Joined
·
46 Posts
Can you believe these morons are POSTED?
The perks of being a police officer. He's exempt from most gun laws, including those that regulate the carry of a concealed weapon on private property.Ruger Collector said:I'm glad people like Ken Hammond ignore those signs...
![]()
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.opskmallory said:He's exempt from most gun laws, including those that regulate the carry of a concealed weapon on private property.
Right.apollosmith said: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.
This is my opinion with regards to all of these places which post "No Guns" signs. Trolley Square, the Zoo (even if I understand the legality position is different), LHM's theaters, etc... in my mind, since Utah State Law allows me to legally carry into all of these places I don't get riled-up by their signs or even think about them. I just RE-PHRASE them in my mind!!!Jeff Johnson said:I've carried there (concealed), which was perfectly legal.
I will do so again when I go there again.
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.bane said:LHM's "No Weapons Allowed" sign now reads: "No ILLEGAL weapons allowed" (in my mind).
I completely agree with you. I actually HAVE seen this wording more often than the other. However, the stricter-SOUNDING one doesn't bother me as long as it remains a SIGN and doesn't translate it ACTION.apollosmith said: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.bane said:LHM's "No Weapons Allowed" sign now reads: "No ILLEGAL weapons allowed" (in my mind).
How much extra time do you have on your hands? :lol2:GeneticsDave said: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...
Excellent!GeneticsDave said:OC'd today at Trolley Square, no problems at all.