More on the 'Campaign to Post'; Plus Bad Advice for Business

by Joel Rosenberg
9-Sep-2003

Rebecca and Friends Soldier On

"Citizens for a Safer Minnesota"—basically, Rebecca Thoman, a local physician specializing in the sexual dysfunction of women, plus a few of her friends—are still pushing their "Campaign to Post." The idea is to get stores, all across Minnesota, to put up the NO GUNS signs. (That's a bit of shorthand. Actually, the signs must say something like It's got to have exactly the wording in that second line, and the name of the proprietor—not the landlord; landlords very much don't have the right to restrict their tenants on this—on the sign. You'll forgive me, I trust, if I just refer to these as "NO GUNS" signs.

"What 'Campaign to Post?'" Good Question

I can understand why you may not have heard of it; it's been a huge failure. Back in April, during the House floor debate on the MPPA, the general consensus among the antis was that, in the metro area, "all businesses [are] going to post." That's a quote from my own Rep, Jean Wagenius—which is why Jean seemed to feel comfortable when she took a vow on the floor that she would not patronize any business that didn't post.

How Jean manages to gas up her SUV remains a mystery to me; gas stations aren't posting at all. I sent her an email asking, but she didn't answer. Maybe she's home-brewing some ethanol? Or just walking everywhere? (Update, September 10th: I just got an email from Jean; she explained that her husband "does the gas part." I'm still wondering about how she goes to the dentist—and I deleted an, err, indelicate medical inquiry . . . Still, it's kind of strange—Jean is still patronizing the gas stations, even though she sends her apparently expendable husband in to handle the putatively dangerous task of gassing up.)

Why the Posting Campaign Went *Klunk*

The antis were, obviously, wrong about the ubiquity of posting. I'm not blaming them for that; I was wrong, too. I didn't go as far as Jean, mind; my initial guesstimate was that, given the political pressure, around 10-20% of the stores in the metro area would post. I doubt it's gone up to even half a percent, if that. Incredibly lower than Jean's perhaps rhetorical claim of "all", and smaller by more than an order of magnitude than my own predictions.

I should have known. Really.

In retrospect, it's easy to see why we all were wrong. The antis are a tiny minority—something that anybody who has seen just about all of Minnesota's "Million Moms" fit themselves into one SUV should know, and I'm somebody who has done that. The Mommers who attended the various hearings on the MPPA were seriously outnumbered by the pro-reform folks. When I talked to the people involved, on both sides, the picture got even clearer: by and large, the folks attending in favor of the MPPA were taking a day off from work, at some cost and expense; the much smaller number of Mommers were, by and large, older, upper-middle-class suburban women, either retired or homemakers with children more than old enough to watch themselves for the afternoon. No, I'm not knocking the notion of upper-middle-class surbanites or the retired getting involved in things they feel strongly about—I'm just pointing out that few did feel strongly enough about the issue to spend even their leisure time at the hearings.

There are huge numbers of women in those two categories; if the Mommers had had any real traction in that demographic, they could easily have outnumbered us ten-to-one.

But, of course, they didn't.

Their repeal petition campaign has been a huge failure, too. Even though they make it possible for somebody to "sign" their petition online—making repeat signatures terribly easy—even they claim only eighteen thousand in the first few months.

How the Posting Campaign Went *Klunk*

So, it's no surprise that the "Campaign to Post" has fallen flat. Only a small fraction of one percent of businesses, even in the metro area, have posted. Absent her compliant husband, Jean wouldn't be able to gas up her SUV at all if she abided by her vow. She'd be, at the very least, hard-pressed to get her teeth cleaned, her hair done, shop for clothes, or buy books if she restricted herself to posted places. Even the biggest stores at the Mall of America haven't posted—the anchor stores don't want to discourage permit holders from shopping there.

Which is why, I suspect, the "Campaign to Post" switched their pitch from the very shrill, demanding, "No sign? Not a dime!" to the rather more plaintive, almost begging, "Please become gun-free."

For more on that, see this essay.

But Rebecca and Friends Soldier On

While I can't give them much credit for foresight, I do have to admire their stubbornness; they're still sending out their "Business may be reluctant to post: answers to their concerns" sheet, and getting their tiny coteries of Million Mom volunteers to go from store to store, trying to get business to put up the NO GUNS signs.

One of the Mommers showed up at a local restaurant, owned by one of my students, and asked him if he'd put up a NO GUNS sign.

He wrinkled his brow, pretending to be confused. "But that would mean that I can't carry my own gun," he said.

She fled in consternation and confusion.

Bad Advice for Business, with Some Perhaps Not Entirely Unacid Commentary

Still: hey, it's a free country. They've got a right to demagogue the issue; I've got a right to debunk them. The indented stuff is their handout, intact; the italicized, unindented commentary is, well, mine.

WHY BUSINESSES MAY BE RELUCTANT TO POST

Here are some common concerns expressed by business owners when we approach them about posting signs banning guns. These responses will help you clarify the issue and answer their questions:

"Clarify the issue" is perhaps rather less accurate than "try to play on fears," I think.

