This Is Why Businesses Insist On Gun-Free Zones

gun-free zonesIn the wake of the recent theater shooting here in Lafayette, the usual gun fanatics have come out of the woodwork to claim the shooter chose the Grand 16 because it is part of a number of “gun-free zones.” Gov. Bobby Jindal, ever the opportunist, quickly came out and said that now was not the time to talk about gun laws, before announcing his opposition to “gun-free zones” one week later on CNN.

Like the gun fanatics he panders to, Bobby Jindal argues that the Second Amendment is possibly more important than private property rights, and that more guns in a dark and crowded theater is somehow a good idea.

Republican presidential hopeful Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.) said that people should be allowed to carry guns wherever they are, including movie theaters, one week after a gunman killed two people in a theater in his home state.

“I’m a big believer that where you are legally allowed to be, you should be able to have your Second Amendment rights as well,” he said Wednesday on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.”

“There are private property rights issues, I understand that. Somebody has a right to say what they want to do with their private property, but I think the fewer restrictions on law abiding citizens, the better for them and the better for our country.” (Source)

There has been a push over the last couple of years since the Sandy Hook school massacre and the rise of Open Carry Texas to allow guns in more and more places, with gun activists making it a point to openly carry firearms in places like Starbucks or Chipotle. As a result, many businesses have had to declare their properties to be “gun-free zones” in order to stop their stores from becoming gun nut rally spots. Corporations like Target have been dragged into the open carry gun debate, and they’re not too happy about it. Gun activists have also been successful in changing laws in a number of states, allowing for fewer restrictions on who is qualified to carry a gun, and where they can take that weapon.

While gun activists argue that “gun-free zones” are an invitation to criminals and that more guns in more places in the hands of more people is the answer, businesses don’t see it that way.

“It’s hard to imagine that the general counsel or anyone connected with managing the affairs of a large organization would accept a risk that could be so readily eliminated by the posting of ‘No Guns’ signs,” says Elliot Fineman, CEO of NGVAC. “Contrary to the gun rights’ characterization of ‘gun-free’ zones as dangerous and attractive to mass shooters, every major U.S. corporation bans guns in their headquarters—and gun violence there is rare to nonexistent.”

Currently five states including Kansas have passed laws that do not require permits and training for carriers and nine more have proposed legislation to do so.

“Given the analysis of the Kansas law, national and regional chains would be well advised to post ‘No Guns’ allowed signs,” said Fineman. (Source)

Businesses do not want weapons openly displayed, nor do they want a firefight breaking out between robbers and armed customers because of the legal implications. If a bystander were to be wounded or killed as a result of someone trying to play the hero over a few hundred dollars of cash in the register which would be written off as an operating loss anyhow, that company could be sued for millions of dollars and potentially have to declare bankruptcy. As someone who has worked in loss prevention, I can tell you that no store wants an individual, especially an untrained one, to turn their business into a shooting gallery which would result in it being shut down for the day or even days.

People who claim that “gun-free zones” are less safe have argued that prohibiting customers from carrying weapons that they could use to defend themselves should an incident occur could open up the business to a lawsuit. However, as far as I have been able to find, nobody has ever successfully litigated that in court. Just as a business has the right to dictate a dress code for employees or customers, they also have the right to tell people not to bring guns on their property.

If you feel that you are unsafe in a place that is a “gun-free zone,” you have the choice not to do business with them and go somewhere that doesn’t mind you toting your weapon around. For these companies, it’s not about ideology, it’s simply about protecting their bottom line.


Facebook comments

  • Eg Kbbs

    But I thought the mantra was that the decision on whether or not to allow weapons should be up to the business owner /snark.

    • Daniel Plotkin

      That was only when the gun nuts thought business would allow guns – please try to keep up.

    • Sieben Stern

      like republicans and states rights. they don’t mean that states can do as they like, it’s that the republicans can state the rights for the state when they disagree.
      ie yeb bush and pot in colorado!

  • Bob Harrow

    Paranoid little penis freaks..

