Come on in, and bring your gun

[beevul]

Come on in, and bring your gun

At least one Rosemount business has open arms to welcome anyone who chooses to go armed.

For the past month, a sign outside Rosemount Saw and Tool’s South Robert Trail location has featured information about the business on one side and on the other side has read, “We welcome armed customers!”

Owner Gary Betters said the sign is a reaction to the signs banning weapons that started going up after the Minnesota legislature approved a concealed carry law in 2003. That law eliminated some of the barriers to getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon but allowed businesses to post signs banning guns.

The way Betters sees it, though, it’s not the people who get licensed to carry a gun he has to worry about.

http://www.rosemounttownpages.com/event/article/id/23628/group/News/

Hat tip to Mr. Betters.

[proteus_lives]

1. If I'm ever in those parts, I'll make sure to buy something there!

Good on ya Mr. Betters!

[Katya Mullethov]

2. For immediate release

My insurance agent/African guide buddy , the grinning, 4-bore toatin' Faux Fudd that he is , requested I post these at the entrance to my business . I complemented him on being a sport , and obliged .

[PavePusher]

5. Ooooo.... Where can I get that?! n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

7. Look

In your inbox

[taurus145]

9. I want one, too!

Pretty please. With sugar and sprinkles and everything else good on top.

[Katya Mullethov]

10. Here's a big one you can right click "save as"

Note this is not a suggestion or a rule to be ignored , it is in fact a warning .

[aikoaiko]

3. Store owner: "... it’s not the people who get licensed to carry a gun he has to worry

He is correct.

[taurus145]

4. I like it!

I gotta take a trip and buy something there.

[spin]

6. His insurance rates should be reduced...

if you are foolish enough to post a "no guns" sign, your insurance rates should increase.

[Euromutt]

8. You know strikes me as so damn stupid about "no guns" sign statutes?

The urge to put up these signs, and demands for legislation giving them force of law, only came about when the state in question was considering going to "shall issue" on concealed weapons permits. Not that they permitted concealed carry for the first time, but that they took the power away from the senior law enforcement officer to arbitrarily and capriciously decide who could or could not have one. There are plenty of stories from California of sheriffs granting concealed carry permits to people with no more discernible need for a permit than anyone else, and sometimes with a less than impeccable morals, but whose major qualification for getting a permit was that they contributed generously to the sheriff's political campaign fund.

So what I'm dying to know is: why weren't all these business owners concerned about licensed concealed carriers when the state was still "may issue"? Why were guns no problem when it was only the sheriff's golfing and poker buddies carrying them?