“Gun Free Zones” Here’s a Crazy Idea…

I’ve been concealed carrying for a few years now. Definitely not an expert, but long enough to see the challenges, contradictions, and uneven laws that exist state to state. Here some of my observations:

  • I live in SC, but travel to other states often. In SC, the “no concealable weapons” signs have the force of law. However, many of the places that ban guns do not have any methods to screen individuals upon entry, which means that criminals can easily break the law with little chance of being caught. However, as someone that supports the law, I have reservations about carrying in these places.
  • Although I do not have hard data, it is evident that many (if not most) of media reported mass shootings occur in areas that prohibit concealed carry (schools, malls, nightclubs, etc). These areas are clearly targeted by mass shooters.
  • Other “hardened” areas that have screening measures to prohibit guns (like airports, courthouses, amusement parks, concerts) seem to have a much lower incidence of shootings. Personally, I am more comfortable with not carrying in these areas, since it is much harder for criminals to get guns into these areas.

So, here is my proposal:

  1. Organizations that wish to prohibit guns on their premises (with the force of law) would be required to implement security measures to screen people upon entering their property (searches, x-ray, etc.)
  2. If an organization chooses to post “no concealed weapons” signs without any screening measures in place, they can still “trespass” someone found with a weapon, but it would not be a crime for the person carrying, unless the individual refused to leave when asked.

I realize that any solution like this would require significant resources, and there may be some legal pitfalls. However, it would “even the playing field”. Currently, law abiding people are at a disadvantage, because the “gun free zone” laws in many states favor criminals. Seems to me that criminals select places that they do not expect to receive any “return fire”.

Maybe I’m restating the obvious, but wanted to put it out there. Any thoughts? Thanks!


I think the answer is to get the laws change. The people who are afraid of guns want something in return for letting you exercise your 2A right. This is what we have to fight legally.


Agreed. Just seems that all proposed gun control legislation just takes away from people that already follow laws. We need laws that make it more difficult for criminals


Three strikes? Oh never mind I think Illinois already has that


Saw Mr Crenshaw on CNN as they tried to bait him on gun control. It did not go well for CNN & their agenda.


There are countless law or rights we have to protect our selves against criminals we need to learn how to exercise them.


Could you elaborate?

Agreed. It just seems that the exclusions / exceptions on concealed carry is an area for improvement for legislation.


What the Three Strikes Rule Does

Three Strike defendants exist when they have two previous strikes, or convictions, of serious or violent felonies, and their third strike is also a serious or violent felony. The result of conviction is a sentence of 25 years to life.

If your third strike isn’t a serious or violent offense, your sentencing will be double that of what the sentencing would usually be for that felony. Sometimes, receiving a third strike for a felony that is neither serious nor violent can still give you a sentence of 25 years to life.

The three strikes rule also punishes those who receive a second strike. A second-strike felony can also have a doubled sentence.



That’s how it is here, with the exception of the obvious like Federal Property, Psych Wards etc…

1 Like


1 Like

“Federal property, psych wards…” Aren’t these things pretty much identical?