    • Nom De Guerre

      Careful, your own fetish is showing.

  • Jim Bean

    Nevertheless, it is undeniable that what ended the shooting and killing in the Lafayette theater gun-free-zone was the introduction of a second gun into the event.

    We’ve seen this phenomenon repeat too many times to count. Can anything be learned from it?

    • BB-Mystic

      Well, not letting the mentally ill person have the gun in the first place would be a good lesson.

      • Jim Bean

        Who dropped the ball on that?

      • BB-Mystic

        Apparently he bought the gun legally at a pawn shop.

        I remember reading something about that however. Something about the waiting period, and his previous domestic violence conviction hadn’t been entered into the database and hadn’t shown up, which might have disqualified him from getting the gun. I can’t find the link though, so don’t quote me.

        In any event, this might be a good thing to consider going forward. After the Elliot Roger shooting in 2014, California enacted the Gun Violence Restraining Order.

        The GVRO is based on the same principle as a domestic violence restraining order. It would allow family members and/or law enforcement to go before a judge and request that guns be temporarily removed from an individual who is likely to be dangerous toward himself and/or others (while allowing for due process).

        Of course, all that would go along with things like universal background checks and better reporting requirements from states. The latter is actually legislation that Chuck Schumer just proposed.

      • Jim Bean

        That would mean that a woman who is having an affair and is pissed off at her husband for trying to get custody of the kids could go to court, claim (without any proof) that the husband threatened her, and he would have his gun rights revoked.

        ‘Due process’ frequently fails, as we see here.

        I don’t like it.

      • BB-Mystic

        That would mean that a woman who is having an affair and is pissed off at her husband for trying to get custody of the kids could go to court, claim (without any proof) that the husband threatened her, and he would have his gun rights revoked.
        That’s rather a wild supposition, isn’t it? Why would you even say anything like that? It’s far more likely that if a woman claims her significant other threatened her, he did just that.
        In any case, it really doesn’t matter if you like the law or not, since California already passed it. Good for them, in my opinion. (There are lots of reports in my state of estranged husbands or boyfriends hunting down and killing their wives.)

      • Jim Bean

        “It’s far more likely that if a woman claims her significant other threatened her, he did just that.”

        You obviously have no experience with failed partnerships.

  • 1968_Camaro

    Businesses have the right to make their locations gun-free. I would rather go into a gun free coffee shop and not worry about being shot at by some freak with a gun. Consumers have the right to support gun-free businesses. Gun nuts are violating the rights of our fellow human beings to not live in fear of being shot at. Sick of freaks walking in with assault rifles!

    • Allahu Akbar!

      Well if one does you will have no way to defend yourself and you can hide under the table and beg for your life.

      • BB-Mystic

        Or get caught in the crossfire between the supposed “good” guy and the bad guy and get killed anyway, I guess….

      • 1968_Camaro

        AMEN. NO guns is safer. The only people carrying should be police officers, who are trained in how to deal with a situation. Untrained yahoos with guns scare me and they violate MY right to enjoy life without fear of being shot at by a nut with a gun. Enough already. I am fed up with the NRA and gun nuts

  • Allahu Akbar!

    Fortunately in Iowa we can ignore those signs as long as our guns are concealed without fear of criminal prosecution unless it is Federal property of a correctional institution.

    • BB-Mystic

      If the business owner sees that you’re carrying a gun despite his request not to, can he insist that you leave? Or call the police and have you ejected? Because I would certainly kick your ass out if you strutted in my business ignoring my property rights.

    • 1968_Camaro

      Your profile picture tells it all. You are a nutjob. WHY the picture of Obama as bin Laden when Obama is the one who ordered the SEALS to get bin Laden!!?? Or do you not know this? If you don’t know that it’s Obama 1 bin Laden 0, go back under the rock under which you came.

      • Howard Sands

        I’ve seen him post his nonsense before. Based on what he says, he really is just a nut. He is just one of the FOX News sheep that acts and does what they say, rather than use common sense, which explains the picture you mentioned.