PDA

View Full Version : NO-GUN's sign = Corporate liability ?


ja308
07-20-2012, 11:50 AM
Recently I visted a tavern in wisconsin that had previously had a No weapons sign on the door .
I asked the bartender if the criminal's were not deterred by the sign and if that's why it was no longer displayed ?

He replied that if any one was victimsed with the no weapons sign on the door , he would be personally liable for any consequences.

Anyone else know anything about this doctrine?

AK all day
07-20-2012, 11:55 AM
No, if it's their property, they reserve the right to refuse firearms, and they would not be "liable". Still a stupid thing, so keep the sign down.

NoJoke
07-20-2012, 11:57 AM
As it should be!

Forcing law abiding people to be defenseless targets in a business that deals with the public, which includes nut jobs/criminals with guns - and they pay the price for the businesses irrational fear?

...oh, HELL YES! Law suit. (IMO)

...not a lawyer here. :rolleyes:

SilverTauron
07-20-2012, 12:15 PM
We live in litigious times.A business with a "no guns" sign can tell the tort lawyers 'hey,we banned guns on the premesis,so that business with Jim Criminal shooting the place up ain't our bad.Go sue him.'

jorgyusa
07-20-2012, 12:38 PM
It would seems to me that if a merchant denies a patron the right to defend them-self then there is an implication that the merchant is taking over that responsibility. Then if the patron is injured in the establishment during a crime, he might sue saying that since he was denied the ability to self defense the merchant is responsible.

I am not a lawyer but the reasoning makes sense to me.

morfeeis
07-20-2012, 12:41 PM
It would seems to me that if a merchant denies a patron the right to defend them-self then there is an implication that the merchant is taking over that responsibility. Then if the patron is injured in the establishment during a crime, he might sue saying that since he was denied the ability to self defense the merchant is responsible.

I am not a lawyer but the reasoning makes sense to me.
I wish we could use that same logic to sue CA

Connor P Price
07-20-2012, 12:42 PM
No, if it's their property, they reserve the right to refuse firearms, and they would not be "liable". Still a stupid thing, so keep the sign down.

Not so.

Wisconsin's fairly recent concealed carry laws have a clause that states that business owners may not be held liable for damages resulting from an attack if they allow firearms on their premises. If on the other hand they refuse to allow concealed firearms they may be held liable for disarming victims at their location.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-20-2012, 12:44 PM
It would seems to me that if a merchant denies a patron the right to defend them-self then there is an implication that the merchant is taking over that responsibility. Then if the patron is injured in the establishment during a crime, he might sue saying that since he was denied the ability to self defense the merchant is responsible.

I am not a lawyer but the reasoning makes sense to me.

Sorry, but seems wrong...

The patron at that point has the choice - right - to not enter the establishment, or to enter at his own risk.

A.W.D.

nicki
07-20-2012, 12:46 PM
If businesses want to tell "LAWFUL CITIZENS" that they can't discreetly carry licensed guns with them for self defense while they are at their business, then IMHO, they assume responsibility for personal safety.

If any of the people who were at the screening had a CCW permit, but left their guns in their cars, then IMHO, the corporate policy contributed to more deaths than needed.

I will probably go and say that the corporate policy may have contributed to their theater being selected as a target.

I don't know if such a lawsuit would go anywhere, but if nothing else, it would be good PR.

Nicki

Tack
07-20-2012, 12:53 PM
I think the issue centers on the fact that the merchant only put up a sign.

The merchant did not establish a secure physical perimeter to protect his patrons.
Entry to the secure space was not by locked, alarmed and monitored access.
He did not establish a gun check-in area with locked storage.
He did not have a guard question each patron and deliveryman.
He did not search each bag.
He did not pat down each patron and deliveryman.
He did not inspect each patron and deliveryman with a magnetometer.
He did not establish ballistic barriers behind which a patron could hide.
He did not have a plan to minimize risk to his patrons.
He did not train his staff on how to implement the plan and protect his disarmed patrons from an armed shooter.

The store owner increased his legal liability because he increased the vulnerability of his patrons when the owner only puts up a sign.

p7m8jg
07-20-2012, 12:59 PM
You can NEVER prophylactically (I love that word!) insulate yourself from a lawsuit. Even by signing a waiver. Heck, players in the NFL are suing the league because they got head injuries.

Really Sherlock? You hurt your head playing professional football? Who'd 'a thunk it!!!

Imagine: I put up a "bad dog" sign on my fence. Idiot comes into my yard. My bad dog bites them. Think I won't get sued? Hardly.

The signs are stupid. There's no immunity by having one. It protects nothing.

ja308
07-20-2012, 2:17 PM
Not so.

Wisconsin's fairly recent concealed carry laws have a clause that states that business owners may not be held liable for damages resulting from an attack if they allow firearms on their premises. If on the other hand they refuse to allow concealed firearms they may be held liable for disarming victims at their location.

Thank You for the clarification .
Reading your post I was reminded that elections have consequences and those who claim both parties are the same should re-read your post .

J.D.Allen
07-20-2012, 2:25 PM
I have always been of the opinion that stores, malls, restaurants etc. are not really "private property" for the purpose of the exercise of civil rights. They are really considered "public places" for many purposes. For example you cannot smoke in any public building in CA regardless of how the owner of the building feels about it. Also no such business could refuse to serve patrons because of their race. These types of places are obviously different from someone's home and should not have the option of banning the lawful carry of firearms.

Curley Red
07-20-2012, 2:39 PM
No guns allowed signs = Enter at your own risk.

NotEnufGarage
07-20-2012, 2:50 PM
It'll be interesting to see if the Aurora, CO theater massacre will become a test case for this. I believe the theater had no firearms signs posted.

As it stands, not having alarms on or someone monitoring the back doors could be a big liability issue for them.

ClarenceBoddicker
07-20-2012, 2:51 PM
Not every anti-gun corporation advertises that they are actively supporting the gun grabbers in the US.

What is so hypocritical is how so many gun owners on here happily give anti-gun corporations their own hard earned money. Hollywood is a prime example. They are fully anti-gun, yet use guns to sell their trash & so many gun owners lap it up. How many gun owners on here are actively boycotting Hollywood? I have not supported Hollywood since the early 1990's. I have not stepped foot in a theater, bought a movie from a retail store, paid to download, paid for cable or satellite or rented a movie since then. My money is not going to support SAG & all that Hollywood trash.

When I have the choice I will buy from a company that supports the 2A, even if it costs me more. I try to buy used or tax free as much as possible to not fund governments.

I for one don't understand why so many people in here are in love with large corporations, most of whom are anti-gun. Even the ones are are not actively anti-gun still push PC crap which is anti-gun in itself. Most large corporations are also anti-American as they ship US jobs overseas. They bribe politicians to give them trade & tax advantages so they can profit at the expense of working class Americans. Do the millions corporations spend on ads really brainwash people that well?

Fundamentals
07-20-2012, 3:07 PM
Do the millions corporations spend on ads really brainwash people that well?

Osmosis. You know how a commercial or radio ad comes on, and when you hear it enough, you know it, even though you never paid attention to it? That.

People tend to raise their intelligence when they skip such dribble and use that passive brainpower for something good, like listening to gun shots enough to determine what each individual one sounds like. ;)

DonFerrando
07-20-2012, 3:30 PM
Not so.

Wisconsin's fairly recent concealed carry laws have a clause that states that business owners may not be held liable for damages resulting from an attack if they allow firearms on their premises. If on the other hand they refuse to allow concealed firearms they may be held liable for disarming victims at their location.

Why don't politicians here think that far? Frustrating...

ja308
07-20-2012, 4:06 PM
Why don't politicians here think that far? Frustrating...

Check out which party controlls the entire Cali state govt :(

BTW it took republican governor Scott walker election to get the CCW.
Former democratic governor Diamond Jim Doyle vetoed and twisted arms NOT to sign CCW:confused:

Scott Connors
07-20-2012, 5:09 PM
It would seems to me that if a merchant denies a patron the right to defend them-self then there is an implication that the merchant is taking over that responsibility. Then if the patron is injured in the establishment during a crime, he might sue saying that since he was denied the ability to self defense the merchant is responsible.

I am not a lawyer but the reasoning makes sense to me.

IIRC, there was a law journal article discussing the potential liability that businesses incurred when they posted "No Weapons, even legal ones" signs. The argument was that, by denying their customers the ability to defend themselves from attack, the business was assuming the responsibility to protect them, and the accompanying liability.

Does this ring a bell with any of our Solons? Also, are there are decisions that state explicitly that declaring your business a gun-free zone (ie, safe work environment for scumbags) does not incur such liability?

GettoPhilosopher
07-20-2012, 5:45 PM
Recently I visted a tavern in wisconsin that had previously had a No weapons sign on the door .
I asked the bartender if the criminal's were not deterred by the sign and if that's why it was no longer displayed ?

He replied that if any one was victimsed with the no weapons sign on the door , he would be personally liable for any consequences.

Anyone else know anything about this doctrine?

It has to do with Wisconsin's laws specifically.
http://gazettextra.com/news/2011/nov/03/businesses-liability-issue-when-considering-whethe/

thebronze
07-20-2012, 7:23 PM
No, if it's their property, they reserve the right to refuse firearms, and they would not be "liable". Still a stupid thing, so keep the sign down.


Oh really? How do you figure?



Answer: OF COURSE they'd be liable.

choprzrul
07-20-2012, 7:42 PM
No guns allowed signs = Enter at your own risk.

No guns allowed signs = Store assuming responsibility for your personal security.

.

dantodd
07-20-2012, 8:10 PM
I have always been of the opinion that stores, malls, restaurants etc. are not really "private property" for the purpose of the exercise of civil rights. They are really considered "public places" for many purposes. For example you cannot smoke in any public building in CA regardless of how the owner of the building feels about it. Also no such business could refuse to serve patrons because of their race. These types of places are obviously different from someone's home and should not have the option of banning the lawful carry of firearms.

I think the term you are looking for is "public accommodation." There is certainly the argument that someone exercising their 2A right by lawfully carrying a gun can no more be denied service than someone exercising their 1A right by wearing a Rosary. Or someone exercising their 1A rights by carrying a book in their backpack.

snowdog650
07-20-2012, 8:28 PM
No, if it's their property, they reserve the right to refuse firearms, and they would not be "liable". Still a stupid thing, so keep the sign down.

No. You are wrong. I am from Wisconsin originally, and my CCW-carrying brother still lives there.

Wisconsin state law says that if a business prohibits weapons ... and there is an incident in which a CCW licencee is not permitted to carry and they are injured/killed in that business ... and it can be articulated that licencee would have had a better chance to go uninjured or not get killed had they been able to carry ... then the business is laible for the damages to the said CCW licencee.

The way it should be.

snowdog650
07-20-2012, 8:29 PM
Not so.

Wisconsin's fairly recent concealed carry laws have a clause that states that business owners may not be held liable for damages resulting from an attack if they allow firearms on their premises. If on the other hand they refuse to allow concealed firearms they may be held liable for disarming victims at their location.

Or ... ^^^^ ... what he said.

Connor P Price
07-20-2012, 10:37 PM
It'll be interesting to see if the Aurora, CO theater massacre will become a test case for this. I believe the theater had no firearms signs posted.

As it stands, not having alarms on or someone monitoring the back doors could be a big liability issue for them.

Colorado doesn't have a statute like Wisconsin's that would create liability for the business. I imagine any lawsuit would have to allege negligence, which is unlikely in this case I'd think. I don't know of any theaters that actively monitor their theaters rear emergency exit doors.

Why don't politicians here think that far? Frustrating...

Not just here. To my knowledge Wisconsin is the only state with a law like this one, its possible that there are others that I'm unaware of but I'd wager that their numbers are quite small if so.

vincewarde
07-20-2012, 11:10 PM
No, if it's their property, they reserve the right to refuse firearms, and they would not be "liable". Still a stupid thing, so keep the sign down.

This is an open question that to my knowledge has never been litigated. I believe that it's something we need to fight for.

The reason is simple: If the antis succeed in convincing large number of businesses that a "no guns allowed" sign is the safe way to go - then shall issue or even may issue CCW becomes meaningless. If you can't drive into a parking lot, if you can't enter a store, if you can't stop for gas while carrying - then your CCW isn't worth much.

I believe in private property rights. If I don't want you carrying in my house or yard that's clearly my right - and you can choose not to visit me. Although I would never do so, if I wanted to I could also ban people of a particular race.

If I open a business on my property, things change. For instance I can't ban people in protected groups.

Let me suggest an example: In a small town, the only grocery store and gas station decides to put up a "no guns allowed" sign. There are no other stores for a great distance. A single mother lives in the community and basically has no choice but to patronize this business, at least some of the time of gas and milk for her kids. Her ex has threatened her and she has a restraining order against him, and on advice of law enforcement, she has obtained a CCW. She carries whenever she can, but before going to this store for milk or gas, she disarms. One day her ex confronts her there, the police are called but before they arrive he overpowers and kills her and kidnaps her child. Still think they are on solid ground?

