that is written for a gun shop requesting such a thing -- or hear of a gun shop's results if they bring the matter to their insurance company's attention.
After all, seems like a 50/50 mix or so of those who have a "no loaded weapons" (wink, wink...meaning I've never heard of a shop that would search someone to check) policy and those who have a "Just don't draw it" policy, so it would stand to reason that either this is discussed with some frequency -- or it isn't and a lot of shops are suffering major liability without realizing it.
It could be that some number of that 50% (or so) of shops are paying for a rider to cover one client shooting another. After all, actual injuries from this are VERY rare...even if they do get a lot of attention when they do happen. Or it could be that they are ignoring what might be a business-ending liability.
...
But then as a second thought -- I don't know that I accept that there actually IS a difference between rates of store patrons shooting others in stores with "no carry" policies and in stores without. And I'm not sure that I believe that the insurance industry would look at whatever data they can find and agree that there is an actual reason to charge more if a shop doesn't put up a sign.
After all, the sign isn't legally binding, usually. And there is never any practice in place to physically enforce a NO CARRY policy (metal detectors, etc.). And the phenomenon of store customers shooting folks with ANY gun is extremely rare. So where does the actual increased risk come from? A sign or policy doesn't do almost anything to keep guns out of the store (and possibly increases the number of accidental shots fired in the parking lot) so I suppose the question would be, can the insurance companies numbers folks come up with a real calculation of increased safety or decreased liability if a store puts up a sign?
I too would like to actually see a policy. I wonder if the no guns signs would be similar to a "beware of dog" sign. While I don't think a dog sign carries any legal weight and may not obsolve you in s civil suit it wouldn't hurt. That alone may be a reason to put up a no guns sign. Just an extra layer if protection in a civil suit
Also I wouldn't be surprised if an insurance company did look at the numbers and even if the odds are low, still view it as a risk they rather avoid (customers carrying). Insurance is all about exposing itself to as low risk as possible. Gun industry insurance is very specialized, only a few companies will even write them. I wouldn't be surprised if the handful that do, don't look at everything. There is a reason most of the big insurance companies won't touch gun stores. It is not because they are anti gun. Insurance companies care more about money than politics. They won't touch gunstores because they perceive them as being too risky
GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
I was just sitting here thinking that if our decision was based purely on numbers, they ought to ban guns in fast food restaurants rather than gun stores.
Of course a significantly greater percentage of the customers at a gun store will be armed, but the sheer number of people that visit any local fast food chain means that likely more people carry inside Taco Bell on any given day than most gun stores (unless the store is extremely large and well trafficked).
Of course a significantly greater percentage of the customers at a gun store will be armed, but the sheer number of people that visit any local fast food chain means that likely more people carry inside Taco Bell on any given day than most gun stores (unless the store is extremely large and well trafficked).
spm
Member
What?
A no guns sign is telling people who enter a [publicly accessible] business that they are not to do something/bring something.
A beware of dog sign is telling people that the owner/resident has something there, and is almost always seen on private property not open to the public.
How could the two be similar?
km101
Member
Having worked in a couple of gun shops in the past, I can understand why some of them have very strict rules about carry condition and/or loaded versus unloaded in the store.
I have witnessed some VERY unsafe acts by customers who either did not know better or were just plain careless. Gun shops have customers who have all levels of skill and competence come onto the premises. They cannot tell who is competent and careful until they get to know you. And with some people that may be too late! So to ensure the safety of the staff and customers it may be necessary to have rules that seem too strict to some, but they are there for a reason.
You may be in the shop for an hour or two and see nothing out of the ordinary, but the staff (who are there every day, all day) see all the unsafe acts day after day and soon realize that you have to have rules that safeguard everyone.
Don't take it personally! It is not about you, it is about the idiot that they are trying to protect you from.
I have witnessed some VERY unsafe acts by customers who either did not know better or were just plain careless. Gun shops have customers who have all levels of skill and competence come onto the premises. They cannot tell who is competent and careful until they get to know you. And with some people that may be too late! So to ensure the safety of the staff and customers it may be necessary to have rules that seem too strict to some, but they are there for a reason.
You may be in the shop for an hour or two and see nothing out of the ordinary, but the staff (who are there every day, all day) see all the unsafe acts day after day and soon realize that you have to have rules that safeguard everyone.
Don't take it personally! It is not about you, it is about the idiot that they are trying to protect you from.
In a civil suit. If someone sues you because your dog bit him, it might help to have a "beware of dog sign"What?
A no guns sign is telling people who enter a [publicly accessible] business that they are not to do something/bring something.
A beware of dog sign is telling people that the owner/resident has something there, and is almost always seen on private property not open to the public.
How could the two be similar?
If a customer shoots someone in a gun store and some brings a civil suit on the gun store owner, it might help if he had a "no guns" sign.
Not saying it would, I am not a civil lawyer, but I could see where they both might be used in defense of a civil suit. Gun store owner claims he forbid the customer from carrying the gun with a sign, the same way a homeowner may say he warned a person via a sign
I think you are wrong, and I would be interested in seeing an example of what you are speaking of.
To me it sounds like one of those things people just make up and repeat, and pretty soon everybody is repeating it even though it is not based on anything.
I am wrong for wondering? I said that MAYBE and I WONDER IF.
Man, talk about stripping away freedoms, are we not free to speculate and have discussion on a message board ?
