Me, too.C-dub wrote:I'm confused by what you mean "without cause."
As someone who leans more libertarian, I have no problem with a business posting a 30.06 sign. Just as I would not wish them to impose their beliefs upon me and force me to do that which I don't wish to do, I would not want to impose my beliefs upon them and force them to do that which they don't wish to do.
Some people are anti-gun, for whatever reason. The reason for their stance is their business, not mine. I am willing to educate those who are amenable to being educated, but many are not.
Some anti-gun people own businesses. They should be able to allow, and disallow, things within their own business at their discretion without government telling them they must (or must not) allow a certain activity. If a business chooses to post a 30.06 sign, I will choose to do business elsewhere. That's how free enterprise and a free market work.
Smoking is another example. I don't smoke. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke; it makes it difficult for me to breathe. However, I don't like that government can force a business to not allow smoking, as smoking is a perfectly legal act. If a business wants to allow smoking, they should be able to do so without the threat of government action against them. I would choose to frequent a business where the owner has chosen to not allow smoking.
In either case, the free market would decide which business model is more profitable. If, for example, I owned a business and allowed smoking and my competitor down the street did not allow smoking, and I saw that he had more business than I did, then I would probably make the decision to ban smoking in my business, too. That would make the most business sense.
Nobody is forcing them to put up the sign. Neither should anyone force them to remove the sign. That is their right as the business owner. My right as a CHL holder is to take my business where I am welcome.