Businesses Posting 30.06/07 Should Provide Safe Storage

[Ruark]

Yep, and as always, a criminal shooter will ignore everything and carry in anyway.

[Jusme]

This type of requirement will never pass. It would be tantamount to places that require persons to be 18 years of age or older to enter, and being required to provide child care for younger children.
Additionally, how much safer are you in a business, that prohibits lawful carry, if your gun is in a locked container, when a person, who doesn't care about the legality of carrying, comes in to rob and murder? I would think a business that has a big lock box area in front, would be a more desirable target. JMHO

[Abraham]

No, no they shouldn't.

Businesses should provide money for me to spend, wait, no, no they shouldn't....

Businesses should, ah, fuhgeddaboutdit...

[Middle Age Russ]

Irony... proposing new regulations for "someone else" because you aren't satisfied with the regulations imposed on you. We have come a long way from the framework of individual Liberty, and this thread simply proves the point yet again that we have come to accept the force of Government as a panacea for the ills of society rather than as a force that can be used against citizens.

[Ruark]

Yeah, I think this is another non-issue. It's not going to happen.

[DDfst21]

The safest place for a gun is in its owner's holster.

I agree. My hope is that they would simply remove the 30.06 sign.

[mojo84]

Why do some believe a business should have to accomodate the customer's wants but the customer shouldn't have to accommodate the business' desires? Both parties have rights and putting an undue burden on one is not right.

No need to start talking about businesses being required to accommodate certain people that benefit from certain laws such as the ADA as that is a different debatable situation.

[twomillenium]

I am not against OC, I see the .07 signs as a dress code notice, but I consider the .06 signs as notice that they do not want my business. I do not think private business owners should be forced to provide shirts for the shirtless, shoes for the shoeless or any other item for rightfully choose to differ from business policy. The private business owner has made lawful choices and the consumer has the same ability to make their choice to either comply or not do business.
I am not of the mindset that it is someone else's responsibility to coddle to any of my quirks. The more we complain and demand unreasonable penalties the more time it will take for intelligent thinking to take hold.

[ScottDLS]

I see 30.06 like a dress code for underwear that is not visible. I think it's ridiculous that there's a criminal penalty for violating it (unless you're a cop, or an employee in your car). But nobody asked me so there is. Property owners should have no input over whether I wear boxers or briefs.

[WildBill]

I see 30.06 like a dress code for underwear that is not visible. I think it's ridiculous that there's a criminal penalty for violating it (unless you're a cop, or an employee in your car). But nobody asked me so there is. Property owners should have no input over whether I wear boxers or briefs.

Sort of like having your tongue in cheek rasher than sticking it out.