Meijer Anti-gun

[Bill of Rights]

How many commercial insurance companies do you know? And not talking small business, the kind a company like Meijer has. Then how many reinsurers do you know? I do not know them either, and I doubt we have a CEO on INGO that knows…

How many large corps do not prohibit carry? Walmart/Kroger/etc all allow it. So yes I agree with Bill that it isn't the insurance companies requiring it.

Bill did not say that, he asked who. I asked if we even know who the possibilities are in insurance and reinsurance. And on what evidence do you make the statement you believe it is not insurance companies?

This goes back several years, people keep saying it's the insurance companies that are requiring it but never specify any insurance company or their policies.

What evidence do I use to have that belief? As I posted above, multiple large and small companies that do not prohibit carry. Meijer included up until recently, if it was a insurance companies policy don't you think that Meijer would have said that to to pass the buck? Rather than in their email replies to questions regarding it that it is simply corporate policy.

In fairness, this question does go back years. I went into a range and asked why they had a site rule that anyone carrying in had to be unloaded, meaning you could load up once you were in a firing lane only. The owner, who was a member here, told me it was an insurance thing, but as I recall, he said it got him thinking and he talked to his carrier, got his policy changed, and everyone lived happily ever after.

So again, who is the carrier that is requiring businesses to put up the stupid signs?

For the record, as Mike suggested and TJBB noted correctly, I insinuated that the insurance companies were being blamed but the business owners are the ones actually to blame. So now I’ll say it clearly: I don’t think it’s an insurance thing. Prove me wrong. If it is, let’s start starving out those insurance carriers. Let’s put an end to this “you can’t carry here” pearl clutching, one way or the other.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In fairness, this question does go back years. I went into a range and asked why they had a site rule that anyone carrying in had to be unloaded, meaning you could load up once you were in a firing lane only. The owner, who was a member here, told me it was an insurance thing, but as I recall, he said it got him thinking and he talked to his carrier, got his policy changed, and everyone lived happily ever after.

So again, who is the carrier that is requiring businesses to put up the stupid signs?

For the record, as Mike suggested and TJBB noted correctly, I insinuated that the insurance companies were being blamed but the business owners are the ones actually to blame. So now I’ll say it clearly: I don’t think it’s an insurance thing. Prove me wrong. If it is, let’s start starving out those insurance carriers. Let’s put an end to this “you can’t carry here” pearl clutching, one way or the other.

Blessings,
Bill

I believe it may have been discussed on here as well. If it's the same range. Starts on page 3 post 49.

Lafayette indoor range has new owner

Any updates on the status of the range? I think many of us took for granted that there was an indoor range available in Lafayette. Now that it isn't there, we miss it.

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[Ingomike]

In fairness, this question does go back years. I went into a range and asked why they had a site rule that anyone carrying in had to be unloaded, meaning you could load up once you were in a firing lane only. The owner, who was a member here, told me it was an insurance thing, but as I recall, he said it got him thinking and he talked to his carrier, got his policy changed, and everyone lived happily ever after.

So again, who is the carrier that is requiring businesses to put up the stupid signs?

For the record, as Mike suggested and TJBB noted correctly, I insinuated that the insurance companies were being blamed but the business owners are the ones actually to blame. So now I’ll say it clearly: I don’t think it’s an insurance thing. Prove me wrong. If it is, let’s start starving out those insurance carriers. Let’s put an end to this “you can’t carry here” pearl clutching, one way or the other.

Blessings,
Bill

You are welcome to believe what you want. You make an accretion that you believe but want to make others prove it for you. Got it…

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You are welcome to believe what you want. You make an accretion that you believe but want to make others prove it for you. Got it…

No, someone else made the statement that the insurance companies were to blame. There have been several statements from people on here who have dealt with insurance policies including those for gun stores that have stated that it is not the insurance requiring it.

Once again if it is the insurance companies that are requiring this, why are there so many small and large businesses that do not prohibit firearms? Including up until recently Meijer.

