My fear/observations

[dac1842]

many employers ban weapons thinking that it reduces their liability. Back before the days of CHL it may have been true. However I am waiting for the day when a CHL holder who is employed by a company that bans weapons and the CHLer is not carrying due to his company policy is involved in a situation where had be been carrying he would have foreseeably been able to prevent or mitigate the event. But because of his employer's policy he is unarmed, unable to protect himself and is seriously injured. Would the employer be liable then?
Could get interesting.

[nils]

The whole walking to the door of the store is just a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event...and you're right...it does nothing to keep the store safe...somebodies been watching The Terminator too often...."I'll take the plasma rifle, and the uzi....the nine millimeter, and the pump shotgun"..."Hey, you can't load that here....HEY!!!!" BOOOOOOM!!!!!...yeah, that's reality.

[jsimmons]

I don't buy from local stores because the prices are generally 25% lower on the net. Examples:

Springfield 1911 GI - Local = $525-600, I got mine for $489 (+30 shipping and $20 FFL)
Springfield XD40 - Local = $550-600, I got mine for $410 (+25 shipping and $20 FFL)
Henry Frontier H001T .22 - Local = $369, I got mine for $299 (+25 shipping, 3% credit card fee, and $20 FFL)

I could go on...

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a Taurus PT1911 in Academy for $699 (!).

[rspeir]

I was told several years ago that the reason employees carry the guns for you until you are outside is they don't want you committing suicide inside the store. Don't remember who told me this or whether it's the truth.

[wford]

many employers ban weapons thinking that it reduces their liability. Back before the days of CHL it may have been true. However I am waiting for the day when a CHL holder who is employed by a company that bans weapons and the CHLer is not carrying due to his company policy is involved in a situation where had be been carrying he would have foreseeably been able to prevent or mitigate the event. But because of his employer's policy he is unarmed, unable to protect himself and is seriously injured. Would the employer be liable then?
Could get interesting.

This sounds like such a logical concept. However when I disucssed this with our corporate attorney(he wrote the workplace safety policy) he pretty much laughed at me
and said the company would not be at any risk for banning guns. I no longer work there and take great pleasure in packin whenever I go to visit. (no 30.06)