Can I only ban guns if I post someone at the door to personally inform everyone who enters my store that guns are prohibited?

You don't need to tell customers that guns are banned at the time that the person enters the establishment. A permit holder can be told that guns are banned and asked to leave at any time.

Absolutely. Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That said, that doesn't make permit holders different from anybody else; a business owner can, very few exceptions aside, ask anybody to leave, at any time.

That said, that's not, by and large, the concern of storeowners I know—their focus tends to be on getting customers in, not keeping customers out.

I can't afford signs for every entrance.

You can obtain two free signs from Marcom Direct. The Campaign to Post can help you obtain free paper signs that meet the specifications of the law. Only public entrances need to be posted.

Waitaminute. The cost of an 11x17 sheet of paper is, at most, ten cents. Tape is cheap. Are the Mommers really hearing that business owners can't afford ten cents per entrance? I doubt it.

If I post a sign and someone with a gun enters should I ask them to leave?

Never approach someone with a gun and never allow your employees to approach someone with a gun. They should be considered potentially dangerous. Instead, dial 911. Permit holders are only required to show their permits to licensed police officers. You can ask the person to leave after law enforcement has arrived.

Well, that's one way to try to play on fears. But let me get this straight. A business owner posts signs, and notices that somebody has a bulge under their coat. Without any real reason to panic, they call the cops. "911."

[whispering]: "There's somebody in my store with a gun, I think."

"We're dispatching a car immediately. Don't resist the robbery."

"Err... it's not a robbery. It's just June, from down the street—she's been a customer for a few years, now, and I think she got a carry permit; her ex-husband has been threatening her for some time, now— and walked past my no guns sign."

"And you've asked her to leave?"

"Well, no. Rebecca Thoman's people say that's dangerous. I'm supposed to wait until one of your officers arrive before I ask her to leave."

"Lady, we've got real police work do."

Will police respond to my call or will they only come if the person looks "threatening"?

The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association states that "man with a gun" calls are treated as a high priority.

But "man with a gun" is one of those terms of art. If police are going to be treat permit holders lawfully carrying a gun as a high priority, they're not going to have time for real crime. Or doughnuts, either.

We recommend that you speak to your local Chief of Police for more information on how to handle a situation with a gun.

Make up your mind, Rebecca. Okay, let's try it again:

"911."

[whispering]: "I need to speak to the Chief of Police."

"Is there some problem, Ma'am?"

"I'm not sure. But I think one of my regular customers brought her gun into my store, and -- "

"We're dispatching a car immediately. Don't resist the robbery."

"Err... it's not a robbery. It's just June, from down the street—she's been a customer for a few years, now, and I think she got a carry permit; her ex-husband has been threatening her for some time, now—and walked past my no guns sign, and—"

"And you've asked her to leave?"

"Well, no. Rebecca Thoman's people say that's dangerous. I'm supposed to wait until one of your officers arrive before I ask her to leave. And I'm also supposed to speak to my local Chief of Police for more information on how to handle a situation with a gun."

"I just wanna get this straight. A regular customer has walked in, with a bulge in her pocket, and you want to talk to the Chief about how to 'handle' this?"

"Well, yes, but—"

"Lady, we've got real police work do."

If someone brings a gun, I'll simply ask them to leave. I don't have to hang a sign for that.

Without a posted sign, permit holders are legally entitled to remain in your establishment. A legally appropriate sign is necessary to charge the individual with trespass for refusing to leave.

This is unclear, actually. There's been no test cases whether a customer who is authoritatively (say, by the business owner) asked to leave the premises can stay if he or she has a carry permit. Frankly, I doubt it. I doubt even more that we'll ever see a test case, actually—would you stay in a store if the owner has asked you to go? It's never happened to me, but I'm sure that I certainly wouldn't. Then again, once more: storeowners are, by and large, much more concerned about getting customers into the store than getting them to go.

Besides, you'll never know if/when your permit holder customers are carrying. You haven't noticed it in years past; you won't notice it now. It hasn't been a problem before; it's only a problem now for Rebecca and her friends.

Can I have someone with a gun on my property arrested?

A person with a permit who refuses to leave when asked can be charged with trespass ($25 fine) if your posted sign is legally compliant.

The correct answer is "no," for permit holders, and "yes", for those who don't have permits. Petty trespassing, in Minnesota, isn't something that people generally can be arrested for, all by itself. Trespassing plus another offense—like, say, carrying a handgun without a permit—is another matter entirely. As it should be.

I'm concerned about offending some customers.

As, indeed, you should be. Permit holders are, all in all, about the most law-abiding and nonconfrontational customers that you have. If you offend them, you don't have to worry about their guns. Sheesh. What you do have to worry about is them taking their business elsewhere. But Rebecca and friends have another answer:

The majority of Minnesotans do not want loaded weapons in their community.