 

[Ingomike]

No, someone else made the statement that the insurance companies were to blame. There have been several statements from people on here who have dealt with insurance policies including those for gun stores that have stated that it is not the insurance requiring it.

Once again if it is the insurance companies that are requiring this, why are there so many small and large businesses that do not prohibit firearms? Including up until recently Meijer.

I do not know. I just know that many of the same activists pushing banks to not even allow accounts to the gun providers and customers are likely pushing this kind of thing. I have little doubt that insurance companies are behind at least some of this. Do you doubt that?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I do not know. I just know that many of the same activists pushing banks to not even allow accounts to the gun providers and customers are likely pushing this kind of thing. I have little doubt that insurance companies are behind at least some of this. Do you doubt that?

I've seen absolutely no evidence that insurance companies are pushing this. Do you have any evidence that would show that they are? Are you saying that it's the insurance companies that are pushing the banks to not allow accounts to firearm businesses and customers?

Hell, even some of the "no gun" businesses don't actually prohibit them. Target and starbucks for example. They simply "request" that their customers don't carry, if you are and they notice they don't kick you out. I'm pretty sure if it was an insurance company mandate they would have a bit stronger wording.

 

[Ingomike]

Are you saying that it's the insurance companies that are pushing the banks to not allow accounts to firearm businesses and customers?

No, that activists were pushing banks not to do business with gun related businesses, things like no credit card processing for LGS, and that was likely in insurance also…

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No, that activists were pushing banks not to do business with gun related businesses, things like no credit card processing for LGS, and that was likely in insurance also…

Okay. But them pushing the banks made news. Have you seen anything like that in regards to the insurance companies? Petitions/protests/letters to the editor/etc? I haven't but would be glad to look at any you can point to.

Also wouldn't you say that large corps have more pull with insurance companies than little mom and pop shops? But for the most part it's the big corps coming up with these policies at least that I have seen, wouldn't the insurance companies have more leverage against the little guys?

 

[Ingomike]

Also wouldn't you say that large corps have more pull with insurance companies than little mom and pop shops?

My expectation is it is presented as a line item with a cost at the large corp level. You can post no guns and pay this or not and pay this plus….

 

[Ingomike]

This is quite a list. Thus my conclusion that organized boycotts are not really possible but we should know who are on the list and make other choices when possible…

These Are the Roughly 200 Businesses Whose Leaders Are Backing Gun Control Initiatives

Hm.

townhall.com

 

[Timjoebillybob]

My expectation is it is presented as a line item with a cost at the large corp level. You can post no guns and pay this or not and pay this plus….

Once again, don't you think the insurance companies would have more leverage to push this with smaller businesses? Again IME for the most part it's the larger corps, not the smaller. Yes there are some smaller businesses that post signs and such but to me it seems they are few and far between.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I believe it may have been discussed on here as well. If it's the same range. Starts on page 3 post 49.

Lafayette indoor range has new owner

Any updates on the status of the range? I think many of us took for granted that there was an indoor range available in Lafayette. Now that it isn't there, we miss it.

www.indianagunowners.com

That's the one. I'm happy you remembered that.

You are welcome to believe what you want. You make an accretion that you believe but want to make others prove it for you. Got it…

I just looked up "accretion" as it's a word with which I was unfamiliar, and the context doesn't seem to fit. Did you mean assertion? Also, I asked others for input because I had never encountered an insurance company that actually required it, and wanted to know if others had.

Also, you seem inordinately hostile here. I've suggested something to help gun owners, and I've done some of my own legwork along those lines, as TJBB showed when he found the thread where it was discussed, admittedly 13 years ago.... Has it really been 13 years? Dayummm. At any rate, if I misread your hostility, I'd be quite happy to have been mistaken. If not, I'd like to understand why you're that way towards me.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Ingomike]

That's the one. I'm happy you remembered that.



I just looked up "accretion" as it's a word with which I was unfamiliar, and the context doesn't seem to fit. Did you mean assertion? Also, I asked others for input because I had never encountered an insurance company that actually required it, and wanted to know if others had.

