I get the impression, strongly, that the law gives property owners the illusion of prohibiting carry, concealed or otherwise, and little else.

This is fitting, really, because anti-gunners are deeply irrational. I don't say deeply stupid, because frequently they are intelligent in other ways. But they do think they can somehow keep their places safe by putting up "No guns" signs, as if I could ward off burglars by putting up a "No burglars" sign on my front door. These are the same people who put up "Drug-Free Zone" signs in neighborhoods, thinking that they've struck a blow against crime.

Remember when the St. Paul City City Council passed a law making the city a nuclear-free zone? It would have been a misdemeanor to detonate a nuclear device within city limits. As God is my witness, that's what the law came to.

Of course, for many of those who post, it's really a political statement, amounting to "This was a bad law, and I hate it, and all you gun nuts keep out."

But what I love about it is that it's an illusion. The law does not prohibit carrying in the place -- although most posters probably think it does -- it only lets them order you out if they happen to know you're carrying, under penalty of law.

Guns, nukes -- it's all good.

Their illusions threads it's way through their false sense of personal security delusion too.....

Personal security is just a phone call away.










..................911.................please hold

I also think the people who post are afraid of lawsuits if something should happen, and they didn't post. The courts are insane nowdays, and maybe the shop owners think that by posting they might somehow be avoiding possible legal problems. Everyone is sue happy. Just my thought about the misinformed posters

I just thought I'd add this for some feel goodness. Last summer my father purchased a building for his business. It was improperly posted from the previous owner/nimcompoop. Before I even went inside I busted out a razor blade and removed that silly useless scribble. The oldman just laughed.

I think the law was purposely written this way to a) appease the cattle, yet b) not weaken the law. Very clever indeed. Essentially, the sign just reminds people that a property owner/renter can ask anyone to leave or be guilty of trespassing.

Genius, actually.

Not to go too far off topic but....

Madison, Wisconsin once declared itself a nuke-free zone. Funny how that didn't magically make the nuclear reactor in the University's Mechanical Engineering building disappear....

Which is fine with me. If they want to ADVERTISE when they don't want my business and don't care about my personal responsibility for my family's security, I'm ok with that

Just like the editorial in the Startribune( I can't remember the day) that's why the MOA is so safe because of the signs.

Having worked at the Strib for a whole lot of years, I can say with perfect confidence that if there were armed robberies every day of the week at MOA, the average Strib staffer would still think that the place is safer because it has no-guns signs than a restaurant down the street that has a "Permit-holders welcome" sign. And has never had a robbery.

I wonder what the management of a certain Utah mall thinks about their signs these days.

Does anyone have the link to taht editorial? I'm drawing a blank on when it was in the paper & I haven't had time to look.

I waiting until someone gets hurt in a PVDZ and files a lawsuit against an establishment for "not allowing them the right to protect themselves". That would bring forth all sorts of interesting questions and such. Just thinking about the other side of fence of those who post to protect themselves of a lawsuit.....

Undoubtedly the establishment’s insurance company would settle with you out of court. The terms of the settlement would not allow you to discuss any of the meaty stuff.

It would never hit the news again after the first splash, in the Strib section C, page7, column D, about half way down the page…

I recall reading a wire story some years back where in a city out East (Ohio or Pennsylvania or such) where a private business had hired uniformed (but un-equipped) security guards (Pinkerton or some other well known firm). A person was beaten to the point of being permanently and severely disabled while they guard was present. They sued with the basis that a uniformed guard should at least offer some protection against an UNARMED assault. They won to the tune of ~$10m.



No Kimberman, I can't offer the case citation.
Any luck with the other?