Skip to comments.
Minnesota CCW: Gun signs: eyesores, windfalls
St. Paul Pioneer Press ^
| Jun. 06, 2003
| CASEY SELIX
Posted on 06/06/2003 2:03:14 PM PDT by jdege
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
'Geez, I want to post something, but I don't want it to be big, gaudy and fear-inducing.'
Tough.
If being able to see the sign is all that's going to stand between my being a law-abiding citizen and a criminal, it's damned-well going to be something I can't miss.
1
posted on
06/06/2003 2:03:14 PM PDT
by
jdege
To: *bang_list; **Minnesota
Bang!
2
posted on
06/06/2003 2:03:39 PM PDT
by
jdege
To: jdege
This is absurd.
If an establishment doesn't want you packing on THEIR premises, they should be able to tell you any way they wish.
3
posted on
06/06/2003 2:06:49 PM PDT
by
Guillermo
(Proud Infidel)
To: jdege
If any business wants to lose law abiding CCW customers, let em post the signs. I wouldn't want to patronize one that had a sign posted. Its a lack of consideration for people whose presence would actually enhance a business' safety.
4
posted on
06/06/2003 2:07:33 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: jdege
I love those cards that have no gun = no $$$.
5
posted on
06/06/2003 2:10:58 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
To: Guillermo
The Republicans wanted to amend the bill so that businesses had the leeway to tell their customers in their own way that guns were not allowed. The democrats voted against that so that they could revisit the bill at a later time and possible get the whole thing overturned. There are lawsuits pending also
To: Guillermo
This is absurd. If an establishment doesn't want you packing on THEIR premises, they should be able to tell you any way they wish.
Of course. However, if they wish to use the force of government to enforce their wishes, they need to inform you in a way that a reasonable person can understand. It would be unreasonable for them to post a sign in size 10 type 1"x2" down at the lower left corner of the door, and then be able to sue you for defending yourself on their property, because they had forbidden the carrying of guns there.
The sign is just claifying what would certainly become an issue in law after the fact.
What is so stupid about this is that all of these places could be visited by people legally carrying guns before this law, and no one raised a fuss.
Because they claim to be worried about guns in their establishment, why aren't they lobbying the government to prevent police officers with guns from being there?
7
posted on
06/06/2003 2:21:13 PM PDT
by
marktwain
To: Guillermo
Wrong. Not when I could be charged with trespassing because I missed a sign.
Texas has had these signs up for years and I never heard anyone complain like the anti-gun libs have been doing in Minnesota.
8
posted on
06/06/2003 2:23:28 PM PDT
by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: Guillermo
As one who has owned a boat for years I have had to put up with numerous sign requirments on my boat certain minimum sizes where they must be visible etc. the problem is the business must be able to inform people clearly enough. They may post a smaller sign but it does not have legal effect unless it is of the size stated.
9
posted on
06/06/2003 2:31:48 PM PDT
by
harpseal
(Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
To: Guillermo
If an establishment doesn't want you packing on THEIR premises, they should be able to tell you any way they wish. If someone doesn't want law abiding citizens exercising their Rights (in a discrete manner) in their PUBLIC establishment, they should either close their business, or lock the doors and only do business over the internet.
The signs that businesses post banning guns are no more moral than those signs banning blacks 40 years ago.
10
posted on
06/06/2003 2:34:54 PM PDT
by
Mulder
(Live Free or die)
To: jdege
"But not just any old sign will do. The law says the sign must be at least 187 square inches in area, the black typeface must be Arial (which looks like this: Arial) and 1½ inches in height, and the background must be a bright, contrasting color. The sign must say: "(Name of establishment) bans guns in these premises." "
Tough nuts. They want to regulate people by requiring them to get CCH licenses, but don't want to be regulated themselves. How unprincipled.
To: jdege
""That's been a big complaint, and it's not a trivial complaint," Goldstein said. "A lot of businesses spend a lot of money to create an atmosphere. They pay to have fancy signs. They pay image and branding consultants. So, they're upset about having to stick something like this in the middle of a carefully crafted lobby or customer space that is dictated to them by the Legislature." "
Well, they could avoid the whole problem by not discriminating against gun owners. Tough!!
To: jjm2111
I love those cards that have no gun = no $$$. Wouldn't it be funny if CCW holders went into these businesses, and filled their cart with thousands of dollars of products, only to tell the business "no deal" once they realized the store was anti-gun?
13
posted on
06/06/2003 2:38:16 PM PDT
by
Mulder
(Live Free or die)
To: Guillermo
If their property isn't open to the public - if they don't allow any person off the street to walk through the door without invitation, that can tell people that they don't want them to bring guns with them in any way they choose.
But if they open up their doors and let anyone walk in, they have to expect anyone to walk in. If they mean anyone but permit holders, they have an obligation to tell them.
14
posted on
06/06/2003 2:38:31 PM PDT
by
jdege
To: jdege
What about blind people who are carrying handguns? Huh, smarty-pants? How will they read the signs?!
15
posted on
06/06/2003 2:39:18 PM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(I've decided to cut back my tagline, one word at a)
To: jdege
See
http://www.simonjester.org/ for graphic below and more. Those of you've who've read Robert Heinlien's masterpiece
The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, will understand where the name of the website comes from.
16
posted on
06/06/2003 2:40:13 PM PDT
by
zeugma
(Hate pop-up ads? Here's the fix: http://www.mozilla.org/)
To: Mulder
So if a movie theater doesn't want you to exercise your right of free speech in the middle of a screening, then they should close their doors. OK.
17
posted on
06/06/2003 2:42:33 PM PDT
by
Guillermo
(Proud Infidel)
To: Shooter 2.5
I never heard anyone complain like the anti-gun libs have been doing in Minnesota.
The hysteria among the people that lean toward political brainlessness has been truly breathtaking. I think the new law has caused most of the editorial staff at the Minneapolis Star and Tribune to swoon.
The law has been in effect for about eight days now, and I haven't seen a single stiff that we can attribute to its passage. For that matter I haven't seen a single stiff at all in the last eight days.
Seriously, I wonder how many days need to pass before a few of these fruit loops state that their fears might have just been a tiny bit overblown.
18
posted on
06/06/2003 2:45:00 PM PDT
by
stevem
To: jdege
I agree with you. I just disagree in the method the state is making them do it.
Read my original post...I said: "If an establishment doesn't want you packing on THEIR premises, they should be able to tell you any way they wish. "
19
posted on
06/06/2003 2:45:57 PM PDT
by
Guillermo
(Proud Infidel)
To: Lazamataz
You may think thats funny but I know a blind man who carries a gun. He's a good shot too!
20
posted on
06/06/2003 2:49:13 PM PDT
by
Khepera
(Do not remove by penalty of law!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson