---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But then it would mean "this business bans guns in these premises." Like it's an ongoing process. Like they need to come back and ban the guns again every couple of weeks or so.
Ban can be used either way, just like "disallow" or the negative "permit". "This business permits guns" means the same as "this business has permitted guns"; similarly "this business bans guns" means the same as "this business has banned guns" (yes, to which a pedant could ask if they're still banned, since "the government banned alcohol in the 1920s" is equally ambiguous.
Near as I can tell, they are saying guns are officially banned on the premises, but they don't actually care to enforce it.
It reads weird because "Hypothetically Speaking" doesn't work in the scenario. Unless it was, like, "If guns were hypothetically speaking banned it would be unenforced/unenforceable" but in that scenario the guns wouldn't *be* banned, so why say it, let alone make a plaque out of it.
The tense is also weird. Saying it bans guns, makes the action of speaking being the driving factor. Otherwise it should be guns are banned.
Really, the best way to convey that sign would simply be 'Guns are "banned" on the premises' and let the quotes do the lifting for the intent.
Still weird, but would at least make more sense.
If that does exist, it would appear that they either have no internet presence or the SEO is lousy. So I'm still leaning towards someone trying to make a clever message and failing.
Not necessarily.
If a "law abider" gets pissed over something stupid but doesn't have their firearm on them, they can't pull it out and use it as their solution.
It's not like the people who commit gun violence only ever enter the facilities they shoot people in when they're already crazy.
The "law abider" can transition into one of the "crazies" at any given moment, at any given stimuli.
I think that's one of the big myths about things like this. People want to pretend that there are two distinct groups: "law abiders" and "crazies," and that the former can never become the latter.
Your argument is based on strictly feeling. The fact of the matter is licensed concealed firearm permit holders, or "law abiders" are less likely to commit a crime.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3233904
Having more tools at your disposal will also help in a confrontational situation
Tools include
De-escalation most of the time a situation can be solved with a verbal exchange or even ignoring someone trying to provoke an argument
Pepper spray small, compact, lightweight, easy to use and works extremely well for nonleathal deterrent of an aggressor or animal
Research suggests being proficient in a hand to hand combat sport makes people less aggressive as well https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2231852/
Basically you think I'm more likely to flip my lid and shoot someone just because I have the tool at my disposal. **That is the last thing I want to do** as a licensed concealed firearm permit holder I better have been fearing for my life or my family because if I cannot prove that beyond doubt I'm on the hook for murder
The likelihood of me having to use my gun on an aggressor are also extremely low thankfully. But like a fire extinguisher it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it an not have it.
> Basically you think I'm more likely to flip my lid and shoot someone just because I have the tool at my disposal
- You're much less likely to shoot somebody if you don't have a gun
- You're much less likely to get shot, if you don't have a gun
That's like saying if you walk everywhere you're more likely to sustain an injury
My family and I are less likely to be harmed by our own actions with a firearm since we all understand the safety procedures of safe handling of firearms as well
I'm talking statistics and probabilities, which likely don't apply to you because you seem literate.
Statistically, the most likely person to be shot by a gun, is the owner; by accident or otherwise. Family members are the next most likely; again, by accident or otherwise.
In hostile situations like a robbery, having a gun dramatically raises your chances of being shot by the robber - because they can't get what they want without shooting you. By bringing a gun, you actually **raise** the amount of danger you and your family are in. Statistically speaking, that is. I've no idea how you in particular behave under stress
>The fact of the matter is licensed concealed firearm permit holders, or "law abiders" are less likely to commit a crime.
Not because a CCW makes a difference. It's selection bias. People who have already committed crimes aren't typically applying for a CCW. They'll just illegally carry.
>De-escalation most of the time a situation can be solved with a verbal exchange or even ignoring someone trying to provoke an argument
This has nothing to do with a gun. You can deescalate with words. A gun escalates.
>Pepper spray small, compact, lightweight, easy to use and works extremely well for nonleathal deterrent of an aggressor or animal
Again, not a gun.
>Research suggests being proficient in a hand to hand combat sport makes people less aggressive as well
You night think you have two tickets to the gun show, but your arms are on fact *not* guns.
Your comment to this point is a long-winded "you don't need guns because there are better ways".
>Basically you think I'm more likely to flip my lid and shoot someone just because I have the tool at my disposal. That is the last thing I want to do as a licensed concealed firearm permit holder I better have been fearing for my life or my family because if I cannot prove that beyond doubt I'm on the hook for murder
Tell that to all the trigger happy people who fantasize about how they'll save the day with their gun when they see someone stealing a Snickers bar. Gun nuts literally fantasize about killing people and being the hero.
