Sometime I have trouble seeing signs like that since many businesses put so many signs up on their front doors....
Nu Skin (provo)
Nu Skin is anti-gun. At the entrance to all of their buildings (that I have discovered, so far) they have a small sign in the middle of the door, about five inches square, that reads something like this:
"This is a secure area. Firearms are not allowed beyond this point. Concealed firearm permit holders are NOT exempt."
I'll try getting a picture of the sign today.
I don't like their stuff anyway - too expensive..... :shock:
"This is a secure area. Firearms are not allowed beyond this point. Concealed firearm permit holders are NOT exempt."
I'll try getting a picture of the sign today.
I don't like their stuff anyway - too expensive..... :shock:
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
From what I gather, it seems more directed at employees. It is placed at entrances to the warehouse and HR building, but I can't find one on the front of the high rise. I haven't checked their store across the street yet.
I'm still trying to figure out if is really qualifies as a "secure area", and actually carries the weight of the law.
I'm still trying to figure out if is really qualifies as a "secure area", and actually carries the weight of the law.
Doesn't fit the definition of secure facility to me! If they are privately owned they could keep legal ccw holders from entering, I suppose. But they by no means are "Secure."
Shame on them!
Shame on them!
I believe the legal definition, in the CCW laws, is actually a place that has 1) Metal Detectors 2) Security Personnel 3) A place to store weapons for each person.
But hey, whatcha gonna do? Supreme Court of Utah has ruled in favor of private businesses. They can prohibit guns if they so choose.
Does that suck? Yes.
But hey, whatcha gonna do? Supreme Court of Utah has ruled in favor of private businesses. They can prohibit guns if they so choose.
Does that suck? Yes.
What is the problem, just because they post a sign doesn't mean it's illegal. If you don't want to give them your money, then don't. Simple enough.
It's not about giving them my money. Their stuff is way too expensive. It's more along the lines of employment.
As an employee, you're helping them be more profitable than John and Jane Doe buying a product here and there.Sambolijah said:... It's more along the lines of employment.
Don't be a victim and accept it as a fact of life. Ask, "what am I going to do about it?"
When morality and money collide, most chose money.
What am I going to do about it? Put up with it until I can move on to a better job. I'm in college, and they've got pretty good benefits. I don't see morality and money colliding here. I see supporting my family and making compromises as being the moral high ground rather than quitting and struggling to not get evicted simply because 'they won't let me carry my gun'.blackpuma said:As an employee, you're helping them be more profitable than John and Jane Doe buying a product here and there.Sambolijah said:... It's more along the lines of employment.
Don't be a victim and accept it as a fact of life. Ask, "what am I going to do about it?"
When morality and money collide, most chose money.
If that were the case, then I should also stop going to church, since my church bans concealed carry in this state. I think a lot of folks here are bothered by that fact, but aren't going to swear off their religion for this.
Not trying to be contentious, but I simply disagree.
I'm not pointing fingers at you, just making an observation. Your logic is skewed and conclusions thereby flawed, but that's your paradigm. You're seeing a very narrow view of the world. The scenario that you paint is incomplete, but I do understand that from your point of view, those are the "only options."Sambolijah said:What am I going to do about it? Put up with it ...
Most people only see the options of quitting or putting up with it. It's sad, but that's the depent attitude that this society produces. There are many, many other options. Frequently we don't know about them. Others are seen as too troublesome due to lack of education. Yes, there are also people who are lazy and would rather roll over than take responsibility for their life. Sure they may "take care" of their family and lead "good" lives, but that is by default, not by deliberate action.
Like I said, I'm not pointing any fingers at you. I'm just pointing out that we don't have to act live victims, shrug our shoulders, and let principle float down the sewer. When we actually apply our brains to a situation, our eyes will be opened to possibilities that we never imagined existed. They were there all along. That takes effort, but getting in the habit will affect every part of our lives.
When we react, we lose in the long term despite immediate convenience. When we act, we lay the foundation for long-term prosperity (dependent on our commitment to the other principles of propsperity).
Thus the question, "what are you going to do about it?" It may be small, it may be big, but act. Avoiding the question is a decision to choose the path of least resistance.
When there's an aparent conflict of principles, check your premesis.
Principles govern in the long term.
I for one would like to hear of any National company that does not have a "no firearms" policy. :roll: My employer allows customers, along with off duty employees (on site) to carry within the law. It's SOP for large company's.
I carry at work and if my employer ever found out I have no doubt I'd be fired, but I'd be alive... hopefully.
I carry at work and if my employer ever found out I have no doubt I'd be fired, but I'd be alive... hopefully.
