http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/12544531.html *
Dec. 16, 2007
VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: How many more will die in ‘gun-free’ zones before the media start asking why?
**Begin Quote***
If you frequent public buildings or work for an employer who bars you from carrying your otherwise legal self-defense weapon, consider advising your loved ones in writing that — in the event you should die under circumstances where you could have saved yourself and others with your handgun — you want the proprietor sued personally.
Guns save lives. Since banning guns costs lives, shouldn’t the individuals who ban self-defense — not the victimized taxpayers — pay the price?
***End Quote***
Seems only fair. The mall, that puts up a sign “no guns” and doesn’t protect its patrons, should be held financially liable. Remember the politicians, who push “victim disarmament”, like Mike Bloomberg on the NYC Subway, have an armed protective detail ensuring their safety.
# # # # #
Reinke Faces Life 
>The sign was gone the next week.
Texas’ Luby cafe lesson should encourage all to take the same tactic.
We need a self-organized response.
LikeLike
Under Texas law, most business owners can place a sign barring those with concealed carry licenses from entering with a weapon. Of course, it would only apply to someone who is willing to obey the sign.
Such a sign was posted at the hardware store that I have been doing business with for many years. I asked the owner what sort of security he was going to be providing for his customers. His response was that he wasn’t providing security.
I told him that he was rendering honest patrons defenseless. To make things worse, his sign was announcing to the world that his patrons were defenseless which is the same as painting a bull’s-eye on us. And yet he wasn’t taking any steps to protect us.
He responded that he was concerned that someone might come into the store with a weapon and injured one of his customers. That is why the Retail Merchants Association recommended that he put up the sign to reduce his liability.
I told him that in my opinion, the sign would have just the opposite effect. The sign won’t prevent any criminal from entering with a weapon. I told him that by requiring me to be defenseless; I think that he is obligated to defend me. If he doesn’t and I am attacked while on his property and suffer a loss, I will be looking to him for restitution and would take legal steps to get it.
The sign was gone the next week.
LikeLike