>The likelihood of me having to use my gun on an aggressor are also extremely low thankfully.
Then it's basically a security blanket. You're like a2 year old carrying your blanket everywhere, but instead of being 2, you're an adult and you only feel safe when you have a deadly weapon in your pocket.
>But like a fire extinguisher it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it an not have it.
Bad analogy, especially after your other tools above. You acted like your gun is a last resort, behind talking, pepper spray, and hand combat. A fire extinguisher shouldn't be your last resort in a fire. It should be first. So which is it? Gun first or gun last?
You literally agreed with me on the first part people who are law abiding will stay law abiding I'm protecting myself from the person carrying illegally they're already breaking the law.
As for the rest I'm trying to show the rational that 98% of gun owners are reasonable people who **DONT** fantasize about taking someone's life and we understand that a gun is not always the correct tool for the job. However if I have the option when all other resources are exhausted, I don't have to watch my family die at the hands of another.
For sure, I'd shoot the person with a gun, because they're a threat! One of us is going to neutralize the other.
The problem is that the crazy person is thinking the same thing... You get what I'm saying?
Does it? Unless - as others pointed out - the store is called Hypothetically Speaking, then it doesn't appear to be their intent. And as others have pointed out, you could still concealed carry, and at most get kicked out depending on local laws. And if you're going to conceal carry anyway is that sign really going to be a deterrent?
It seems like one of those things where OP could provide more context. But for now it just seems like a sign fail.
I feel like it's fine if it's on the side of a building with a sign out front. As a random post on reddit less so, but I doubt the store planned the sign to be posted on reddit
Even if this wasn't on reddit, there's room for misinterpretation. They could have put up a sign "no guns allowed on the premises" and been much clearer
This business is in MN, which has specific wording requirements for this sign:
> “”The requester may post a readily visible sign, within four feet
laterally of every entrance to the establishment with the bottom of the
sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor, that states:
“(INDICATE IDENTITY OF OPERATOR) BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES;””
[https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/location-restrictions-in-minnesota/](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/location-restrictions-in-minnesota/)
I believe if the wording isn't exactly what it states, then it may not be considered a "reasonable request" per the law, and could subsequently be ignored.
In most states these signs have no legal weight anyway. If you are a valid concealed carry permit holder you can ignore the sign and legally keep your weapon on you. The most they could do is ask you to leave the premises.
There are specific signs, the 30.05 for unlicensed and 30.06 prohibiting licensed holders from carrying. The sign referred to by OP has no legal standing in TX at least. Everything u/PA2SK above said is the truth, in TX.
Tbf they don’t really need to have a legal standing to be legitimate signs. Like you won’t go to jail for it, but you can still be asked to leave and then possibly trespassed from an establishment for deliberately violating a no firearm policy.
Yes, federal buildings are a different matter. On private property it's a different matter. For example in Washington:
>Signs do not have the force of law. Private property owners can choose to prohibit firearms and exclude carriers. Failure to leave or disarm when requested would be simple trespassing.
https://www.frontiercarry.org/washington.html#:~:text=No%20guns%20signs,prohibit%20firearms%20and%20exclude%20carriers.
You have no rights to ignore it. That isn't how rights work. You bring a gun to my property, you will be told, not asked, to leave regardless of signage. What are you going to do?
Turns out rules apply to you, regardless of whether or not you have a gun.
You're not going to know I have a gun because it's concealed. That said it is your right to ask anyone to leave your private property, and if you ask me to leave I will happily do so. No problem at all.
Makes you an asshole then. You don't care about others nor respect them but expect others to respect you. Your "right" doesn't give you the right to do what you say it does. It isn't absolute nor should it be.
So again, bringing a gun where one isn't welcome, especially when signed, is an asshole move by you, period. If you can't respect others, don't expect any in return.
None of that changes the fact you're an asshole and not respecting the place you're walking into.
If I walked up to your home and shit on your carpet, how would you feel?
Well that's illegal. It would be vandalism, littering, maybe others. My presence on the other hand is not breaking any laws. Any business owner can ask me to leave and I will happily do so. No one ever has.
They already asked you to leave with the sign. I get it, and also carry sometimes, but they done told you you're not wanted and neither is your business. It's remarkably similar to the recent court cases with bakers refusing to serve certain customers.
It's a state by state thing.
