|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
| Comment by:
PP9
(10/2/2022)
|
I know I'd be more than happy to know which businesses to boycott... put up such a sign and yours is one of them, whether or not I am actually carrying. See if banning and alienating a large percentage of potential customers is good business. One of your competitors surely will be happy to accept your rejects, and their money.
A sign prohibiting certain objects would not likely be enough for trespass in and of itself. Prosecutions for trespass would only happen if the people carrying guns fail to leave when asked. If they should choose to disregard your signs, how are you going to know whom to ask to leave? You do know what the meaning of "concealed" is, right?
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
