No Gun signs and law suit potential?

Store owners can set the rules as long as they don’t discriminate. No shoes protects the store owner in case somebody gets their foot cut on something in their store. A gun is a tool used for protection. If a person needs a cane or crutches to keep them from falling, a store would not be allowed to discriminate against them. I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure unless someone is brandishing a firearm a store owner cannot keep them from coming in their store.


Good luck with that discrimination theory. In America – at least for now – property owners can say who is allowed or is not allowed on their property and set the conditions upon which the public may enter their premises.

You may remember the Colorado cake decorator case that made it’s way to the Supreme Court. A gay couple complained that the decorator discriminated against them by refusing to decorate their wedding cake. They lost because businesses are not required to serve them unless the business is some sort of common carrier/public utility with a legal obligation to serve.

Businesses have a right to refuse service or set the conditions upon which people can enter the business. That’s the nature of private property, although leftists are working hard to change that.


I am referring to discriminating against someone carrying a legal firearm in a public place of business.

1 Like

Businesses are Private Property. That’s where they get the authority to limit who enters their establishment and under what conditions. I’ll add, when talking about “public place”, many are gun free by law, especially the Public Government Properties.


This is very true; and too many people don’t pay attention; all the STATES have different Laws. As someone who is armed one should know the Law of the State they live in and ones they visit. These Laws pertain to any issue of guns, self defense, stand you ground, citizens arrest, use of deadly force, assault, and on and on. In many States and here in Indiana just warning some one you have a gun is assault. If you own a gun you should learn the Laws as they pertain to you. When you go on any Federal Property that is a different ball game altogether and really complicated with severe penalties for white tax paying Americans. Basically the Federal Government and many of the States do not recognize your right to be armed. This really gets complicated when hunting is allowed on some Federal and some state owned lands. What is permitted in some areas would get you in serious trouble in in a different State. How one would research all this is beyond me. Here is just one example: in Florida you may hunt in the National Forest and there are supervised shooting ranges on one or two that you may use. But, it is against the State of Florida Law for you to go out in the woods and set up some beer cans and shoot at them. If you do it in the NF the NF Federal COPs will get you. In Alaska you may go out in the National Forest away from designated and posted areas and shoot at beer cans all day long and no one will bother you but if you do the same thing on some Alaska government lands you will be arrested. I know of other examples but this is too long as it is.


I would rather be assured being prohibited wouldn’t happen than assume it will.

You need to segment these out.

Government buildings you have no recourse.

Private property or businesses, difficult maybe even impossible to hold accountable since it’s THEIR property and you don’t HAVE TO go in there.

But in my mind an employee denying me a right, that the state had affirmed by giving me a legal license to do so, because they just feel like it? I was willing to test that one to whatever extent it took. BUT they backed out… so…


Great post Derek35. One of my favorite topics. I support the idea of more 2A rights for customers, patrons and employees. I realize the uphill battle it would be, and respect those who would challenge the status quo of such prohibition. When it comes to our safety, I’m with you.

I can have in my state a CCW/CCL carry law, allowing me. However, when there are so many, dozens of little laws prohibiting me, then do I really even have a right to carry?

Good, responsible people at risk of a misdemeanor or a felony?; Something is not right.

I tend to use the term 2A more loosely nowadays, it’s just easier for me, when talking about firearm rights per se.

2A Support organizations:

When I first started out owning, I joined all the organizations I could find, about six of them. From national, to state, and even city level.

Since then, there are some I admit I’m not crazy about, so I didn’t renew with all of them. However, most all of them were able to still keep me on their emailing list, so I learn about policy making.

Therefore, I’d encourage everyone, if you have not yet done so, please consider becoming a member for several, for at least one year first, then see how you like it.

Remember, the NRA also has state chapters one can join separately.

I found that some, including the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), both regularly email useful legal information including Bills, and connected me to my state legislature with a very user friendly way I can sign petitions which go to legislators - some where I can oppose, some where I can support. And, one can even see/count the number of petitions for or against, and on some cases I was pleased to see just how many more in my state whom sided with me - taking the pro rights stance per se.

Mind you, on that one, my name is made public on the petition, but there I don’t mind, as for me, it’s that important.