Not only do they have a PR problem, this kind of incident would certainly make a good test case.

BigDogatPlay
07-21-2012, 9:55 AM
This is an open question that to my knowledge has never been litigated. I believe that it's something we need to fight for.

We might want to, but in most locales I still believe that private property rights will trump.

The Wisconsin statute is, as I understand it, somewhat unique in attaching the potential of liability to a business / property owner who refuses to allow carry on their premise in the event of injury to an LTC patron barred by the property owner's policy. I absolutely expect that to be litigated at some point down the road, should an incident happen that falls in the criteria defined by the statute. I fear that portion of the statute might not stand.

As a business owner you have a right to refuse service in your store, office, etc. A "place of public accommodation" is a somewhat different story, although (as I understand it) the refusal of service in such a place just may not be based on race, gender, orientation, religion, etc. Service can still be refused in some instances.

LTC is, in the majority of states, a licensed activity, not a true right in the narrowest definition. A business / property owner who excludes licensed carry is not (IMO) interfering with a right under the law as it currently exists.

kcbrown
07-21-2012, 10:22 PM
We live in litigious times.A business with a "no guns" sign can tell the tort lawyers 'hey,we banned guns on the premesis,so that business with Jim Criminal shooting the place up ain't our bad.Go sue him.'

He can. And the tort lawyers can retort by saying that in placing the sign, the business advertised its customers' defenselessness, and thereby exposed their customers to increased risk of attack from any predator looking for easy prey..

kaligaran
07-22-2012, 12:50 AM
I don't see how it could make the business liable because those signs are not legally binding as long as that type of establishment isn't restricted on the LTC itself and not one of the few exceptions such as federal buildings, secure areas of airports, etc etc.

The only legal action that a business could take would be tresspassing if they ask a customer that was carrying to leave and then they refused (this could happen with or without a sign up). But carrying concealed should mean the business would be none-the-wiser and have no reason to ask you to leave.

CDFingers
07-22-2012, 5:06 AM
It turns out that the Theater where the shootings took place, the theaters that prohibit guns, is owned in part by Bain Capital.

quotes:

>They blame Landmark Theater using the Second Amendment, because the corporation created a rule that prohibits carrying a concealed weapon as a condition to enter into their theater, according to a conservative pro-gun lobby group USA Carry. Yet further research into the ownership of said theater company brings up some interesting facts…it’s owned by some pretty conservative groups like: Bain Capital, J.P. Morgan Partners, the Carlyle Group and Spectrum Equity Investors, to name a few.

>Bain Capital? Mitt Romney Bain Capital? Yes. Under these major investors, the guidelines were created regarding the conditions under which people may enter into their theaters.

link:

http://www.politicususa.com/wingers-threat-gun-owners-liberals.html

The article links to this page, showing that ownership connection:

http://www.investor.amctheatres.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=166601

Corporations seek unarmed patrons.

Corporations are not your friend.

Corporations are not people but legal entities not at all interested in your right to self defense.

CDFingers

IVC
07-22-2012, 7:17 AM
I don't see how it could make the business liable because those signs are not legally binding as long as that type of establishment isn't restricted on the LTC itself and not one of the few exceptions such as federal buildings, secure areas of airports, etc etc.

ANY action by ANY business can be litigated to determine whether there is any liability. There are few exceptions, but those had to be legislated as such. For example, due to Bloomberg's agenda of "litigating to bankruptcy," gun manufacturers are explicitly protected from these types of frivolous lawsuits.

The more "out of ordinary" the sign or rule, the more it's open to spin by either party.

IVC
07-22-2012, 7:17 AM
Most large corporations are also anti-American as they ship US jobs overseas.

Off topic. Shipping jobs overseas was the only way to escape the iron grip of unions and progressive taxation. No different than Boeing shipping jobs from WA to NC, or Goldman Sachs shipping jobs from NYC to Salt Lake City. No different than high income earners living in PA and working in NJ.

Freedom to conduct business without being held hostage by locality is very American. Anyone who wants the jobs and businesses back needs only make their locality competitive and appealing. Calling successful people "fat cats," calling for "fair tax share" from those who already support the country, saying that it's the government who is responsible for one's success and generally demonizing success is not the way to get anything.

