Instpundit on Omaha shootings

The fact remains that "gun free" zones don't really exist for criminals. I'd wager that they exist in places like shopping malls because the owners want to demonstrate that they were making the place safe by banning guns. We know that it has the exact opposite effect, but from a liability perspective I'm guessing the operator of a faciity that experiences a shooting incident would risk more liability if they had not designated the facility gun free when they could.

And sadly, as demonstrated recently in Omaha, it's all over by the time the "authorized" guns get there. I think it's high time we hold the operators of a "gun free" zone responsible for not protecting their patrons.

On a recent business trip, I found myself invited out to eat at a restaurant.

Per state law (this was in Texas), there was a sign posted at the entrance to the restaurant stating that carrying a concealed firearm was a felony on the premises.

While I didn't do so at the time, I now wish that I had asked to speak to the manager about protection on the restaurant property.

If I was not allowed to bring my own self-protection weapon, would the restaurant be capable of providing it should the need arise?

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. Doesn't the declaration of 'gun free zone' imply some kind of guarantee?

I think if such declaration is made, the declarer should be required to take some sort of precautions. For example, an airplane is 'gun free' and airport security does quite a bit to ensure that.

I don't know about you, but I hate the mall as it is...if I had to go through TSA-like security...forget it.

One could certainly argue that if a facility, in this case a shopping mall, has a policy that forbids the lawful carry of firearms, then that facility has the duty to reasonably provide for the safety/security of its customers. They would have to sterilize the inside of the mall similar to the sterilized areas of airports.

If they do not, then they are allowing [i]only[/i] the illegal carry of weapons. Read that again. Unless they can reasonably guarantee that there are no weapons within the facility (through the use of metal detectors etc,) then they are forbidding the lawful carry, and permitting only the unlawful carry, of weapons.

Per state law (this was in Texas), there was a sign posted at the entrance to the restaurant stating that carrying a concealed firearm was a felony on the premises.

The best thing to do is to go to another restaurant that doesn't insult and fear it's customers.

If you can't do that -
"Thank the waitress and/or the manager for accepting full responsibility for your safty while you are in their restaurant."

If something happens be sure and sue, thats the only thing those idiots understand.

"The best thing to do is to go to another restaurant that doesn't insult and fear it's customers."

You would probably find that the restriction is law not policy. If the restaurant serves alcohol they get caught up in those restrictions. It gets pretty strange sometimes, way back in the 90s, while waiting I read the "official" notice in a restaurant in Seattle. Seems the law bans the carrying of guns, knives and strangely, forks, among other things in places that serve alcohol. It was apparently okay for them to supply you with a fork

"Per state law (this was in Texas), there was a sign posted at the entrance to the restaurant stating that carrying a concealed firearm was a felony on the premises."

If your visit was in the past 10 years, you should have read the sign more closely. It says that the UNLICENSED possession of a handgun on the premises is a felony. Only bars that serve more alcoholic beverages than food (measured by revenue) are required to ban handguns altogether.

Either way, the sign is a statement of state law, and is a required to be posted (a condition of their license to serve alcoholic beverages). The manager/owner doesn't have a choice whether to post that particular sign.