In 2003, and again in 2005, when Minnesota passed its “shall issue” firearm permit law, a slew of businesses “posted” themselves; they put signs on their front doors indicating they didn’t want firearms on their premises.
Two things happened – or, rather, didn’t happen:
- There were no crimes in public related to legal post-2003-permitted firearm carriers. None. Zero.
- While few anti-gun-rights people made a point of shopping posted stores, pro-Second-Amendment people made a very serious point of steering clear of posted establishments. Many of us quietly and politely engaged with owners of posted stores, telling them that while we respected their decisions, our consciences would not allow us to shop at stores that disarmed the law-abiding and thus became victimization zones.
Most “posted” stores quietly dispensed with their signs in the year or two after the Minnesota Personal Protection Act was re-enacted in 2005. Things stayed pretty well put, Minnesota-wise – except, of course, the number of law-abiding citizens with carry permits, which was well over 160,000 177,000 the last I checked (far eclipsing pre-2003 legislative research estimates of 50,000-90,000 permittees).
But the Obama Administration has been eagerly working to roll back gun rights, especially in the past two years. And with Michael Bloomberg bankrolling his efforts, there is a concerted effort to turn law-abiding gun owners into the New Lepers – to try to re-stigmatize gun owners, the way the media were able to do in the 1960’s and 1970s.
All are, of course, attacking the problem of violent crime by going after those who dont’, won’t, and never have committed any (and by their existence indeed deter it) – but no matter. It’s not about crime – if it were, Washington DC and Chicago would be crime-free paradises.
But if you read this blog, you’re probably smarter than that.
Unfortunately, a lot of uninformed and incurious people vote. And Michael Bloomberg’s money is aimed largely at them. And so the re-stigmatization effort is in full swing. We’ve seen this with a small but vocal number of stores dusting off their posting signs – and, this summer, with the Minnesota State Fair posting its “no guns” signs, very possibly illegally.
It’s time for Real Americans – the ones that believe in all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights – to come forward again and put their money where their mouths are. Or perhaps to be more accurate, to not put their money where their mouths aren’t.
It’s time to stop spending money at places that are posted.
So take note, local merchants; if you’re posted, I won’t spend a dime at your establishment. If I see you or your ownership siding with the anti-gunners in the media, I’ll also cut you off, and do my best to keep you cut off until you recognize the civil rights of law-abiding Americans.
That includes you, Minnesota State Fair. While I broadcast from the Fair annually, and am happy to do it, I will no longer patronize any vendors at the Fair as long as the Fairgrounds are posted.
As much as it pains me to think of ten days of broadcasting at the Fair without Sausages by Cynthia’s Italian Dog, or a London Broil, or the Swiss Crepe from the Crepe stand, or a beer at O’Gara’s on a hot day, I’m not going to spend another dime at any Fair vendor, until the State Fair tears down the “Only Criminals May Be Armed!” signs.
Be advised, Twin Cities merchants. You have your rights to run your business any way you want. But you’re not going far without customers.
Can you afford to piss off 120,000 of us? Especially since we’re the ones that tip, clean up after ourselves, and pass word of mouth along?
UPDATE: I do need to credit the “No Guns = No Money” Facebook page for the image, and the whole “getting a movement rolling” thing. Check out the page, and support them and, most importantly, the goal.
The Fair is run by the Minnesota State Agricultural Society – which is a public corporation. In other words, it’s an agency of the State, created by statute.
Which means that the Minnesota’s preemption statute applies to it. It has zero authority to regulate firearms carry.
They got none of my dollars this year.
I would modify the card to say primarily ” ‘no guns’ means ‘welcome criminals, your victims are unarmed’ “. I’ve met quite a few people who are quite frankly stunned they never thought of it before. Maybe on the flip side?
Valid permits as of Sept. 1: 177,777. Over half, nearly 52%, are in the Twin Cities metro counties. Twin Cities Gun Owners & Carry Forum has promoted support of businesses that allow lawful carry, and avoiding those that don’t, as a mainstay of our mission. Join us on our new FB page: No Guns = No Money: Minnesota, http://www.facebook.com/NoGunsNoMoneyMinnesota and support our mission. We’ll also continue that mission on TCGO. And we have a growing list of local 2A friendly businesses on our website, as well as a list of businesses that give discounts to permit holders, http://www.Minnesota2A.com.
