[GeneticsDave]

While surfing the internet I ran across some stickers that are meant to be printed up and posted near "No Gun" signs. While I can't expressly condone the posting of these stickers (which may be viewed as vandalism), I sure would laugh if I started seeing them around town. :twisted:

Here is the link; it's a Word template that uses Avery White Sticker Project Paper, product number 3383.

What the store really means when they post a 'No Guns' sign.

Enjoy!

 

[Paul]

Nice.

I have been watching really close for months now and honestly haven't seen a single "No Guns Allowed" sign. I would have no problem sticking one of these up. I would probably make a special trip just to do so if I knew of a sign up here in Cache Valley.....

-PW

 

[tapehoser]

My work has a "No Guns" sign posted in english and spanish.

In rebellion for that sign, I posted a sign right on the desktop of my computer that states: "No Weapons Allowed - ATTENTION CRIMINALS - This Is A Defense Free Crime Zone! All Law Abiding Patrons of This Establishment Have Been Disarmed For your Convenience. Enjoy: The Management"

I don't think my director was very happy when he saw it, but then, he is the one who posted the signs in the first place. :twisted:

 

[Paul]

My work has a "No Guns" sign posted in english and spanish.

In rebellion for that sign, I posted a sign right on the desktop of my computer that states: [b]"No Weapons Allowed[/b] - ATTENTION CRIMINALS - This Is A Defense Free Crime Zone! All Law Abiding Patrons of This Establishment Have Been Disarmed For your Convenience. Enjoy: The Management"

I don't think my director was very happy when he saw it, but then, he is the one who posted the signs in the first place. :twisted:

That is AWESOME!!! I can imagine the look on your bosses face the first time he saw that.

-PW

 

[natehunts]

You have some big cajones brother. That is awesome. Good for you. Have you had any other comments from co-workers?

 

[tapehoser]

Most folks know I'm a shooter/hunter. For the most part, they are amused by it but I can tell that it makes them think.

It's funny when they all of a sudden realize that the company has removed their right to defend themselves. :shock:

 

[tapehoser]

It looks something like this:

 

[Cinhil]

Tapehoser, isn't there supposed to be a red circle with a line through it surrounding that gun? Anyhow, I agree--Awesome cahones!!!! Love these & may use some myself! :lol:

 

[GeneticsDave]

I got to thinking that there might be people out there without access to Microsoft Word, so I created a PDF version of the stickers.

Here's a picture of what one of the stickers looks like:

 

[phox_mulder]

I'm looking for a link, but I bought a couple t-shirts with the "no guns allowed" ghostbusters logo, and the words "I'm not armed, please don't hurt me".

I have worn the shirt to work, which used to have a "no guns" policy under the previous owners, even printed up in the employee manual. New owners haven't said one way or the other.

There have never been any signs posted anywhere (not that they'd carry any weight anyway)

If I find the link, I'll edit the post.

Found it.

http://www.libertyoutlet.com/store/bystore.html?store=2

Of course the irony was that I was armed.

phox

 

[apollosmith]

There have never been any signs posted anywhere (not that they'd carry any weight anyway)

Well, they would carry no LEGAL weight, but you could certainly get fired for violating work policies. For many, the constitutional and moral right to defend oneself is more important than maintaining a job with an employer that has a feeble-minded, misdirected no-guns policies. Concealed is concealed.

 

[bane]

Well, they would carry no LEGAL weight, but you could certainly get fired for violating work policies. For many, the constitutional and moral right to defend oneself is more important than maintaining a job with an employer that has a feeble-minded, misdirected no-guns policies. Concealed is concealed.

ApolloSmith,

I was having this almost identical discussion with my dad last night. Except the topic wasn't one's right to self-defense but one's right to privacy. Apparently, as he was telling me, there is a current push to develop a national employee registry which will permit employers to input who has worked for them and why they were let go/quit/etc. In addition to that an employer will be allowed, based on your application for a job (you sign an agreement), to search that database for your previous employment records.

Now, at face-value, this makes a lot of sense. For example, it would be nice to know you aren't hiring a perp or something.

BUT during our discussion it occurred to me that a larger issue is at stake -- and it seems to apply to this discussion as well:

In Utah, and many other states, we have a "Right to Work". But if you also have the "Right to Privacy" and are then told that all employers in the state will refuse to hire you unless you sign the agreement, and thus sign away your Right to Privacy, then something has to give... you can't be compelled to sign away 1 Right in order to obtain the other Right -- it isn't logical!

From this perspective, then, the 2A would seem to be in the same position.

And what about the 1A amendment??? If the employer can make you sign away your 2A rights (at least while you are at work) along with your Right to Privacy then what's stopping them from making you sign an agreement stating you won't practice your 1A rights at work if you want to be employed there... including, you can't pray over your food at lunch-time (unless you eat out), you can't carry religious material in your backpack and read it on your breaks, you can't have little signs in your cubicle or office stating anything like "Families Forever", etc... where does it stop???