I am (mostly) pulling your chain, but honestly I don't think you should say I am wrong. I never said it was a absolute or surety.
I do have experience in the (consumer) insurance indusrty. Have no experience in civil lawsuits. I do think I can make a educated assumption that gun store insurance policies might not cover a customer shooting unless you ask for a specific rider. I don't know that for sure, but based on the way i KNOW insurance companies work, and what I have read on up on I think that is the way it works. A insurance company will do anything they can to not award a claim or stand by someone in a lawsuit. Look at all the Katrina victims that were denied insurance because of technicalities.
As far as the signs go, I WONDER if it would provide any protection in a civil suit. I don't know. I bet it wouldn't hurt. Gunstores are already sued fairly often by murder victims families because the gun originally came from there, I don't think it is a stretch to imagine a civil suit for "allowing" a customer to bring in a loaded gun, espically if the business line allows the handling of the gun to be more likely than other business.
I want to add that I live in MS, and I thought I had read on a local forum about insurance companies and signs. I found the thread. It is about a member emailing the owners of a local gas station about no firearms required signs. I will quote the email. Several members of the forum got the same email. I have been a member of the forum for a while. It is a close nit group of people that actually meet up and get to know each other. So I am certain this was the actual email from owner of the gas stations.
The business owner does say that after consulting law enforcement, lawyers, and his insurance company they decieded to put up the signs for liability reasons. It speaks directly to what I was saying about being views as "allowing guns" and how it would bankrupt a small business owner in a civil court
Now of course the busines owner be lying and he did not contact his insurance company, lawyer, and LEO.
If it is ok to link another forum here you go
http://www.msgunowners.com/t46913p20-do-insurance-companies-really-require-no-guns-signs-at-businesses
The business owner does say that after consulting law enforcement, lawyers, and his insurance company they decieded to put up the signs for liability reasons. It speaks directly to what I was saying about being views as "allowing guns" and how it would bankrupt a small business owner in a civil court
Now of course the busines owner be lying and he did not contact his insurance company, lawyer, and LEO.
If it is ok to link another forum here you go
http://www.msgunowners.com/t46913p20-do-insurance-companies-really-require-no-guns-signs-at-businesses
Last edited:
That's all it seems to be, though.
Speculation with no basis.
And it's the kind of thing that you would be able to find verification of if it were true. So speculate, to yourself, then go look to see if there is anything to it?
I did go look and found at least one small business owner claiming the same thing as I was wondering. And his claim is backed up by several people.
I don't know why you are so hostile.
Care to find PROOF that backs up your claims? You can't back up with proof anything you have posted, so why not keep your opinions to yourself?
I don't mean to be rude, I am just using your same agrument against you.
You can't prove a negative.
These people who back his claim, do you have any links to their court cases/trials/judgments/etc?
saturdaynightpolitics
Member
Most of our mom and pop shops are fine with open carry or ccw however the more corporate the place the more often they have signs telling customers to bring guns for sale or trade in a case but ccw is still fine. At least that's how it is in Ohio, generally speaking of course.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, that letter IS actually full of speculation, by the store owner and by several others. No, there isn't anything concrete to back up what those folks told him. (Ask "local law enforcement" about such a thing? Naaah, I can't see that being worth the price of a free question, personally.)
However, I certainly do understand his fears if he was told such things.
I do get the analogy of the "beware of dog sign" as similar. Neither actually provide any protection, what so ever, from a lawsuit. But they might be a kind of low-value bargaining chip in the negotiations surrounding the lawsuit if/when it comes.
Of course, a deeper study of such matters shows that even a SIGNED agreement between an owner and another party regarding liability provides the equivalent of zero protection, so I do see this as more a talisman of habit than an effective tool.
Now, can I blame/fault an owner for giving into fears over what his advisors have told him? That's a really tough question.
Of course, the free market rules. If he's the only place in town, or I have some other reason for patronizing him, I may "forgive" his decision I don't agree with. If his competition across town doesn't have the same policy, my dollars will do the voting.
In the end, everyone has to do what they think is right and then let the chips fall where they may.
However, I certainly do understand his fears if he was told such things.
I do get the analogy of the "beware of dog sign" as similar. Neither actually provide any protection, what so ever, from a lawsuit. But they might be a kind of low-value bargaining chip in the negotiations surrounding the lawsuit if/when it comes.
Of course, a deeper study of such matters shows that even a SIGNED agreement between an owner and another party regarding liability provides the equivalent of zero protection, so I do see this as more a talisman of habit than an effective tool.
Now, can I blame/fault an owner for giving into fears over what his advisors have told him? That's a really tough question.
Of course, the free market rules. If he's the only place in town, or I have some other reason for patronizing him, I may "forgive" his decision I don't agree with. If his competition across town doesn't have the same policy, my dollars will do the voting.
In the end, everyone has to do what they think is right and then let the chips fall where they may.
I am not sure if you are just not reading my post or if you do not understand how to stay on topic.
I said people can back up that he claimed to have spoken to insurnace agents, LEO, and lawyers and was advised to put them up. The business owner made this claim to several people. I never said anythign about court cases.
I guess though when you do not have the skill to carry on a civil discusion, you must resort to agruing for no reason.
With all due respect, please actually read what I post and have adult discussion on it. I quit aruguing just to agrue when I started to grow facial hair.
PM me if you want to
- Status
