Actually, (and here's an area where I've had some disagreement with my fellow gun rights advocates) that's an argument for which I have some sympathy. I think a compelling case can be made for a property owner having the right to refuse entry to anyone he wants (including armed people)--and armed people have the option of not going there. That's why I prefer the "gun free zone liability" approach.
Strangely, though, now that the Brady Campaign finds itself in disagreement with the firearms policy at Starbucks, they've abandoned talk of rights, and are now making "demands": [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.
No comments:
Post a Comment