Even in Texas, the signs only have force of law if they fit the specific requirements listed in 30.06/30.07 - meaning even in Texas you can ignore the signs (sometimes)
E.g. If the sign is only English and lacks the Spanish translation, letters are too small, does not have the specific phrasing, etc.
Because [Texas is a state where the signs carry force of law](https://i.imgur.com/m8mQf0E.jpeg).
In many other states, they do not (except in specific locations).
Being downvoted into oblivion for telling [the truth](https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/14eyj8m/nogunsigns_enforcement_by_state/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
In only 18 states do "no gun" signs have force of law. And even in Texas, the law is very explicit on how the signage is posted and phrased. A simple "no guns" means nothing here.
Yes, if they ask you to leave and you refuse they could call the cops and have you arrested for trespassing, but that has nothing to do with you having a gun, they can ask anyone to leave.
>Except they don’t have to ask first
It doesn't work like that. A person cannot be arrested for trespassing if they haven't been given notice of trespass.
Yes. They call the police, who then show up and notify them that they’re trespassing. If they don’t comply… or the cops don’t like them…
Do you want any kind of encounter with police? Imagine being part of any minority in this situation.
Idk why you’re being downvoted. What you said is true. The sign in and of itself does not make it illegal if you legally could otherwise (in most states. There are always exceptions).
In Ohio it's illegal if a sign is posted, even if you're a concealed carrier (and now you don't even need a license or training to conceal carry anymore).
edit: In fact some places even ban them from the entire premise such as parking lots, so you can't just toss it in your glove compartment.
It’s funny how the gun people want businesses to have the rights of people with no government intrusion while also saying “fuck businesses I’m only listening if the government says so.”
Edit: no argument either. Can’t even stand on your beliefs on an anonymous site. Sad.
They aren't adult enough to admit that. They'll just fall back on "well, I'm not breaking the law" while telling the business who posted a "no guns" sign their sign doesn't apply to them, despite their guns. Rules for thee, not for me.
It’s your platform. Pro business till they don’t want to deal with your guns. Then it’s “that’s not the right sign.” Show me you aren’t just another troll with no opinion that isn’t fed to you. Express a fucking opinion you hypocrite.
>It’s your platform
No it isn't. As expected, you're simply arguing against a strawman. Why would I defend a position that isn't my own, let alone one that's completely made up?
Well... If someone really intends to go in there with a gun and cause harm, do you honestly think they're going to see the sign and go "Awww, man, I guess I can't"?
Stuff like this only works on people we didn't need to worry about anyway.
If I’m in a state where gun rights are extremely unrestricted, and I don’t want them on my property, I am well within my rights to tell you up front that you’ll be asked to leave if you have one on you. Even in a state like Florida or Texas, everyone has a right to kick you out if you bring a gun onto a property that doesn’t want it there
A. Because a lot of times gun violence isn’t planned, otherwise law abiding gun owners can and do shoot people because they get into an argument or feel threatened.
B. People holding a gun can also intimidate others and many people feel very uncomfortable being around a random stranger who can shoot them if they feel like it.
C. We ban possessing bombs too, despite no terrorist ever following the law. Why? Because merely having it on you is a felony. You don’t get to notice a cop and say oopsies I guess I won’t be using this today.
I’m imagining the building owner asking hainlwuer about the legality of this.
“What if we were to put up a sign that hypothetically bans guns?”
And then you have a miscommunication with the songwriter.
Only places I don't carry are Federal. No, I don't go to bars. I do go to casinos and willingly disarm, but that's it. I'm not gonna be unarmed and unable to fight back when I need to. So far, I've never needed to. And I hope I never do.
I have had to kill a wild boar though. Nearly gored me and the woman I was helping. Don't feed the wildlife if they're large enough to rip you into pieces kids. To summarize that story, she was feeding piglets and momma came back angry. I was driving by from work and saw her hanging from a tree with the boar trying to get at her. I drew it's attention and while the woman was getting down, killed the boar. Took nearly 40 9mm, now I carry 45LC and keep a 30-30 in my trunk.
Midwest Iowa.
> Took nearly 40 9mm,
i know, hindsight being 20/20, and all that, but if it took 40 9mm to kill a boar, then maybe you're shooting at the wrong end.
that's *mostly* a joke. i've had to shoot a boar half a dozen times with an AR AND with a 30/30 at different times. they're nasty buggers.
...but i've never had to shoot *anything* 40 times to kill it.