Oh, piffle. Even before the MPPA, there were more than ten thousand permit holders, across the state. Even before the MPPA, it was lawful for people to have "loaded weapons" at their homes, places of business, and when going from home to place of business, or vice versa.

This is especially true for women.

More piffle. Women aren't, Rebecca and her nervous friends aside, more worried about inanimate objects than men are.

We suggest that you consider your customer base. A sign will show that you place a high priority on public safety.

...because, well, you know, all of those permit holders who shoot up the place? Let's not be that silly, Rebecca.

My customers would never carry a gun.

There is no way of determining who may or may not be carrying a gun.

Then why all the verbiage about what to do about the nonexistent problem?

I am neutral on the issue.

The way the new conceal and carry law is written, guns are presumed to be allowed unless stated otherwise. There is NO neutral stance.

The inaccuracy of "conceal and carry" aside, this was a very foolish position for Rebecca and her friends to take. By accepting that any store that doesn't post is "pro-gun", Rebecca is accepting that the vast majority of stores are rejecting her hysteria about the dangers of permit holders.

She's right, mind, but it's pretty bad tactics.

Nobody else is posting, why should I bother?

More and more businesses are posting each week. This is an opportunity to become a leader on public safety. Your customers will thank you.

If there was all this "thanking" going on, wouldn't more than a tiny fraction of a percent of stores be posting? Let's be real, Rebecca. Some stores have put up signs in the past weeks; some have taken them down. Give it time, and most of the signs will come down. Not a big deal, actually, except to activists on both sides of the issue.

Won't hanging a sign increase my liability?

There is liability whether you post or not. Most employment law attorneys recommend that employers prohibit weapons and otherwise create a safe environment in order to decrease their liability.

Nice try, Rebecca. The issue isn't employment law, but liability law. If, by posting, you prohibit your customers from protecting yourself in your establishment, at least some lawyers think that you're undertaking responsibility for their safety. Me, I dunno. I'm not a lawyer, and until there's a real test case, I doubt that anybody knows. But, yes, it seems likely that, once again, the stopped clock is right: "There is liability whether you post or not." The supposed problem in allowing permit holders to patronize your store is the strange notion that some permit holder who would otherwise stay away would both come into your store and do something stupid and/or dangerous with his or her handgun. Do you want to trade that off against the rather greater likelihood that some permit holder would be injured in your store because he or she couldn't defend himself or herself?

And, remember, the danger isn't just that a permit holder could get shot by a robber. After all, many permit holders have stalkers, abusive exes, and so forth. While many permit holders don't carry routinely, a stalker who knows that, say, Betty is a law-abiding type would know that she would be relatively easy prey going into or coming out of a posted place.

You sure you want that? Forget liability, for a moment: think about your conscience.

The signs are ugly and don't fit in with the atmosphere of our store.

The signs are an ugly reminder of the new law, but the alternative, allowing guns on the premises, is not attractive either.

Please stop playing bait-and-switch, Rebecca. The only people that the signs can have any effect on are Minnesota Nice, law-abiding, permit holders. To prevent criminals from having guns on the premises, you'll have to set up metal detectors at every entrance, and man them by well-trained professional security guards.

The bad guys with guns aren't going to care if there's a sign up.

The fear isn't "bad guys" but regular people carrying guns who unintentionally injure someone or turn to their weapons to resolve a dispute.

Yup. That's the fear. Rebecca and her friends are selling fear. But they're not selling it very successfully; the worst that they can point to, in Minnesota, is the moron who shot up his brother's car. But that happened in the moron's own driveway, where his permit was irrelevant—and, in fact, the moron had to go back into his house to get his gun and exercise his idiocy, because he wasn't carrying it.

And they haven't been terribly persuasive.

That's not just a matter of opinion. Judge for yourself. One night, go down to Eat Street—the restaurant-heavy blocks on Nicolette, in Minneapolis—determined to eat only in a posted restaurant. The next night, go back, determined to eat only in a non-posted one. On the second night, you'll have your choice of, literally, dozens of places. Mexican, Vietnamese, Chinese, Greek, etc., etc. Which will be kind of a relief: on the first night, you'll have your choice of, well, one.

Not enough? Okay. Go shopping for groceries, but this month, restrict yourself only to posted supermarkets; you'll have, perhaps, a half dozen choices, across the metro area. Next month, remove the restriction, and you'll be able to go to Byerly's, Cub, Rainbow, Lund's, Kowalski's, Everett's, Brennan's, etc.

We've never had a problem before.

Previously, your local chief of police screened permit applicants and set restrictions on where guns may be carried. That level of protection has been removed. Thousands more are expected to obtain permits to carry in the next year.

And the police chiefs, particularly in the metro area, grossly abused their discretion for, literally, decades—that's why the law was changed.

Relax, Rebecca. The sky isn't falling.

And, Jean? I'll still be happy to meet you for a cup of coffee—as long as the place isn't posted. It's just not safe to go places where criminals and stalkers have been told that they've got a lot of soft targets. I'd rather have my cup of coffee in a safer place.

---