Thank you all. In support.


In Tennessee, it has the force of law. The statue number is often printed on the No Weapons Allowed sign


If a business or establishment posts a GFZ sign, I do not enter and refuse to conduct business there. This thread is an interesting discussion, however.


In my opinion, I stop and notice the sign, and I still enter. This is why it’s called concealed carry. If done properly no one will know you are carrying. If it turns into a bad situation and have to use my weapon, I will take the fine. I live in Illinois and I believe this can happen 3 or 4 times before they pull your permit.
I just don’t fuss about it. Granted I am only talking about stores and such, I do not bring a CCW into a government facility, Hospital , etc…


Any place of business has a duty to provide a safe place for a customer to lawfully visit, if they do not provide that, a safe place, clean floors no slip and falls, improperly stored stock etc they can be held liable for a customers injuries,

However by restricting your right to lawful self defense they have assumed a extraordinary responsibility for your safety.

I ran into this years back with a major communications company I worked for, they posted signs prohibiting the possession of any weapons on company property, some guys went to the Union and where told get over it company policy.

I sent a certified letter to corporate asset protection informing them due to their new policy should any harm come come my way due to their disarming me where under state law I was lawfully allowed to carry a firearm I or my heirs would hold the company fully responsible for my injuries.

I week or so later the signs came down and the notice on the company bulletin board was removed.

Shortly after I was called into a meeting with corporate asset protection who made it quite clear they where not pleased with my attitude and hinted I should not be bringing a firearm to work, I reminded (security) I am licensed to carry a firearm and I would continue to do so.

They backed off, later I was advised by a manager to “back off and stop the war” and everything will be forgotten, I backed off, they backed further off and after no one in management ever wanted to notice if any of us where carrying at work which I knew many of the crew did and sincerely appreciated what I did even though I was more or less self serving at the time I did it.

It raised he** and my guess was corporate legal advised security to chill and leave us alone, they where skating on thin ice should something happen to one of us out in the field and they where now aware of that and couldn’t deny receiving my notice.


I prefer “don’t ask, don’t tell” mind set but it would be interesting to think about the flip side legalities if “Guns allowed” signs were posted. In that scenario, is the business or employer held responsible for everyone’s safety?


That’s kind of like asking “Utah is a constitutional carry state, if I get shot is it the governments fault”?


That’s an interesting point. In CA, in response to the Bruen decision, the idiots in Sacramento are trying to push through a bill that would declare most places as “sensitive areas” where you can no longer carry, even in the parking lot. But some of those locations are being listed as, “…unless there are signs clearly posted stating that firearms are allowed.” If the bill passed, and someone posted such a sign, are they now liable if something happened?


I’m glad someone else decided to fight. As I said, I think more corporations would back off if their employees would push back. The point is valid.


I guess it depends on the company. The last company that I worked for was very skilled at terminating employees. It was like there was a branch in legal who developed a massive playbook on how to terminate employees without the company getting sued. And the official reason for termination frequently didn’t match the actual reason for termination. I wouldn’t have had any leverage on a right to carry battle.

I’m so glad I don’t work there anymore.


Regular CCW person made a choice.

If regular CCW person believes not carrying a gun puts their life on the line, regular CCW person can and should choose not to patronize that business.

Private property Rights are a thing. Vote with your feet and your wallet, don’t go there.

Also, if we can sue because disarmed per the policy, then having a policy that allows concealed carry…can business be sued when regular CCW person has an ND or a missed shot and harms or kills an innocent? Why not? Business let them have the gun…is business not then responsible for the outcome of their policy being followed?


This brings up an interesting question; why haven’t any of the parents of victims in school shootings sued the school (system, administrations, boards, etc.) for failing to protect their children? Or has that actually occurred and been shot down? Seems to me that instead of emotionally trying to just ban guns altogether, they should be pushing for the actual protection of their kids by training and arming teachers and school officials.


I suppose that is an interesting question. But the question then becomes, is it the school’s duty to guarantee protection from criminal actors?

Also poses the question, if the school allowed armed teachers/officials/etc, and a criminal actor injured or killed a student or students anyway, would the school still be liable and sued for failing to guarantee the protection?

Why or why not?