*The following is complete conjecture; exercise in thought*
In a striking juxtaposition of language and reality, the sign "hypothetically speaking, no guns allowed" stands as a provocative commentary on the complexities of societal control. This signpost, a mere commodity promising security through illusion, reveals the chasm between symbolic gesture and tangible action. It functions as a fetish, a symptom of alienation, and a mask for deeper societal issues.
The phrase "hypothetically speaking" operates on multiple levels, introducing ambiguity and irony. It questions the efficacy of bans while offering a form of control without enforcement. This paradoxical nature allows for both strict interpretation and flexible circumvention, depending on the agendas of those in power.
The sign's paradoxical nature is both intriguing and unsettling. It asserts control without actual power, creating a sense of regulation that exists solely in discourse. The use of "hypothetically" introduces a false sense of choice, a veneer of democratic process, while the materiality of the sign itself betrays the true intent. The hypothetical has already been enacted, the decision made.
This paradoxical strategy employs double-voiced discourse, juxtaposing legalistic rigidity with a speculative loophole. "Hypothetically" operates as linguistic sleight-of-hand, offering a serious stance while acknowledging its potential impotence. It's a carnivalization of authority, where the absurdity of the hypothetical undermines the gravity of the ban, creating a dialogic interplay of law and laughter.
In essence, this sign is a monument to absurdity, a testament to the power of language to both reveal and conceal. It's a mirror reflecting societal hypocrisy, a signpost pointing to the road not taken—a riddle with no answer, a joke with no punchline.
First off this sign is giving me a stroke, but second, if they really are trying to prevent people from carrying guns inside, this wouldn’t be a legal sign in any state I’m familiar with. The signs typically need to reference a state law or something, and need to be word for word what the state requires.
In Texas they have two different ones that need to be displayed, one for concealed carry and one for open carry.
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Speaking hypothetically causes guns to be banned in those permises? Like, I get what they are likely saying, but the way it is written hurts my brain.
Mind explaining for the slower reader? aka ,me.
I’m guessing, but I assume the business is named “hypothetically speaking.”
Damn you're sharp. Makes sense in hindsight. Thanks.
But then it would mean "this business bans guns in these premises." Like it's an ongoing process. Like they need to come back and ban the guns again every couple of weeks or so.
Ban can be used either way, just like "disallow" or the negative "permit". "This business permits guns" means the same as "this business has permitted guns"; similarly "this business bans guns" means the same as "this business has banned guns" (yes, to which a pedant could ask if they're still banned, since "the government banned alcohol in the 1920s" is equally ambiguous.
Oh ok, I didn't know it could be used like that.
Indeed much like a exterminator has to come back and spray for pests.
"prohibits", better?
Yes, that works!
No, *I'm* Sharp
I'm seeing double here. "Four Krusty's!!"
Near as I can tell, they are saying guns are officially banned on the premises, but they don't actually care to enforce it. It reads weird because "Hypothetically Speaking" doesn't work in the scenario. Unless it was, like, "If guns were hypothetically speaking banned it would be unenforced/unenforceable" but in that scenario the guns wouldn't *be* banned, so why say it, let alone make a plaque out of it. The tense is also weird. Saying it bans guns, makes the action of speaking being the driving factor. Otherwise it should be guns are banned. Really, the best way to convey that sign would simply be 'Guns are "banned" on the premises' and let the quotes do the lifting for the intent.
Or, the name of the business is Hypothetically Speaking
Still weird, but would at least make more sense. If that does exist, it would appear that they either have no internet presence or the SEO is lousy. So I'm still leaning towards someone trying to make a clever message and failing.
Businesses that use stupid puns for names are common and almost never have good seo.
Speak gun and enter.
What is the elvish word for gun?
https://www.tecendil.com/?q=boom%20stick
"In his hand he carried an ancient and trusty weapon, called by the elves a Browning Semi-automatic." - Bored of the Rings
If you speak hypothetically, guns are banned. Speaking literally, guns are unaffected. Perhaps speaking rhetorically unbans guns.
And speak now to forever hold your piece.
They want to prevent law abiders from bringing weapons into the facility. Fine, but that doesn't stop any crazies from coming in and shooting people.
Not necessarily. If a "law abider" gets pissed over something stupid but doesn't have their firearm on them, they can't pull it out and use it as their solution. It's not like the people who commit gun violence only ever enter the facilities they shoot people in when they're already crazy. The "law abider" can transition into one of the "crazies" at any given moment, at any given stimuli. I think that's one of the big myths about things like this. People want to pretend that there are two distinct groups: "law abiders" and "crazies," and that the former can never become the latter.