Also, you seem inordinately hostile here. I've suggested something to help gun owners, and I've done some of my own legwork along those lines, as TJBB showed when he found the thread where it was discussed, admittedly 13 years ago.... Has it really been 13 years? Dayummm. At any rate, if I misread your hostility, I'd be quite happy to have been mistaken. If not, I'd like to understand why you're that way towards me.

Blessings,
Bill

Spell check got me again. LOL

We all know what the powers that be are doing to us. I do believe the insurance industry is a part of this, you do not so I said believe what you will I was not trying to convince you. Sorry if you thought I was hostile…

 

[xwing]

On the insurance argument: I've talked with several businesses and with a gentleman who worked in the corporate insurance industry. (Sorry I don't still have the references because this was several years ago. So, believe it or don't believe as you see fit.)

There is some truth to insurance being one reason for why businesses ban employees from carrying. Allowing employees to carry is a quantifiable risk and can be taken into consideration. If an employee shoots someone on company time, even if it's a "good shoot", the criminal (so-called victim) can indeed go after the company's deep pockets and it is possible to win.

However, there is no truth to insurance being a reason companies ban customers from carrying. There were no known cases of a business being liable because they didn't ban customers from carrying. If a customer shoots a criminal in the store, it would be almost impossible for the criminal to successfully go after the company who simply owned the store, unless there were severe aggregating factors that implicated the company. Simply not posting a sign isn't going to do it. It is not a factor in the company's liability and therefore not a factor in insurance risk.

Companies who post "no guns" sign simply do it to virtue sign and appeal to anti-gun liberals. There is nothing else to it.

(I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)

 

[Bill of Rights]

Spell check got me again. LOL

We all know what the powers that be are doing to us. I do believe the insurance industry is a part of this, you do not so I said believe what you will I was not trying to convince you. Sorry if you thought I was hostile…

Thank you for your apology. It's not completely that I *don't* believe that the insurance industry is part of it. I'm willing to grant that they *may* be. If they are, I think we should boycott them and make them unable to continue to do so. If they're not, then we need to know who IS part of it and cut into their bottom line instead.

On the insurance argument: I've talked with several businesses and with a gentleman who worked in the corporate insurance industry. (Sorry I don't still have the references because this was several years ago. So, believe it or don't believe as you see fit.)

There is some truth to insurance being one reason for why businesses ban employees from carrying. Allowing employees to carry is a quantifiable risk and can be taken into consideration. If an employee shoots someone on company time, even if it's a "good shoot", the criminal (so-called victim) can indeed go after the company's deep pockets and it is possible to win.

However, there is no truth to insurance being a reason companies ban customers from carrying. There were no known cases of a business being liable because they didn't ban customers from carrying. If a customer shoots a criminal in the store, it would be almost impossible for the criminal to successfully go after the company who simply owned the store, unless there were severe aggregating factors that implicated the company. Simply not posting a sign isn't going to do it. It is not a factor in the company's liability and therefore not a factor in insurance risk.

Companies who post "no guns" sign simply do it to virtue sign and appeal to anti-gun liberals. There is nothing else to it.

(I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)

In Indiana, I agree with you that the gunbuster signs are just virtue signaling. In other places, where the signs have force of law, it's an aggressive tactic to put us in opposition to the law, to make us criminals. We need to oppose those laws that allow the creation of victim disarmament zones and make criminals of good, peaceable people for wanting to and taking steps to protect their own safety.

 

[xwing]

In Indiana, I agree with you that the gunbuster signs are just virtue signaling. In other places, where the signs have force of law, it's an aggressive tactic to put us in opposition to the law, to make us criminals. We need to oppose those laws that allow the creation of victim disarmament zones and make criminals of good, peaceable people for wanting to and taking steps to protect their own safety.

Absolutely I agree. I moved from Illinois, where the signs do have force of law. Usually, I was able to avoid businesses that showed their disdain for the Bill of Rights; but on the rare occasions that I had to visit one, it was terribly grating to have to disarm / rearm in the parking lot.

