I can see what the intent is...Oldgringo wrote:I question that part about unarmed 'to or from' a place. That sounds like something written in the bill for the lawyers' $$$ benefit. Anybody could claim they were on their way to anywhere. What if the "no guns" place was only one of several stops? I call BoguS on that provision in the bill.
I have a friend who commutes to work in downtown Houston from the Woodlands. His employer does not permit CC or OC in the building. If he drives, sure, he could leave it in the car, but he doesn't have the $$ to pay for parking everyday, so he is forced to disarm before taking the bus each day.
So there he is...downtown Houston...disarmed for one reason only: his employer won't allow him to have his gun. If he gets attacked while walking across the street to lunch, or if he gets attacked at the bus stop, or anywhere else...tough luck. Because of his employer's preferences, he is left defenseless. He had ZERO options to have his gun with him, since early in the morning.
Sure, some will say, "get another job". I say, "get real". He has a family to feed, and he shouldn't be forced to job hop each time a new employer gets all squishy and posts their building. It's about time that all signs become worthless, if you ask me.
No, I'm not trampling on property rights. I do believe any property owner should be allowed to ask anyone to leave at any time, for any reason. But enabling them to have the force of law just by posting a sign? That doesn't work for 'no shoes, no service', 'proper attire required' or any other sign, so why should it work for guns?
But until we get to where no sign has any legal standing at all...I suggest that those who post them be liable for their decisions, and Tennessee has taken the lead on this. Go Vols, indeed!