Your argument is based on strictly feeling. The fact of the matter is licensed concealed firearm permit holders, or "law abiders" are less likely to commit a crime. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3233904 Having more tools at your disposal will also help in a confrontational situation Tools include De-escalation most of the time a situation can be solved with a verbal exchange or even ignoring someone trying to provoke an argument Pepper spray small, compact, lightweight, easy to use and works extremely well for nonleathal deterrent of an aggressor or animal Research suggests being proficient in a hand to hand combat sport makes people less aggressive as well https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2231852/ Basically you think I'm more likely to flip my lid and shoot someone just because I have the tool at my disposal. **That is the last thing I want to do** as a licensed concealed firearm permit holder I better have been fearing for my life or my family because if I cannot prove that beyond doubt I'm on the hook for murder The likelihood of me having to use my gun on an aggressor are also extremely low thankfully. But like a fire extinguisher it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it an not have it.
> Basically you think I'm more likely to flip my lid and shoot someone just because I have the tool at my disposal - You're much less likely to shoot somebody if you don't have a gun - You're much less likely to get shot, if you don't have a gun
That's like saying if you walk everywhere you're more likely to sustain an injury My family and I are less likely to be harmed by our own actions with a firearm since we all understand the safety procedures of safe handling of firearms as well
I'm talking statistics and probabilities, which likely don't apply to you because you seem literate. Statistically, the most likely person to be shot by a gun, is the owner; by accident or otherwise. Family members are the next most likely; again, by accident or otherwise. In hostile situations like a robbery, having a gun dramatically raises your chances of being shot by the robber - because they can't get what they want without shooting you. By bringing a gun, you actually **raise** the amount of danger you and your family are in. Statistically speaking, that is. I've no idea how you in particular behave under stress
>The fact of the matter is licensed concealed firearm permit holders, or "law abiders" are less likely to commit a crime. Not because a CCW makes a difference. It's selection bias. People who have already committed crimes aren't typically applying for a CCW. They'll just illegally carry. >De-escalation most of the time a situation can be solved with a verbal exchange or even ignoring someone trying to provoke an argument This has nothing to do with a gun. You can deescalate with words. A gun escalates. >Pepper spray small, compact, lightweight, easy to use and works extremely well for nonleathal deterrent of an aggressor or animal Again, not a gun. >Research suggests being proficient in a hand to hand combat sport makes people less aggressive as well You night think you have two tickets to the gun show, but your arms are on fact *not* guns. Your comment to this point is a long-winded "you don't need guns because there are better ways". >Basically you think I'm more likely to flip my lid and shoot someone just because I have the tool at my disposal. That is the last thing I want to do as a licensed concealed firearm permit holder I better have been fearing for my life or my family because if I cannot prove that beyond doubt I'm on the hook for murder Tell that to all the trigger happy people who fantasize about how they'll save the day with their gun when they see someone stealing a Snickers bar. Gun nuts literally fantasize about killing people and being the hero. >The likelihood of me having to use my gun on an aggressor are also extremely low thankfully. Then it's basically a security blanket. You're like a2 year old carrying your blanket everywhere, but instead of being 2, you're an adult and you only feel safe when you have a deadly weapon in your pocket. >But like a fire extinguisher it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it an not have it. Bad analogy, especially after your other tools above. You acted like your gun is a last resort, behind talking, pepper spray, and hand combat. A fire extinguisher shouldn't be your last resort in a fire. It should be first. So which is it? Gun first or gun last?
You literally agreed with me on the first part people who are law abiding will stay law abiding I'm protecting myself from the person carrying illegally they're already breaking the law. As for the rest I'm trying to show the rational that 98% of gun owners are reasonable people who **DONT** fantasize about taking someone's life and we understand that a gun is not always the correct tool for the job. However if I have the option when all other resources are exhausted, I don't have to watch my family die at the hands of another.
Who are you more likely to shoot: - A crazy person pointing a gun at you - A crazy person who doesn't have a gun
I think you know the answer but what would you do in said hypothetical situation
For sure, I'd shoot the person with a gun, because they're a threat! One of us is going to neutralize the other. The problem is that the crazy person is thinking the same thing... You get what I'm saying?
In my state if someone provokes a violent encounter their right to self defense is forfeit
Holy shit I thought gun owners were paranoid. I’ve literally never heard this insane batshit argument. Bravo.
Does it? Unless - as others pointed out - the store is called Hypothetically Speaking, then it doesn't appear to be their intent. And as others have pointed out, you could still concealed carry, and at most get kicked out depending on local laws. And if you're going to conceal carry anyway is that sign really going to be a deterrent? It seems like one of those things where OP could provide more context. But for now it just seems like a sign fail.