What do you think???

 

[Car Knocker]

If the employer can make you sign away your 2A rights (at least while you are at work) along with your Right to Privacy then what's stopping them from making you sign an agreement stating you won't practice your 1A rights at work if you want to be employed there... including, you can't pray over your food at lunch-time (unless you eat out), you can't carry religious material in your backpack and read it on your breaks, you can't have little signs in your cubicle or office stating anything like "Families Forever", etc... where does it stop???

What do you think???

Historically, the First Amendment only restricted the government, not private citizens (including employers). Later laws and legal interpretations extended some of those "Rights" into the private sector. An example would be a reasonable accomodation of religious practices.

First Amendment rights are already legally curtailed by employers. If, for example, you work for McDonalds try insisting on your "Right" to wear a Burger King button on your uniform or the "Right" to proselytize in the lobby on your break. Or try posting photos of nudes in your area at work.

The Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not absolute and may reasonably (the key word and the stumbling point) be restricted. For it to be otherwise would make society unworkable.

 

[bane]

First Amendment rights are already legally curtailed by employers. If, for example, you work for McDonalds try insisting on your "Right" to wear a Burger King button on your uniform or the "Right" to proselytize in the lobby on your break. Or try posting photos of nudes in your area at work.

The Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not absolute and may reasonably (the key word and the stumbling point) be restricted. For it to be otherwise would make society unworkable.

Very good points! I guess what it comes down to, then, is the degree to which the property is meant for public use... using your excellent example, a McDonald's employee can't wear a BK button because the employee is primarily working behind the counter in a non-public area but as a customer I can certainly wear a BK button because the business was open to the public-at-large and I am there under that condition. Just like the Church main-street issue or the eCenter or whatever. So I see what you are saying.

It still leaves a scary predicament though... if a national employee database were created and all companies began to use it an individual would be barred from working without consenting to giving up their right to privacy... seems like treacherous ground...

P.S.: On an aside note, there is another thread here somewhere (I couldn't find it again) which talks about our inalienable rights and defines them, showing that they cannot be contracted away even if you wanted to. Cases like Dr. Kavorkian (sp?) come to mind... even if you want to rescind your life, you can't LEGALLY ask someone to kill you nor take your own life. So why then can you contract away your OTHER inalienable rights (since all of our other rights are merely logical extensions of our inalienable ones)???

 

[apollosmith]

It still leaves a scary predicament though... if a national employee database were created and all companies began to use it an individual would be barred from working without consenting to giving up their right to privacy... seems like treacherous ground...

I fully agree. While restricting some things you can do while an employee makes sense, such a database would extend this limitation to areas outside the area of your current employment. Why not then allow potential employers to check your credit report, bank accounts, medical history, or church records before hiring you? This sure sounds like a slippery slope to me.

I don't know about most folks, but I rarely hire people if they do not provide several good references that can vouch for their work record - I don't really see the need for this database (nor do I think it would work anyways).

Very similar to this is the proposal made the other day to check potential political candidate's criminal background before they can run for office in Eagle Mountain.

 

[Mazellan]

I have been looking for signs as well. I have only seen a sign at the main door of American Fork hospital. The sign off to the side in the entrence. Not on the door (I belive to comply with law it has to be at each enterence). The lettering is also very small and requires you to walk closer to the sign to read it. I ofcorse ignored it and proceded without incident.

Also on another note, I went to see my father at Timp Hospital in orem and found no signage attempting to restrict weapons of any kind.

Other than af hospital I havn't seen any signs.

 

[hamm]

I belive to comply with law it has to be at each enterence

There is no law to comply with. If there is a "no guns" sign at the entrance it has no legal weight. In other words, you can legally carry there no matter how many signs they have. In theory, if you are caught, you can be asked to leave, and if you don't leave, you can be charged with trespassing. But you are not breaking any laws by carrying there regardless of the signs.

 

[Jeff Johnson]

I concur with Hamm.

 

[Cinhil]

A sign Must be placed at every entrance or door if no carry is allowed. I take this to literally mean every door, including exits! How many individuals occasionally enter through an exit? I have--there ought to be a sign at every possible entrance to be in compliance with the law. And if it is a public facility like the Third District Courthouse, their rules aside, they Must be forced to provide lockers, as stated in the law as written by the legislature, or they are not in compliance & ought to be sued/fined for this misconduct.

 

[Car Knocker]

A sign Must be placed at every entrance or door if no carry is allowed.

I don't believe that I've ever read anything in the Utah codes stating that doors must be posted to prohibit CCW. In any event, such a prohibition would have no force of law. Can you provide a link to the appropriate code?