MN-RKBA – True. And I’m sorry – I meant to link to the FB page from the beginning. I’ve fixed that.
Thanks!
If the law is on your side, use the law.
I see a bigger problem in retail. Women hate guns, women shop. Men like guns, men don’t shop.
I don’t own a hand gun — but if I had a CC license I wouldn’t feel good about leaving the gun in the car. Don’t shop at places that don’t want your custom.
PM; it would be interesting to find out just how many women actually hate guns. Here in MinneStalingrad, I doubt that you could find many women that don’t have friends and/or relatives that hunt. I would also bet that we would see women that have been either victims of crime or had close calls, to be more tolerant and even accepting.
As I have posted before, the number of women that show up at the gun club in Lakeville taking their C&C and/or target shooting, seems to increase monthly. Last month, I met five more professional females there. One of these women, a high level VP at a local financial institution, was being harassed by her ex-husband until he found out that not only was she packing, but she could put all 13 rounds from her Glock 21 through the 4 inch diameter hole center mass on a silhouette target.
How many women V men have a visceral, negative reaction to being around people — strangers — carrying guns? I would guess the ration is very high, especially if there are children about.
I am beginning to have more sympathy for open-carry demonstrations. The Left excels at forbidding behavior (and people) they do not approve of in the public square. Fuck them. The country don’t belong to them.
Perhaps another nasty little statewide secret, the explosion of shooting sports like trap and skeet in MN schools, may also tend to mitigate the attempted re-stigmatization of firearms. Of course, the kids aren’t using real guns, just harmless shotguns.
Still, the infusion of guns into schools without public outcry should be seen as a positive thing, and one that pro-gun entities can use to their/ our advantage. It must be addressed judiciously though, and without venom; leave that to the anti’s. The longer the activity continues, even under the RADAR, the less likely it will be to scare the soccer moms, school district camp followers, and other educational hangers-on.
I agree that the “women hate guns” stereotype is over-exaggerated, and most often applies to the women who feel obligated to hate them. At least one 20+ year law enforcement firearms trainer could often be overheard claiming that an inexperienced woman recruit was a much better student and quicker learn than her male counterpart who felt the obligation to, or held the belief that, he had to be an instant expert or that he became one the moment he was sworn in.
While the conservatives may not have really declared a war on women, they are more than willing to arm them if one ever really comes along …
I wonder if there were some type of sign that could be posted in stores or businesses that were firearms neutral? It would indicate that the business took no stand on the issue other than following existing laws, and did not want to become involved in the issue or become stigmatized by either side of it.
I suspect more rational conservative-leaning persons would respect such a poster than would rational liberals. I cite rationality as there are extremists on both sides who accept nothing but an absolute stand.
I believe the teachers’ unions in WI tried a similar method during their unsuccessful attempt to hijack the WI governors office and unseat Walker. However, the “peaceful educators” tried to strong arm businesses into posting a sign which indicated the store’s absolute support of the unions, with veiled threats if they didn’t. Who’d ever imagine that a labor union would resort to such tactics? In any event it didn’t work for them,, thank God …
A “leave me out of it” sign might be a nice money-maker for a group trying to raise funds. I know that at least I would respect and patronize a business which showed such sentiments …
We had a Clemson bar that posted last year…didn’t go well for them. The sign went farther than simply calling for folks to disarm themselves, and called anyone that carried “Losers”. It was a big deal down here.
Within a couple days, Yelp commentators had pretty much trashed the place out so the owner went public with the fact that he was misunderstood NRA member, it was all a mistake, and he took it down.
And replaced it with a standard sign.
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/25014608/sign-saying-no-to-guns-inside-clemson-bar-sparks-online-uproar
The only reason it survives, IMO, is that it’s a college bar and Clemson attracts no small population from the North. I’ve never set foot in the place and dont intend to.
Joe, I believe the neutral thing is no sign. No?