Ruger Collector wrote:I'm glad people like Ken Hammond ignore those signs...
opskmallory wrote:He's exempt from most gun laws, including those that regulate the carry of a concealed weapon on private property.
apollosmith wrote:As are you and I. "No guns" signs carry no weight of law in Utah. If you take a gun (concealed or open) into a business that is posted, you have done nothing wrong. Ignore the signs all you want. If you are asked to leave (whether you have a gun or not), you must.
Jeff Johnson wrote:I've carried there (concealed), which was perfectly legal.
I will do so again when I go there again.
bane wrote:LHM's "No Weapons Allowed" sign now reads: "No ILLEGAL weapons allowed" (in my mind).
apollosmith wrote:bane wrote:LHM's "No Weapons Allowed" sign now reads: "No ILLEGAL weapons allowed" (in my mind).
If their intention is to limit their liability, "No ILLEGAL weapons allowed" does an even better job. It covers them from someone using an illegal gun there and it allows a legally owned and carried gun to be used in self defense. After all, if they limit my ability to defend myself, they should be accountable for my safety. I don't know why we don't see this wording more often - I think it would appeal to both sides of the argument.
GeneticsDave wrote:So I need to head over to Williams-Sonoma today (accidentally broke one of my wife's melamine mixing bowls), and was wondering if I would get shot if I open carried. Looks like SGT Jensen did alright, I just don't want to cause any undue controversy or have anyone FREAK OUT! Anyways, let me know what you guys think...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests