Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Did you read it? Its already there my friend.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Let's get together and write the freedom to carry bill we WANT to see!
- Thread starter Brass Magnet
- Start date
Did you read it? Its already there my friend.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Sorry. I must of missed it. My bad.
So, is that the final copy? If so, let's start sending it in. If not, what other tweaks are needed.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
I don't know, that's why I put it up here so people could READ it
:lol: and let me know of any mistakes or changes we should make. (Just giving you a hard time Paul)Seriously though, keep thinking guys and let me know if you come up with anything as far as mistakes, problems or additions.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
No problem!!
Anyhow, I thought we couldn't didn't want 167.31 repealed completely, just 167.31(2)(b) and 167.31(2)(c)
Anyhow, I thought we couldn't didn't want 167.31 repealed completely, just 167.31(2)(b) and 167.31(2)(c)
Wow - I'm impressed. Talk about taking the bull by the horns.
Guess I'll have to forget all the things that I heard about you all, seems to me that you're a solid, well grounded and dedicated bunch. :lol:
Now drive it home..:exclaim:
Guess I'll have to forget all the things that I heard about you all, seems to me that you're a solid, well grounded and dedicated bunch. :lol:
Now drive it home..:exclaim:
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
We are very serious. We need to get a bill introduced the way we want it before someone introduces a bill that is 'almost good'.
phred
Regular Member
Code name?
Magnet's Charter (Magna Carta = Great Charter)
Magnet's Charter (Magna Carta = Great Charter)
Flipper
Campaign Veteran
Posting requirements for no carry permited? My feeling is that if a business wants to ban firearms a notice a minimum of 12" X 12" on every entrance should be required. No more faux ban like Farm and Fleet is attempting to pull off.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Good idea! What state has a good version we can borrow? South Carolina?
JimMullinsWVCDL
State Researcher
Another "big ugly sign" suggestion
However, unlike South Carolina and Minnesota, under the bill I drafted for West Virginia, posting the "big ugly sign" (minimum dimensions 11" x 17"; however, almost every sign will be much larger due to the space needed to provide the legally-required text) does not give it the force of law; rather, posting the "big ugly sign" is but the first step any private property owner (and for that matter, under other sections of our proposed bill, the state or local government agency in charge of every place where carrying is illegal) must take before a person would be prohibited from carrying.
Additionally, my proposed language in WVCDL's proposed West Virginia Gun Owner Protection Act of 2011 requires every "big ugly sign" to be individually produced because my proposal includes a requirement that the name and contact information of the person responsible for causing the sign to be posted must be included as part of the sign; thus it would be impossible for anyone to produce a standard, mass-produced sign (although a printer could certainly produce templates for individual buyers who furnish the individual contact info).
On another forum, I saw a post (if I ever come across it again I will try to remmeber this one and edit to include a link) that discussed Texas's famous 30.06 sign. It is a monster (at least 30" x 30" to accommodate the legally-required text in 1" tall block letters in both English and Spanish) that was deliberately designed to be so big, ugly, and unwieldly as to cause practically everyone who wants to ban carrying on their premises to hoist the white flag. So far, it has worked precisely as intended (the post that I recall reading said that the only time the poster saw a legally-valid 30.06 sign was at a hospital in Austin (the San Francisco of Texas) where a person had previously carried a gun there and beat a trespassing charge because the prior sign was nonconforming).
Although it's nowhere near becoming law yet, I would suggest taking at a look at WVCDL's proposed West Virginia Gun Owner Protection Act of 2011--specifically, §61-7-14 as amended and proposed new §61-7-15 (also see proposed §61-7-20 for attorney fee-shifting). We began with South Carolina as a model but made a few improvements. There were also a few (and I stress, a few) bits and pieces we took from Minnesota Statutes § 624.714 sud. 17.
However, unlike South Carolina and Minnesota, under the bill I drafted for West Virginia, posting the "big ugly sign" (minimum dimensions 11" x 17"; however, almost every sign will be much larger due to the space needed to provide the legally-required text) does not give it the force of law; rather, posting the "big ugly sign" is but the first step any private property owner (and for that matter, under other sections of our proposed bill, the state or local government agency in charge of every place where carrying is illegal) must take before a person would be prohibited from carrying.
Additionally, my proposed language in WVCDL's proposed West Virginia Gun Owner Protection Act of 2011 requires every "big ugly sign" to be individually produced because my proposal includes a requirement that the name and contact information of the person responsible for causing the sign to be posted must be included as part of the sign; thus it would be impossible for anyone to produce a standard, mass-produced sign (although a printer could certainly produce templates for individual buyers who furnish the individual contact info).
On another forum, I saw a post (if I ever come across it again I will try to remmeber this one and edit to include a link) that discussed Texas's famous 30.06 sign. It is a monster (at least 30" x 30" to accommodate the legally-required text in 1" tall block letters in both English and Spanish) that was deliberately designed to be so big, ugly, and unwieldly as to cause practically everyone who wants to ban carrying on their premises to hoist the white flag. So far, it has worked precisely as intended (the post that I recall reading said that the only time the poster saw a legally-valid 30.06 sign was at a hospital in Austin (the San Francisco of Texas) where a person had previously carried a gun there and beat a trespassing charge because the prior sign was nonconforming).
Jason in WI
Regular Member
Do we really want to open that can of worms? Requirements for signs will end up with legal penalties for missing them. I like the way it is now, ask me to leave and I politely exit. With concealed carry they won't ask you to leave because of the gun they can't see.
If it's possible to require huge ugly signs that don't carry any weight behind them I guess that would be a different story. Requiring huge signs will make the antis all warm and fuzzy but if they are notice of trespass, it would be a step in the wrong direction.
Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk
Jason in WI
Regular Member
Although it's nowhere near becoming law yet, I would suggest taking at a look at .........snipped for space, post full of goodness
Posted as I was typing! Exactly what I was trying to say, excellent post and ideas!!!
The huge billboard style signs should go over very well with the anti crowd, a HUGE sign is the best way they know they'd be "safe" with only the criminals having guns just the way they like it. The bigger and brighter the better. I really love the individual info on the signs too.
Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk
davegran
Regular Member
Taking a look at 167.31
167.31 (2) PROHIBITIONS; MOTORBOATS AND VEHICLES; HIGHWAYS AND
ROADWAYS. (a) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may
place, possess or transport a [strike]firearm,[/strike] bow or crossbow in or on a
motorboat with the motor running, unless the [strike]firearm is unloaded
or unless the[/strike] bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carry-
ing case.
(b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, pos-
sess or transport a [strike]firearm,[/strike] bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle,
unless [strike]the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless[/strike] the bow or
crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.
(c) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may load or dis-
charge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or cross-
bow in or from a vehicle during the commission of a crime.
167.31 is a complicated statute but perhaps we could write something like this:
167.31 (2) PROHIBITIONS; MOTORBOATS AND VEHICLES; HIGHWAYS AND
ROADWAYS. (a) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may
place, possess or transport a [strike]firearm,[/strike] bow or crossbow in or on a
motorboat with the motor running, unless the [strike]firearm is unloaded
or unless the[/strike] bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carry-
ing case.
(b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, pos-
sess or transport a [strike]firearm,[/strike] bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle,
unless [strike]the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless[/strike] the bow or
crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.
(c) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may load or dis-
charge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or cross-
bow in or from a vehicle during the commission of a crime.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
Constitutional Carry Bill
Brass I think you may be on to something here. Especially when you were specifically asked for input by your legislators. GOOD JOB. I think that there are some things to consider. Traditionally Wisconsin politicians have been very much on the liberal side. Even those thaat profess to call themselves conservatives. I like to refer to them as liberal conservatives. Even with their campaign promises I think it is unlikely that they are going to hand constitutional carry to us on a platter. There is going to have to be something in any bill or proposal that has something in it for them or for the major agencies the legislature caters to i.e. law enforcement and the DNR. There are two approaches I think can be taken. The first is a full fledged bill which is subject to tradeoffs and concessions and influence of special interests, not to mention a long drawn out legislative process. The Wisconsin legislature has traditionally been most interested in preserving a police state. I feel that any proposal that contains a number of suggestions of outright repeal of a number of statutes will imply to them a weakening of the police state and bring a lot of resistance. There is another approach. That is to present a bill that modifies existing statutes to our advantage but still give the legislature comfort that the statutes stay in place and give them something in return for their cooperation. I.d like to put in my two cents for your consideration.
My personal opinion is that there are three statutes that are our biggest concern. 941.23, 167.31 and 948.605. You are familiar with each.
Our chances of getting an outright repeal of 167.31 is nil. There is too much in the statute that the DNR needs in order to manage state wildlife. Things like discharge of firearms at game from roadway, discharge of firearms at game in or on a vehicle, discharge of a firearm at game from a aircraft, discharge of a firearm at game from a motor boat, shooting towards an occupied building and others. The chance of the DNR giving that authority up is not probable and the DNR has enormous influence with the legislature. It's resistance to outright repeal of 167.31 could jeopardize the whole effort. On the other hand I think a modification of 167.31 to remove paragraph 167.31(2)(b) could succeed. The majority of the bill remains intact for the DNR and the portion that is most troublesome to us is gone.
Outright repeal of 941.23 might also be difficult because it looks on the surface that doing so would weaken law enforcement authority. However it is possible to modify it so that it supports our cause and still retains, in fact, strengthens authority. My idea of possible modification is listed below.
The third statute that impairs our rights is the Gun Free school Zone law. The parts that are most onerous are the overly strict penalty for inadvertant violation and the 1000 foot zone. Outright repeal of 948.605 is unlikely to succeed. There are too many legislators, democrats and republicans alike, and their constituents that will not accept any compromise that would appear to put school children at risk. I think, though, that the legislature may be willing to eliminate the 1000 foot perimeter zone if the rest of the bill is left so that protection on the school property is still preserved. Especially if the part that forbids off duty police officers from carrying weapons on school property and within that zone. That is one issue the various law enforcement agencies has been pushing the legislature to do for a number of years. My idea of how the staute could be modified so that both sides of the issue are served is listed below.
The advantage of modifying existing law is that it avoids some of the lengthy legislative process. It also minimizes the poetic license the legislative reference bureau can use when drafting a bill. The LRB is supposedly immune from a political agenda. I think that is hardly the case.
Another approach that might work is to use a statute from a state that already recognizes constitutional carry. I would suggest Arizona's August 2010 version. Possible to modify it to fit Wisconsin. Being that it is a bill already in force would probably have some influence on the legislature. At least it might detract the legislature from trying to copy Minnesota's law.
941.23 The people may carry firearms, either concealed or visible, subject to the following restrictions:
941.23.(1). Persons carrying firearms must be over the age of 18.
941.23.(2). The invidual must never have been convicted of a felony crime in this state or of a crime in another state that would be a felony in this state.
941.23.(3). The individual must never have been convicted of a crime of domestic violence.
941.23 (4). The individual must not be a registered sex offender.
941.23 (5). The individual must not be judged mentally impaired by court order.
941.23 (6). On private property conspicuously posted at the entrance with a sign having a surface of a minimum of 14 inches square and with letters a minimum of one inch in height.
167.31 Vehicle transport of firearms.
167.31(2)(b). Remove from statute.
948.605 Gun Free School Zones.
Existing wording
(1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
(c) “School zone” means any of the following:
1. In or on the grounds of a school.
2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school.
Change to.
(c) “School premises” means any school building, grounds,
recreation area or athletic field or any other property owned, used
or operated for school administration.
Existing wording:
(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
Change to read: (extracted from 948.61). Note: this was copied from 948.61 so it has important precident.
(2) Any person who knowingly possesses or goes armed with
a dangerous weapon on school premises is guilty of:
(a) A Class A misdemeanor.
(b) A Class I felony, if the violation is the person’s 2nd or subsequent
violation of this section within a 5−year period, as measured
from the dates the violations occurred.
Existing wording:
(2) (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden acting in his or her official capacity; or
Change to.
(2) (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1.That is not loaded and is encased and placed in a vehicle.
2. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school.
3. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school and the individual or an employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden.
Existing wording:
(3) DISCHARGE OF FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of
another, discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place the
individual knows is a school zone is guilty of a Class G felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the discharge of, or the
attempt to discharge, a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. As part of a program approved by a school in the school
zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;
3. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in a school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual; or
4. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden acting in his or her official capacity.
Change to:
(3) DISCHARGE OF FIREARM ON A SCHOOL PREMISIS. (a) Any individual
who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of
another, discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place the
individual knows is a school is guilty of a Class G felony
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the discharge of, or the
attempt to discharge, a firearm:
1By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school and the individual or an employer of the individual; or
2. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden.
Brass I think you may be on to something here. Especially when you were specifically asked for input by your legislators. GOOD JOB. I think that there are some things to consider. Traditionally Wisconsin politicians have been very much on the liberal side. Even those thaat profess to call themselves conservatives. I like to refer to them as liberal conservatives. Even with their campaign promises I think it is unlikely that they are going to hand constitutional carry to us on a platter. There is going to have to be something in any bill or proposal that has something in it for them or for the major agencies the legislature caters to i.e. law enforcement and the DNR. There are two approaches I think can be taken. The first is a full fledged bill which is subject to tradeoffs and concessions and influence of special interests, not to mention a long drawn out legislative process. The Wisconsin legislature has traditionally been most interested in preserving a police state. I feel that any proposal that contains a number of suggestions of outright repeal of a number of statutes will imply to them a weakening of the police state and bring a lot of resistance. There is another approach. That is to present a bill that modifies existing statutes to our advantage but still give the legislature comfort that the statutes stay in place and give them something in return for their cooperation. I.d like to put in my two cents for your consideration.
My personal opinion is that there are three statutes that are our biggest concern. 941.23, 167.31 and 948.605. You are familiar with each.
Our chances of getting an outright repeal of 167.31 is nil. There is too much in the statute that the DNR needs in order to manage state wildlife. Things like discharge of firearms at game from roadway, discharge of firearms at game in or on a vehicle, discharge of a firearm at game from a aircraft, discharge of a firearm at game from a motor boat, shooting towards an occupied building and others. The chance of the DNR giving that authority up is not probable and the DNR has enormous influence with the legislature. It's resistance to outright repeal of 167.31 could jeopardize the whole effort. On the other hand I think a modification of 167.31 to remove paragraph 167.31(2)(b) could succeed. The majority of the bill remains intact for the DNR and the portion that is most troublesome to us is gone.
Outright repeal of 941.23 might also be difficult because it looks on the surface that doing so would weaken law enforcement authority. However it is possible to modify it so that it supports our cause and still retains, in fact, strengthens authority. My idea of possible modification is listed below.
The third statute that impairs our rights is the Gun Free school Zone law. The parts that are most onerous are the overly strict penalty for inadvertant violation and the 1000 foot zone. Outright repeal of 948.605 is unlikely to succeed. There are too many legislators, democrats and republicans alike, and their constituents that will not accept any compromise that would appear to put school children at risk. I think, though, that the legislature may be willing to eliminate the 1000 foot perimeter zone if the rest of the bill is left so that protection on the school property is still preserved. Especially if the part that forbids off duty police officers from carrying weapons on school property and within that zone. That is one issue the various law enforcement agencies has been pushing the legislature to do for a number of years. My idea of how the staute could be modified so that both sides of the issue are served is listed below.
The advantage of modifying existing law is that it avoids some of the lengthy legislative process. It also minimizes the poetic license the legislative reference bureau can use when drafting a bill. The LRB is supposedly immune from a political agenda. I think that is hardly the case.
Another approach that might work is to use a statute from a state that already recognizes constitutional carry. I would suggest Arizona's August 2010 version. Possible to modify it to fit Wisconsin. Being that it is a bill already in force would probably have some influence on the legislature. At least it might detract the legislature from trying to copy Minnesota's law.
941.23 The people may carry firearms, either concealed or visible, subject to the following restrictions:
941.23.(1). Persons carrying firearms must be over the age of 18.
941.23.(2). The invidual must never have been convicted of a felony crime in this state or of a crime in another state that would be a felony in this state.
941.23.(3). The individual must never have been convicted of a crime of domestic violence.
941.23 (4). The individual must not be a registered sex offender.
941.23 (5). The individual must not be judged mentally impaired by court order.
941.23 (6). On private property conspicuously posted at the entrance with a sign having a surface of a minimum of 14 inches square and with letters a minimum of one inch in height.
167.31 Vehicle transport of firearms.
167.31(2)(b). Remove from statute.
