Banning guns could hurt business

August 19, 7:25 AMCleveland Gun Rights ExaminerDaniel White

Previous Next

8 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Ohio law allows any private business who chooses to prohibit guns on their property to put up a "no guns allowed" sign. Some do so because they don't like guns, some do it as a courtesy to notify gun owners that they serve alcohol so are off-limits under the Ohio Revised Code, and some do it because they have been mislead.

There are many ways for a business owner to be mislead on the issue of whether or not to ban guns in their business. Some have been told by lawyers or insurance providers that they will have addition liability if there is a shooting, whether accidental or in self-defense. This is simply not true. Section 2923.126(C)(2)(a) of the Ohio Revised Code grants all businesses immunity from any action taken by legal firearm carriers.

Some will counter with the claim that you can still sue anybody for just about anything. Perhaps, but the risk in that case is the same whether you choose to ban or allow guns. Many lawyers will tell you that you also run the risk of liability if you do ban guns and a patron is injured or killed during a criminal attack that he or she would have been able to fend off had you not prohibited them from carrying their firearm.

Sometimes, business owners are mislead by salesmen. An insurance salesman might claim there is additional liability in an attempt to sell a more expensive insurance plan. Some sign making companies have tried to claim the "no guns allowed" signs are required in order to sell those signs.

There have also been instances where anti-gun police officials have sent police officers around to all the businesses in town strongly suggesting they post such signs. This is personal prejudice on their part and might even be an abuse of authority and misuse of public funds to promote their agenda in such a way.

There is no requirement for a private business to post a sign banning guns, nor is there additional liability incurred if they do not. However, there are several things a business owner should take into consideration before making a decision to post such signs.

First, a large percentage of permit holders will not patronize any business that puts them up. While this only applies to 1-2% of the population, is it really a good idea in this economy to limit your customer base? It gets worse when you consider that those 1-2% have friends and family who will support their informal boycott. There are also those who do not have a concealed handgun license, yet support gun rights. You'd be at risk of losing those customers as well. In addition, there are millions of hunters in this country, and many of them might also take offense at such a sign.

Another consideration is that it could make your business more attractive to robbers. Consider this example: there are two convenience stores across the street from each other. One has a "no guns allowed" sign and the other does not. The first business might have an armed customer in it who is capable of killing the robber, the other bans guns ensuring everyone inside is disarmed. If you were a criminal, which target would you select? Obviously, someone bent on robbery isn't going to obey a sign saying they can't bring their gun inside, so who is really being stopped?

Every private business has the right to decide for themselves whether or not to put up a "no guns allowed" sign, but they should carefully consider the possible negative consequences of such an action.