[Joe Brower]

"You are not forced to remain employed by someone whose policies you disagree with."

Not being the litigious sort, this didn't occur to me until just now, but consider this:

If the state where your business resides allows shall-issue carry like Florida does, and your business restricts that law within it's private boundries, have you taken liability suits into account? A colorable argument could be made that if you impinge on someone's right to carry and they subsequently fall victim to workplace violence due to their disarmed status, you could be held responsible.

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm merely pointing out that there is probably a lawyer or two out there who could use this to make your life unpleasant and unprofitable.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If the state where your business resides allows shall-issue carry like Florida does, and your business restricts that law within it's private boundaries, have you taken liability suits into account? A colorable argument could be made that if you impinge on someone's right to carry and they subsequently fall victim to workplace violence due to their disarmed status, you could be held responsible."

The liability falls on the owner of the property, and it comes down to the property owner to make the decision as to what may serve him best.

While I disagree with the idea, the property owner may believe that no guns protects his interests better than guns do, and since all liability falls on him, it is on him that the decision should rest on how to best address the possibility of liability.

[M Kehoe]

Good afternoon. Thanks for this measure of wisdom...

I'm merely pointing out that there is probably a lawyer or two out there who could use this to make your life unpleasant and unprofitable.

Reminds me of the old adage,"t'is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six". I agree, the legislation could use some work.

5.56mm