[jdege]

A couple of months ago, C&B was pretending to be a non-partisan site.

[jdege]

Bang!

[Blood of Tyrants]

While it is reasonable for a person or a business to protect their property, when the law allows the right of an individual entering that business to have more rights than the owner it seems backwards.

The rights of the owners to do exactly what? Force the disarmament of their customers?

Perhaps this is just an attempt to prevent the courts from finding the legislation unconstitutional,

I find no special wording in the Constitution that allows one person's irrational fears to outweigh another person's right to self defense.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. the "Unintended Consequences" they hint at are the same old tired song and dance the anti-gunners always drag out; i.e. Dodge City shootouts over parking spaces, fender benders, and the last blouse ont he sale rack, and they are always wrong.

A store owner is not in any particular danger when a law abiding citizen with a concealed gun enters.

[chuknospam]

While it is reasonable for a person or a business to protect their property, when the law allows the right of an individual entering that business to have more rights than the owner it seems backwards.

If a store owner will post a sign stating that they guarantee my safety & security and will assume all liability for my injury or death resulting from an illegal act, I will leave my gun in the car. Of course I expect an armed escort to and from my car to the store entrance as well.

[Redbob]

"...when the law allows the right of an individual entering that business to have more rights than the owner it seems backwards."

Not at all.
When you open a business to the public, you surrender many 'rights' that you would have otherwise.

For example, a business owner usually can't expect to limit his patrons to a single racial or religious group.
Nor can he reasonably require his patrons to surrender other Constitutional rights in order to enter his place of business - like the right to defend yourself and your family from attack.

[Jeff Head]

A business owner does have the right to establish the rules for his premises. This includes limiting patrons for any reasons. The term "This business reserves the right to refuse service to any one for any reason" is pretty much all that needs to be said or posted.

The owner then has to live with the freemarket consequences of such a decision and a posting.

While the owner of a small business (printing and office supply) in a small town in Montana a number of years ago, I had some gay activists come to town and demand that I print up some very weird and filthy brochures for them to hand out. I pointed to the sign above my counter and told them they could leave. They were informed by the local DA that such a sign was legal and appropriate and established my rights as a business owner in advance. They had no traction. I lived with the consequence of folks of that persuasion not doing business with me. Fine.

If an individual desires no firearms in his/her business, he/she has a right to make that the rule for their premises. If there is a backlash in the free market (as Squantos discussed above) then that is the consequence.

I do not believe a business owner should be forced to operate in such ways by the government, on either side of the issue.

As for me ... I'm armed in my computer business and welcome Conceal Carry...or even open carry by respectable and law-abiding patrons. But that's my decision on my property.

[RRWCC]

I've got to hop in here. I'm neither Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian. I'm a Constitutionalist which puts me at odds pretty much with all political groups.

I believe that the shop belongs to the shop owner and he can decide who he/she does or does not serve based on any criteria he/she desires. Generally, public pressure and a lack of business will eventually require that the shop conform to the standards that that community holds.

On the other hand, a concealed is just that…concealed! I never go anywhere unarmed. Our malls have signs that say no firearms allowed but I just ignore them. I caught, we would be asked to leave. I have carried in many Northeastern cities that are rabidly anti-gun. If I needed my weapon I would have used it but since I didn’t, no one ever knew.

[PatrioticAmerican]

" In an attempt to smooth the edges of the most liberal gun legislation ever passed in the United States "

Ah, jeez. These liberals will never get this right. I thought Colorado had the "...most liberal gun legislation ever passed in the United States."

Ya think these dolts would confer with each other before saying crap like that.

[supercat]

Out of curiosity (not that I'd necessarily advocate such a thing) would it be legal in MN (or TX, or other CC states) for a business to post a sign indicating that no firearms were to be carried in the premesis without prior written permission? Regardless of the extent to which such business actually gave anyone permission to carry, such a sign might avoid being quite so strong a robber magnet as a simple "no guns" sign, especially for businesses frequented by certain regulars.

[ezo4]

I was talking with a girl from MN today and she was going on and on about this stuff back in her home state. She said she would never move back there because people carried guns and it was unsafe.

(shes a liberal in case you haven't all ready figured it out, shes not to bright - attractive but not bright)

So after about 20-30 minutes hearing this stuff she was spewing about how safe it is here in Seattle because people don't carry sidearms. I got up and showed her my ccp

You should have seen her face, it was classic!