Demonicspire
07-22-2012, 4:06 PM
I don't think it's a big deal, it's private property and they can do what they want with it. I personally wouldn't take a gun into someone's property when they said "no guns", it's just plain impolite. No one is forcing you to go in, so if you feel unsafe, don't patronize that establishment.

I don't think it increases/decreases anyone's liability any more than "no shirt no shoes no service" does. Both are instructions relating to the rules of the establishment, not laws.

nicki
07-22-2012, 5:17 PM
The "No Guns" signs came in a response to many states passing laws allowing law abiding citizens, the kinds who passed background checks and took training to get permits to carry.

People carry guns for one main reason, self defense. When you go into an area and you are denied your tools to defend yourself, then IMHO, it isn't a stretch to say that you as a business take on responsibility to ensure the safety of their customers.

Mass shootings have happened and they have been studied by both police and security experts, the bottom line is mass shooters keep shooting until they commit suicide or somebody who is armed confronts them.

I hope someone in Colorado starts a lawsuit, it should be only for 1 dollar to encourage Cinemark to not only quickly cave, but set up the rest of corporate America that if they continue with their gun free zones, that they will be held liable for injuries caused by their policies.

Nicki

kcbrown
07-22-2012, 5:43 PM
Off topic. Shipping jobs overseas was the only way to escape the iron grip of unions and progressive taxation. No different than Boeing shipping jobs from WA to NC, or Goldman Sachs shipping jobs from NYC to Salt Lake City. No different than high income earners living in PA and working in NJ.

Freedom to conduct business without being held hostage by locality is very American. Anyone who wants the jobs and businesses back needs only make their locality competitive and appealing. Calling successful people "fat cats," calling for "fair tax share" from those who already support the country, saying that it's the government who is responsible for one's success and generally demonizing success is not the way to get anything.

Then they should stop running to momma (the U.S. government) whenever someone infringes on their "property rights" (be said property real, intellectual, or otherwise).

If corporations wish to escape the disadvantages of operating in the United States, then they should freaking go all the way and move their entire operation, including their traded stock and their headquarters, elsewhere. If they want to hire labor primarily (if not exclusively) in China, then they should give up the "intellectual property" protection that being based in the U.S. affords them, and satisfy themselves with the "protections" that China gives them.

People in the U.S. can't pick and choose which country's laws to operate under while residing here in the U.S. Why should corporations be exempt from that? Actually, the better question is: why should people in the U.S. be hamstrung by laws with respect to going after jobs while corporations aren't limited in that way with respect to going after labor?


So real problem is lack of freedom of the people. People in the U.S. aren't free to go elsewhere in the world to compete for jobs because they run smack into immigration laws (and possibly other limiting factors), but corporations are free to go elsewhere in the world to compete for labor to fill the jobs they have. That's not a problem unique to the people in the U.S. by any means -- it is worldwide.

Corporations have more freedom than people in some ways.

BigDogatPlay
07-22-2012, 5:53 PM
It turns out that the Theater where the shootings took place, the theaters that prohibit guns, is owned in part by Bain Capital.

So then is your assertion that Bain, and the other corporations you name, wrote the corporate policy regarding no guns in the company's theater properties?

Bain, JP Morgan Chase, etc. are stockholders, just the same as you or I would be if we happen to own common stock of that company in our portfolio. Those investment houses just happen to own larger pieces than you or I would under normal circumstances. If you did own that stock then, by the logic of your cited example, you are also personally responsible for the policy. Does that sound right to you?

The corporation, through it's officers, is responsible for corporate policy. If you can prove that Bain or one of the other institutional investors named actually directed that policy, then I'll say you were right. But that is not how corporations, and corporate governance, work. And I am willing to make a small wager that there is no such proof.

IVC
07-22-2012, 6:27 PM
If corporations wish to escape the disadvantages of operating in the United States, then they should freaking go all the way and move their entire operation, including their traded stock and their headquarters, elsewhere. If they want to hire labor primarily (if not exclusively) in China, then they should give up the "intellectual property" protection that being based in the U.S. affords them, and satisfy themselves with the "protections" that China gives them.

That's exactly how it works. They do go "all the way." Many of them are incorporated in other countries. They keep their entire operations off shore and only that portion of the profit is not repatriated. What's used in the US is also taxed in the US.