But I wanted to make sure the blame was placed in the right place: On the companies run by anti-gun lefties who put up the signs to appeal to other anti-gun lefties and try to make gun owners outcasts. While I'm sure the insurance industry can be blamed for many things, they can't really be blamed for this one.

 

[Ingomike]

But I wanted to make sure the blame was placed in the right place: On the companies run by anti-gun lefties who put up the signs to appeal to other anti-gun lefties and try to make gun owners outcasts. While I'm sure the insurance industry can be blamed for many things, they can't really be blamed for this one.

You do realize that is just about every corporation in the world? That corporations are controlled by other corporations and much of the control comes from foundations with friendly sounding names? All of whom are anti-gun…

Since all of that is true, why is it such a stretch to believe the insurance industry is also involved?

 

[xwing]

You do realize that is just about every corporation in the world? That corporations are controlled by other corporations and much of the control comes from foundations with friendly sounding names? All of whom are anti-gun…

Since all of that is true, why is it such a stretch to believe the insurance industry is also involved?

Large corporations are pretty easy to follow ownership. It's all easy to find data, and most are publicly traded. And while certainly quite a few have enacted anti-gun policies, it's far from "all" of them.

 

[Ingomike]

Large corporations are pretty easy to follow ownership. It's all easy to find data, and most are publicly traded. And while certainly quite a few have enacted anti-gun policies, it's far from "all" of them.

What corporations are pro gun? If it is far from all that are anti-gun there must be some. I have found that once one goes digging that nearly all are anti-gun in one way or another. Some are just no open carry, some are just no employee carry, and others are no carry at all. Then there are those that provide money to anti-gun organization. At the end of the day I believe the vast majority are in some way anti-gun…

 

[Bill of Rights]

What corporations are pro gun? If it is far from all that are anti-gun there must be some. I have found that once one goes digging that nearly all are anti-gun in one way or another. Some are just no open carry, some are just no employee carry, and others are no carry at all. Then there are those that provide money to anti-gun organization. At the end of the day I believe the vast majority are in some way anti-gun…

I can't really call a business anti gun for saying the employees can't carry on the job. That could well be protective, as described upthread. That doesn't mean that other factors can't paint them with that brush, but that fact alone, I don't think so. Also, a business gives to an anti-gun organization..... like AARP? Maybe they're just giving to help us old farts.... irrespective of AARPs stance on guns. Not to mention the confusing messaging the anti-gunners like to use, intentionally. "The Brady Campaign to reduce handgun violence. You want to help reduce handgun violence, don't you?"

I'll be honest here, I'd like to reduce handgun violence, and I can say that while at the same time knowing that getting rid of the guns, or "common sense handgun control", as they like to call it, is not the way to DO that. Brady taking MY gun is not going to save some kid up in Chicago this weekend. Brady taking YOUR gun is not going to save any lives except those of the criminals who fail to understand that that door they just kicked in was locked for THEIR protection, not yours.

The bottom line as I see it is that guns are really not on everyone else's radar like they are on ours. They may do something that interferes with our rights, but that's not their purpose, it's just a side effect of something they do for another reason entirely.

A business is going to look at things (at least their lawyers will!) as "How do I limit my legal exposure to being sued?" and if the answer they are given is "Don't let people carry guns there!", then as wrong headed as that is, that's what they're going to do. Kirk Freeman has used the explanation of:

1. (a Bad Thing happens)
2. "We have to do something!"
3. "_______________ is something"
4. "We have to do ______________!!!!!"

So maybe that group of lawyers that gave the suggestion of "limit guns" are anti. Maybe they even work for the insurance companies, as you believe. I don't want maybes. I don't want mights. I want to know. And I want an end put to it.


Finally, I realize that you may be a business owner and know all of what I said above. I don't mean to patronize or talk down to you or anyone. I'm just going through the steps of how it gets to that point or might get to that point, for someone who may not know.

Blessings,
Bill