previous post next post  

Judgy bastard, ain't he?

S'okay, merchant. I don't want to spend any money with you.  No point in indirectly funding Sarah Brady et Cie.

I will abide by the sign, I"m polite that way - but I would wander in (were this in Kansas) and inform the merchant that his signage didn't meet the legal requirement, so his store might be full of gun-totin' douchebags.
But wait!

There's more!

The *merchant* is a victim of bullies!


I do business with those who want my business and those who do not insist that I endorse their political ideology.
People are just upset because they misread the sign. The very last word being it's own sentence shows that it's not an insult, it's a signature.
Ok, I'll bite: what's the legal requirement for such a sign in Kansas? Or South Carolina for that matter?

 Click here.  Essentially the sign has to be a certain type, posted within a certain area of visibility to be legal.  The pub owner could still have posted the sign he did - it just wouldn't be enforceable in Kansas in and of itself (he may have had other signs, the NYT article implies that he did).

Of course, if you're carrying properly, he isn't going to know, regardless, so it's only going to come up in the breach.





By law in Kansas, and in many other states, the only legal sign allowing you to deny access to concealed carriers is the standard red circle with a red slash as seen on European road signs with a picture of a gun in the center. It must be of a certain size. Wrong size, wrong color, wrong shape, political commentary and your sign is legally invalid.

Some store owners don't like this, as they find the picture of the gun "scary". It certainly is to the shopper since they are being informed that only criminals will be armed in this establishment.
The interesting thing about that sign, and the business-owner is that he has a CCW...