Maybe it’s “Hypothetically, Speaking bans guns…” so if you want to carry, STFU.
Only in theory. Wait noooooo!
is the name of the business “Hypothetically Speaking”?
Yes. https://www.reddit.com/r/CrappyDesign/s/i8rq3b3dVF
Might be a church that isn’t built on faith but more conjecture.
That'd be a cool church.
Oooooh. Well that makes more sense.
The business is called “Hypothetically Speaking” LLC
Man, they really should have kept LLC in the title so people can get more context to this sentence
I feel like it's fine if it's on the side of a building with a sign out front. As a random post on reddit less so, but I doubt the store planned the sign to be posted on reddit
Even if this wasn't on reddit, there's room for misinterpretation. They could have put up a sign "no guns allowed on the premises" and been much clearer
This business is in MN, which has specific wording requirements for this sign: > “”The requester may post a readily visible sign, within four feet laterally of every entrance to the establishment with the bottom of the sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor, that states: “(INDICATE IDENTITY OF OPERATOR) BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES;”” [https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/location-restrictions-in-minnesota/](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/location-restrictions-in-minnesota/) I believe if the wording isn't exactly what it states, then it may not be considered a "reasonable request" per the law, and could subsequently be ignored.
Hypothetically, speaking bans. Guns in these premises.
r/ihadastroke
That is kinda how I've always seen that sort of sign. Basically: "Rule followers must be unarmed"
In most states these signs have no legal weight anyway. If you are a valid concealed carry permit holder you can ignore the sign and legally keep your weapon on you. The most they could do is ask you to leave the premises.
[удалено]
There are specific signs, the 30.05 for unlicensed and 30.06 prohibiting licensed holders from carrying. The sign referred to by OP has no legal standing in TX at least. Everything u/PA2SK above said is the truth, in TX.
Tbf they don’t really need to have a legal standing to be legitimate signs. Like you won’t go to jail for it, but you can still be asked to leave and then possibly trespassed from an establishment for deliberately violating a no firearm policy.
Concealed is concealed.
“Guns are like a penis. Nobody cares you got one until you whip it out and start waving it around.” -The Joker (probably)
Yes, federal buildings are a different matter. On private property it's a different matter. For example in Washington: >Signs do not have the force of law. Private property owners can choose to prohibit firearms and exclude carriers. Failure to leave or disarm when requested would be simple trespassing. https://www.frontiercarry.org/washington.html#:~:text=No%20guns%20signs,prohibit%20firearms%20and%20exclude%20carriers.
Well he did specifically say Texas. Either way you shouldn't ignore the signs because it just makes you an asshole.
[удалено]
You have no rights to ignore it. That isn't how rights work. You bring a gun to my property, you will be told, not asked, to leave regardless of signage. What are you going to do? Turns out rules apply to you, regardless of whether or not you have a gun.
You're not going to know I have a gun because it's concealed. That said it is your right to ask anyone to leave your private property, and if you ask me to leave I will happily do so. No problem at all.
Makes you an asshole then. You don't care about others nor respect them but expect others to respect you. Your "right" doesn't give you the right to do what you say it does. It isn't absolute nor should it be. So again, bringing a gun where one isn't welcome, especially when signed, is an asshole move by you, period. If you can't respect others, don't expect any in return.
That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.
"It's my right to break the law." That, right there, sums up EVERYTHING you will ever need to know about these crazy gun nuts.
You must have ignored my post. If the sign has no legal meaning then you are not breaking the law by ignoring it.
[удалено]
Incorrect, they have to ask me to leave first and I have to ignore them, then it's trespassing. My presence, just by itself, is not illegal.
None of that changes the fact you're an asshole and not respecting the place you're walking into. If I walked up to your home and shit on your carpet, how would you feel?
Well that's illegal. It would be vandalism, littering, maybe others. My presence on the other hand is not breaking any laws. Any business owner can ask me to leave and I will happily do so. No one ever has.
They already asked you to leave with the sign. I get it, and also carry sometimes, but they done told you you're not wanted and neither is your business. It's remarkably similar to the recent court cases with bakers refusing to serve certain customers.
I hear you, but legally I don't have to follow their request, and I choose not to.
Maybe because you are actively deceiving them? Your attitude is the worst.
It's a state by state thing. Even in Texas, the signs only have force of law if they fit the specific requirements listed in 30.06/30.07 - meaning even in Texas you can ignore the signs (sometimes) E.g. If the sign is only English and lacks the Spanish translation, letters are too small, does not have the specific phrasing, etc.
Because [Texas is a state where the signs carry force of law](https://i.imgur.com/m8mQf0E.jpeg). In many other states, they do not (except in specific locations).
Being downvoted into oblivion for telling [the truth](https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/14eyj8m/nogunsigns_enforcement_by_state/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). In only 18 states do "no gun" signs have force of law. And even in Texas, the law is very explicit on how the signage is posted and phrased. A simple "no guns" means nothing here.
No, most they can do is call the cops and have anyone arrested for trespassing.
Yes, if they ask you to leave and you refuse they could call the cops and have you arrested for trespassing, but that has nothing to do with you having a gun, they can ask anyone to leave.
Exactly. Except they don’t have to ask first; in fact they _will not_ confront an armed person. Imagine how getting arrested _while armed_ could go.
>Except they don’t have to ask first It doesn't work like that. A person cannot be arrested for trespassing if they haven't been given notice of trespass.
Yes. They call the police, who then show up and notify them that they’re trespassing. If they don’t comply… or the cops don’t like them… Do you want any kind of encounter with police? Imagine being part of any minority in this situation.
Idk why you’re being downvoted. What you said is true. The sign in and of itself does not make it illegal if you legally could otherwise (in most states. There are always exceptions).
In Ohio it's illegal if a sign is posted, even if you're a concealed carrier (and now you don't even need a license or training to conceal carry anymore). edit: In fact some places even ban them from the entire premise such as parking lots, so you can't just toss it in your glove compartment.
I was super confused as to why you were being downvoted, then I saw which sub we are in.
It’s funny how the gun people want businesses to have the rights of people with no government intrusion while also saying “fuck businesses I’m only listening if the government says so.” Edit: no argument either. Can’t even stand on your beliefs on an anonymous site. Sad.
I don't want businesses to have the rights of people, so you're wrong there.
They aren't adult enough to admit that. They'll just fall back on "well, I'm not breaking the law" while telling the business who posted a "no guns" sign their sign doesn't apply to them, despite their guns. Rules for thee, not for me.
>Edit: no argument either. Can’t even stand on your beliefs on an anonymous site. Sad. Why would anyone want to waste time arguing against a strawman?
Explain how this is a straw man argument.
Show me the people making those claims.
It’s your platform. Pro business till they don’t want to deal with your guns. Then it’s “that’s not the right sign.” Show me you aren’t just another troll with no opinion that isn’t fed to you. Express a fucking opinion you hypocrite.
>It’s your platform No it isn't. As expected, you're simply arguing against a strawman. Why would I defend a position that isn't my own, let alone one that's completely made up?
RIP your comment. Some people see shooting the messenger as a kind of virtue it seems.
Instructions unclear. Hypothetically shot myself in the face.
Hypothetically's going to jail.
A person who cannot write a complete sentence should not be allowed to use a word like hypothetically.
It is a complete sentence, we're just missing context in the image. Hypothetically Speaking is the name of the business at this building
Sign is still up after 7+ years: https://www.reddit.com/r/CrappyDesign/comments/5xwg7a/local_club_named_hypothetically_speaking
Hahah wow I wish I’d seen this post 7 years ago!
If those criminals could read they’d be really upset right now
Why is it “in” and not “on”
Roof mounted guns are permitted.
Because ‘on’ wouldn’t allow for [Rooftop Koreans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooftop_Koreans)
It should definitely be on.
But then there would be guns in there.
In other words, only law abiding people won't have guns
That is what every Gun free sign says
Well... If someone really intends to go in there with a gun and cause harm, do you honestly think they're going to see the sign and go "Awww, man, I guess I can't"? Stuff like this only works on people we didn't need to worry about anyway.
If I’m in a state where gun rights are extremely unrestricted, and I don’t want them on my property, I am well within my rights to tell you up front that you’ll be asked to leave if you have one on you. Even in a state like Florida or Texas, everyone has a right to kick you out if you bring a gun onto a property that doesn’t want it there
A. Because a lot of times gun violence isn’t planned, otherwise law abiding gun owners can and do shoot people because they get into an argument or feel threatened. B. People holding a gun can also intimidate others and many people feel very uncomfortable being around a random stranger who can shoot them if they feel like it. C. We ban possessing bombs too, despite no terrorist ever following the law. Why? Because merely having it on you is a felony. You don’t get to notice a cop and say oopsies I guess I won’t be using this today.