Give credit where credit is due and don't give credit where it's not due. If you buy something on Amazon, do you believe CA provides you with "infrastructure and protection" enough that they are due the sales tax? Keep in mind that the carriers (FedEx/UPS) already pay CA for the use of the infrastructure for shipping. Even CA cannot claim that we are paying the government for the nice weather they provide...

Kappy
07-22-2012, 6:57 PM
One is not required to use said establishment. Now... my problem is with the government not allowing you to enter a federal installation. Remember the soldiers shot by Nidal Malik Hasan? What if I were to go into a post office, like I intend to tomorrow, and disarm, as I will also do... and I get shot inside during a hold-up?

Or... let's move past that... let's say I'm subpoenaed and have to appear in court? Or if I have to go to jury duty?

kcbrown
07-22-2012, 8:39 PM
That's exactly how it works. They do go "all the way." Many of them are incorporated in other countries. They keep their entire operations off shore and only that portion of the profit is not repatriated. What's used in the US is also taxed in the US.


If that's the case, then what you're saying is that there is no advantage at all to being incorporated in the United States versus somewhere else, right?


In any case, I most certainly agree that we have multiple problems here, including taxes that are far too high (on everyone!). I think as far as what's happening here in the U.S. to jobs, the free market will eventually take care of the problem, but it's going to be very painful for the people who live here in the U.S. (and not terribly painful for the corporations that are based here).

TRICKSTER
07-22-2012, 9:23 PM
It turns out that the Theater where the shootings took place, the theaters that prohibit guns, is owned in part by Bain Capital.

quotes:

>They blame Landmark Theater using the Second Amendment, because the corporation created a rule that prohibits carrying a concealed weapon as a condition to enter into their theater, according to a conservative pro-gun lobby group USA Carry. Yet further research into the ownership of said theater company brings up some interesting facts…it’s owned by some pretty conservative groups like: Bain Capital, J.P. Morgan Partners, the Carlyle Group and Spectrum Equity Investors, to name a few.

>Bain Capital? Mitt Romney Bain Capital? Yes. Under these major investors, the guidelines were created regarding the conditions under which people may enter into their theaters.

link:

http://www.politicususa.com/wingers-threat-gun-owners-liberals.html

The article links to this page, showing that ownership connection:

http://www.investor.amctheatres.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=166601

Corporations seek unarmed patrons.

Corporations are not your friend.

Corporations are not people but legal entities not at all interested in your right to self defense.

CDFingers

Nice try, can you show any more ignorance and bias. Affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, along with several other companies, invested in the theater in 2005. They invested (as in stockholders).
Romney was no longer with Bain in 2005.

This is the 3rd or 4th thread that you have posted this garbage in, and it is probably one of the most bias and misleading post that you have ever made and that's saying a lot.

CDFingers
07-23-2012, 3:43 AM
My biggest rant is against corporations who, as noted, are beholden to stockholders, who actually own the company.

How is it that such a small, unelected group (stockholders) can agree that patrons must give up their rights as a privilege of being able also to give their money to that same corporation?

It is cute that Romney was involved tangentially and likely made pots of money from those rights being taken away, but he is not the main point.

The main point is that money can take away your rights. Corporations have more power over your rights than you do.

Corporations require regulation to prevent our rights being taken away.

I say it's way past time to reduce the power of corporations over us. It's been done before. We need do it again (unless people enjoy their corporate overlords...).

CDFingers

chezum
07-23-2012, 5:03 AM
The sign would not be an issue in California. If you are packing you shouldn't even get to the front door of a TAVERN!

While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
· Consume any alcoholic beverage.
· Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.

ja308
07-23-2012, 7:06 AM
The sign would not be an issue in California. If you are packing you shouldn't even get to the front door of a TAVERN!

While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
· Consume any alcoholic beverage.
· Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.

I believe the wisconsin law requires CCW folks to NOT consume alcohall when deciding to be armed .
I canot think of a reason to restrict someone from getting a sandwich and diet coke just because they would choose to be safe and protected .

The term "packing" is a media invented word to negatively portray those who would select self defense over a victim mentality :D

IVC
07-23-2012, 8:58 AM
If that's the case, then what you're saying is that there is no advantage at all to being incorporated in the United States versus somewhere else, right?

Correct. Any large corporation is underneath a set of smaller subsidiaries anyway. They are optimized for local laws/regulations, business continuity and profits. These days even small business owners have several corporations to avoid being locked in and exploited by localities.

Once the world is global and the locality doesn't command any premium, the chant of "tax the rich" becomes "tax the stupid."