I can't say much about it other than look for legislation next session that will attack the whole “guns in the workplace†issue from another angle.
In short requiring employers to provide strict liability for the death or injury to an employee of they are injured going to, while at, or going anywhere from work.
I am working on it with a couple of legislators now.
In short requiring employers to provide strict liability for the death or injury to an employee of they are injured going to, while at, or going anywhere from work.
I am working on it with a couple of legislators now.
CLark,
I am glad to here that you are working on a bill, hopefully for the next legislative session, which will force employers to take responsibility for injury, death or other vile acts which may occur with their employees, if they refuse the rights of those legally authorized to carry concealed. Should I be elected to the state senate I would be very pleased to work on this bill, or support it as well as vote yes on it. This is one of the things I have felt strongly about ever since I first discussed it with our AG, Mark Shurtleff, especially as concerns my employer, the U of U.
I hope it becomes a part of the law, the redress of grievences might just force these companies to change their thought processes, especially when they see that they then would be held responsible for their repugnant & anti-constitutional rules & behavior!
Robie
I am glad to here that you are working on a bill, hopefully for the next legislative session, which will force employers to take responsibility for injury, death or other vile acts which may occur with their employees, if they refuse the rights of those legally authorized to carry concealed. Should I be elected to the state senate I would be very pleased to work on this bill, or support it as well as vote yes on it. This is one of the things I have felt strongly about ever since I first discussed it with our AG, Mark Shurtleff, especially as concerns my employer, the U of U.
I hope it becomes a part of the law, the redress of grievences might just force these companies to change their thought processes, especially when they see that they then would be held responsible for their repugnant & anti-constitutional rules & behavior!
Robie
This would be a huge step forward.
Wow Clark. I guarantee that this would be a slap in the face to my employer. Might even dissuade them from further encroachment of my rights.
I read somewhere in the last day or so, something which goes like this:
If the first amendment to the constitution were gutted as the second amendment has been, then we would definitly not be having this discussion.
Kind of makes one think, doesn't it?
I think if everyone could look at these basic ideologies, these tenets of freedom which have been handed to us by our forefathers, in this, or a similar light, then these encroachments on our rights and our liberties would not prevail. Until then we still need high minded and right thinking individuals to continue to stand up and defend these rights with every fiber of their being.
I am pleased to belong to such a forum, which encourages thought and action in order to retain and recapture those portions of our rights which are in jeopardy, or which have been lost due to the bigotry and hysteria of those who feel that all things in their lives must be regulated. It often seems that these are the type of individuals, and hypocrites too-such as Diane Feinstein, which yell louder and force their minority opinion on the majority under the premise of "fact." Fortunately we know better, therefore we must continue to fight harder to retain what we have.
I applaud all who come to this site, especially those who speak what they feel to be true, whether I always agree with them or not. At least I know they are trying to eliminate those things in our society which have been forced upon us, which we know to be wrong. Action is always better than reaction. I would hope that we could maintain a consciousness which would allow us to stay ahead of those things which others would do, which would hurt us all, through legislation.
If the first amendment to the constitution were gutted as the second amendment has been, then we would definitly not be having this discussion.
Kind of makes one think, doesn't it?
I think if everyone could look at these basic ideologies, these tenets of freedom which have been handed to us by our forefathers, in this, or a similar light, then these encroachments on our rights and our liberties would not prevail. Until then we still need high minded and right thinking individuals to continue to stand up and defend these rights with every fiber of their being.
I am pleased to belong to such a forum, which encourages thought and action in order to retain and recapture those portions of our rights which are in jeopardy, or which have been lost due to the bigotry and hysteria of those who feel that all things in their lives must be regulated. It often seems that these are the type of individuals, and hypocrites too-such as Diane Feinstein, which yell louder and force their minority opinion on the majority under the premise of "fact." Fortunately we know better, therefore we must continue to fight harder to retain what we have.
I applaud all who come to this site, especially those who speak what they feel to be true, whether I always agree with them or not. At least I know they are trying to eliminate those things in our society which have been forced upon us, which we know to be wrong. Action is always better than reaction. I would hope that we could maintain a consciousness which would allow us to stay ahead of those things which others would do, which would hurt us all, through legislation.
I work at Nu Skin and there is a somewhat of a story behind these signs being posted. I don't agree with it but it wasn't an anti-gun move. Honestly, NuSkin is a pro-gun culture they (including VP's) even compete in local shooting games. Red, who sends out the Utah Defensive Pistol League updates, works there as well.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Utah Guns Forum
A forum community dedicated to firearm owners and enthusiasts in Utah. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
