This responsibility/liability concept could be a partial solution to concerns of “more businesses posting 30.06 signs”; be it for OC, campus carry, parking lot, or any other reason a business may be prompted to post the sign. If a business posts a 30.06 sign then they must have, and produce on authority demand, proof of liability insurance. This would be similar to the automotive liability insurance requirement.srothstein wrote:Embalmo wrote:If I understand you correctly, that is a false analogy. Shoes are designed to protect one's feet. Not allowing someone to carry concealed is like forcing people to go into your hardware store with no shoes and assume no responsibility when they step on a nail. I cannot understand how it can be someone else's right to decide if I can protect myself or family.frazzled wrote:I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.
I'm sure we all of understand that 30.06 mean "criminals welcome to carry weapons without fear of retribution".
Embalmo
Actually, I think it is a pretty good analogy, but backards. If it is my business, and I want to ban you for any reason, I should have that right. If I ban you because you are wearing shoes, I am responsible for any nails puncturing your feet. If i ban you because I don't like leather jackets, I am responsible for any abrasions you might suffer. If I ban you because I don't want you carrying a gun, I am responsible for any incidents where you could not protect yourself.
I own the property and I should have the right to say who or what is allowed on it.
Thanks & Have a Nice Day!