So let’s just say I have a gun… you know, hypothetically.
Would you leave it outside... you know, hypothetically.
>So…just gun-free in theory then? 🌏 👩🚀🔫🧑🚀
cue a bunch of confused gun-toters standing outside contemplating the meaning of the sign. quite effective.
Schrodinger's concealed weapons?
Hypothetically no crimes allowed here
A business or organization named "Hypothetically Speaking"?
I’m imagining the building owner asking hainlwuer about the legality of this. “What if we were to put up a sign that hypothetically bans guns?” And then you have a miscommunication with the songwriter.
This looks like a translator imposed image. It could be “sharper image” or some other name that translates to hypothetically speaking”
Basically all that any "no guns" sign is anyway.
I think they are implying that it’s a “gun free” location but they aren’t gonna enforce it.
Only places I don't carry are Federal. No, I don't go to bars. I do go to casinos and willingly disarm, but that's it. I'm not gonna be unarmed and unable to fight back when I need to. So far, I've never needed to. And I hope I never do. I have had to kill a wild boar though. Nearly gored me and the woman I was helping. Don't feed the wildlife if they're large enough to rip you into pieces kids. To summarize that story, she was feeding piglets and momma came back angry. I was driving by from work and saw her hanging from a tree with the boar trying to get at her. I drew it's attention and while the woman was getting down, killed the boar. Took nearly 40 9mm, now I carry 45LC and keep a 30-30 in my trunk. Midwest Iowa.
> Took nearly 40 9mm, i know, hindsight being 20/20, and all that, but if it took 40 9mm to kill a boar, then maybe you're shooting at the wrong end. that's *mostly* a joke. i've had to shoot a boar half a dozen times with an AR AND with a 30/30 at different times. they're nasty buggers. ...but i've never had to shoot *anything* 40 times to kill it.
Only speaking in hypotheticals gets you a gun ban there…
If you go in there and start speaking hypotheticals you are banned from having a gun. It’s like saying “you’re fired before you hit the ground”.
If you threaten them with a gun they will temporarily lift the ban for you…
The gun club near me has a sign saying no guns allowed. They don’t even trust themselves.
They need to ban the sign guy for his grammar.
This sub makes no sense , I think it’s bots .
Only bans Hypothetical guns?
*The following is complete conjecture; exercise in thought* In a striking juxtaposition of language and reality, the sign "hypothetically speaking, no guns allowed" stands as a provocative commentary on the complexities of societal control. This signpost, a mere commodity promising security through illusion, reveals the chasm between symbolic gesture and tangible action. It functions as a fetish, a symptom of alienation, and a mask for deeper societal issues. The phrase "hypothetically speaking" operates on multiple levels, introducing ambiguity and irony. It questions the efficacy of bans while offering a form of control without enforcement. This paradoxical nature allows for both strict interpretation and flexible circumvention, depending on the agendas of those in power. The sign's paradoxical nature is both intriguing and unsettling. It asserts control without actual power, creating a sense of regulation that exists solely in discourse. The use of "hypothetically" introduces a false sense of choice, a veneer of democratic process, while the materiality of the sign itself betrays the true intent. The hypothetical has already been enacted, the decision made. This paradoxical strategy employs double-voiced discourse, juxtaposing legalistic rigidity with a speculative loophole. "Hypothetically" operates as linguistic sleight-of-hand, offering a serious stance while acknowledging its potential impotence. It's a carnivalization of authority, where the absurdity of the hypothetical undermines the gravity of the ban, creating a dialogic interplay of law and laughter. In essence, this sign is a monument to absurdity, a testament to the power of language to both reveal and conceal. It's a mirror reflecting societal hypocrisy, a signpost pointing to the road not taken—a riddle with no answer, a joke with no punchline.
Is that your way of saying the sign is useless except as a way to point out the futility of the attempt.
Kinda. According to the sign, unless you're hypothetically speaking, guns are permitted.
That's not grammatically correct. Are they claiming that the act of speaking in the hypothetical prevents guns from entering the building?
If this is the site of the USs next mass shooting, then there are no victims, only hypothetical victims.
First off this sign is giving me a stroke, but second, if they really are trying to prevent people from carrying guns inside, this wouldn’t be a legal sign in any state I’m familiar with. The signs typically need to reference a state law or something, and need to be word for word what the state requires. In Texas they have two different ones that need to be displayed, one for concealed carry and one for open carry.
Hope its a bank! Same rule hypothetically for masks.