948.605 Gun Free School Zones.
Existing wording
(1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
(c) “School zone” means any of the following:
1. In or on the grounds of a school.
2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school.
Change to.
(c) “School premises” means any school building, grounds,
recreation area or athletic field or any other property owned, used
or operated for school administration.
Existing wording:
(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
Change to read: (extracted from 948.61). Note: this was copied from 948.61 so it has important precident.
(2) Any person who knowingly possesses or goes armed with
a dangerous weapon on school premises is guilty of:
(a) A Class A misdemeanor.
(b) A Class I felony, if the violation is the person’s 2nd or subsequent
violation of this section within a 5−year period, as measured
from the dates the violations occurred.
Existing wording:
(2) (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden acting in his or her official capacity; or
Change to.
(2) (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1.That is not loaded and is encased and placed in a vehicle.
2. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school.
3. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school and the individual or an employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden.
Existing wording:
(3) DISCHARGE OF FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of
another, discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place the
individual knows is a school zone is guilty of a Class G felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the discharge of, or the
attempt to discharge, a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. As part of a program approved by a school in the school
zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;
3. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in a school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual; or
4. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden acting in his or her official capacity.
Change to:
(3) DISCHARGE OF FIREARM ON A SCHOOL PREMISIS. (a) Any individual
who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of
another, discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place the
individual knows is a school is guilty of a Class G felony
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the discharge of, or the
attempt to discharge, a firearm:
1By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school and the individual or an employer of the individual; or
2. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden.
springfield 1911
Founder's Club Member
Well I see my signature is alive and well ! , Thank You all For keeping it alive!
Flipper
Campaign Veteran
This is going great. This being Wisconsin, the alcohol issue must be addressed. Representative Ripp, who I believe has been a sponsor of every firearm freedom bill since his election to the assembly (NRA "A" rating) said at a campaign Q&A that firearms should not be permitted where alcohol is present.
We do not need Mothers Against Drunk Driving aligning with WAVE. I believe anyone carrying a firearm should be allowed in any place serving alcohol, but anyone carrying a firearm with a BAC over that permitted for commercial drivers (.04???) should be subject to the same penality that a commercial driver would be for driving with a BAC in excess of this.
We do not need Mothers Against Drunk Driving aligning with WAVE. I believe anyone carrying a firearm should be allowed in any place serving alcohol, but anyone carrying a firearm with a BAC over that permitted for commercial drivers (.04???) should be subject to the same penality that a commercial driver would be for driving with a BAC in excess of this.
Flipper
Campaign Veteran
The PPA Act. There maybe some flesh that can be picked from its carcass.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/data/SB-403.pdf
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/data/SB-403.pdf
BrewTownBagger
Regular Member
Can someone post the final bill or provide a link to it? I would like to introduce it to my my senator Leah Vukmir and assemblyman David Cullin and see if I can get the ball rolling
Flipper
Campaign Veteran
See statutory trespass:
http://www.aae.wisc.edu/aae336/Readings/TRESPASS.pdf
Quote:
"B. Statutory Trespass
Because the civil trespass rules impose no liability on the trespasser unless
the landowner can prove damages, Wisconsin has enacted statutory trespass rules
that impose a fine on the trespasser if he or she has violated the statute.
1. Note that some actions are statutory trespass if the user of the property
does not have permission. See Wis. Stat. §943.13(1m)(a) and (am).
2. Other actions are trespass only if the user has received notice that he or
she is not allowed on the property. See Wis. Stat. §943.13(1m)(b), (e)
and (f).
3. Notice can be given to a user personally or by posting the property." (our bill should require posting for firearms)
I personally want firearm owners to be really PO when they see the sign. Knowing that there is penality if they don't disarm should do it.
Also "no firearms" means just that. No permitting concealed carry but excluding open carry.
Last edited:
johnny amish
Regular Member
I have to agree here. Why sign requirements? We all get upset because the government is telling us what we can and can't do, now we ask the government to tell a buisness owner what they must to do if they choose to not allow ccw in their stores, seems hypicritical to me. I see no sensible reason to ban ccw from a store but we all know some will. If we see any sign we should respect their wishes and go elsewhere. If we want limited government for ourselves then we must be willing to give it to others as well.