Minnesota CCW: Gun signs: eyesores, windfalls

St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | Jun. 06, 2003 | CASEY SELIX

[Guillermo]

So you agree that if the sign is in Times New Roman font instead of Arial, then the sign should be deemd non-compliant...

[jdege]

[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.

I said in a "discrete" manner. Should someone start making a scene by yelling in a theater, the theater can ask them to leave. If they don't, they can be charged with tresspass.

The same thing goes for someone carrying a gun. If a business owner finds out about it, and asks them to leave, they have to, or they can get charged with tresspass.

But it shouldn't be a crime to simply carry a gun into business, any more than it should be a crime to take your mouth into a theater.

[Mulder]

"If an establishment doesn't want you packing on THEIR premises, they should be able to tell you any way they wish. "

And a Free man or woman should be able to ignore it in any manner they please, just as Rosa Parks ingored the bus driver telling her to sit in the back of the bus.

[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.

My point...Business should be allowed to tell their customers in any way they deem effective. Micromanaging the font and background is absurd.

[Guillermo]

So being a gun owner is like being black, or white?

If an individual doesn't want you packing on HIS property, one should be able to ignore his wishes? What ever happened to freedom?

[Dilly]

The signs that businesses post banning guns are no more moral than those signs banning blacks 40 years ago.

You have to be kidding. People don't choose the color of their skin, but they choose whether or not to carry a gun. To equate hundreds of years of persecution of black people with not being able to carry your gun into the Dairy Queen is terrible.

Or perhaps you're, in a kind of backward way, setting up an argument in favor of gay rights. If, in your view, it's immoral to discriminate people who choose to carry guns, then perhaps it's also immoral to discriminate against people who choose to engage in homosexual activity. I'm sure the HRC would love to hear from you.

[stands2reason]

I haven't heard any state whine about CCW as much as Minnesota...

[jdege]

Business should be allowed to tell their customers in any way they deem effective. Micromanaging the font and background is absurd.

If we hadn't seen a pattern of clear abuse in other states, I'd agree with you.

But the record of states that don't have explicit posting requirements is clear - if we give business owners the choice, the signs will be small, illegible, and in locations where no one can see them.

[stands2reason]

You're right. Isn't it enough that blind people can't even enjoy porn that we have to make things even more difficult for them?

[stands2reason]

But it shouldn't be a crime to simply carry a gun into business, any more than it should be a crime to take your mouth into a theater.

We could have used you on the Boycott Applebees thread. We were swarming with Anti-CCW'ers who claim to be pro-2nd Amendment. I should have known to ping Mulder. (slaps hand to forehead)

[Mulder]

If an individual doesn't want you packing on HIS property, one should be able to ignore his wishes?

If it's a public business, sure.

Now if the property owner ask you to leave and you don't, then it's criminal tresspass, perhaps armed tresspass, depending on state laws.

Why is it you want to make criminals out of honest Americans for simply walking into the wrong place? Why won't simple tresspass laws suffice?

[Mulder]

People don't choose the color of their skin, but they choose whether or not to carry a gun.

You can change the color of your skin either permanently or temporarily.

To equate hundreds of years of persecution of black people with not being able to carry your gun into the Dairy Queen is terrible.

Some folks here would say it wasn't "persecution", but merely property owners exercising their rights.

If, in your view, it's immoral to discriminate people who choose to carry guns, then perhaps it's also immoral to discriminate against people who choose to engage in homosexual activity.

I believe that people have the Right to associate or do business with whomever they please. If someone doesn't want gun owners or gays or whomever in their store, they can verbally ask them to leave.

What I oppose is making it illegal for someone to go into a public business just because someone posts a sign saying "no (fill-in-the-blank)". There are enough laws on the books as it is.

[Mulder]

We were swarming with Anti-CCW'ers who claim to be pro-2nd Amendment

Yeah, there's a lot of folks around here who fall into that category.

They think folks should go to jail for simply carrying a gun into the "wrong" place, even after they've jumped through all the hoops and filled out all the paperwork to get a permit for something which is a Right.

[Mulder]

But the record of states that don't have explicit posting requirements is clear - if we give business owners the choice, the signs will be small, illegible, and in locations where no one can see them.

Here in Florida, we don't have to worry about all this nonsense, since a "no guns" sign has no legal backing whatsoever.

[Guillermo]

Using your logic, a movie theater could not be able to toss out a person who chooses to exercise his free speech rights during the middle of a movie, because the place is public.

It's a difficult concept, that many around here understand perfectly, but many do not...your rights end where my rights begin.

In MY house (business, property), you should have to live by MY rules. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

[Jeff Gordon]

And a Free man or woman should be able to ignore it in any manner they please,...

True. So very true. However...

Said Free man needs to be aware he has a little more at stake in breaking this law than did Rosa Parks. Said Free man should be aware the he may have to relinguish not only his future right to carry but also his future right to even own a firearm.

[KEVLAR]

I would think the theatre owner would have an obligation to the other customers to remove someone who is causing trouble.

[Guillermo]

Who are we to judge the motivations of a private landowner?

If they don't want people wearing a red sweater on their property, then people wearing red sweaters shouldn't be allowed on THEIR property.

[Navy Patriot]

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.

I agree. Though "Attention criminals, no one on these premisis may posess a weapon for any reason" might be a more interesting rendition.