Concealed Carry Law

A pet peeve of mine is entering the doors to my church and seeing a picture of a gun with a slash through it on the door. "Check your guns at the door, Baptists and Bad Guys!" It just seems so silly, because if a bad guy wants to come in and blaze away at a bunch of Baptists, that sign on the door isn't doing to anything to stop him -- in fact, it gives him comfort that he knows he's entering a gun-free zone. It's like posting a "No Guns" sign at the entrance to towns in the old west -- like Jesse James was really going to check his guns at the Sheriff's office. Representative Forrest Knox has introduced a bill that would alter the current laws dealing with any government owned, state or local, building posting a sign prohibiting the licensed carry of a concealed weapon.

House Bill 2685 requires that ‘adequate security measures’ be in place in any state or local publicly owned facility or premise if the facility or premise is posted prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon. Likewise, any properly licensed employee could carry a concealed weapon in his workplace at a publicly owned facility or premise unless the facility or premise provided adequate security measures.

Representative Forrest Knox, Altoona, asked for the introduction of this bill after considering the answer to the question, “Does the placing of a sign prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon in an unsecured facility cause the facility to be more secure or less secure?”

Knox stated, “Last year I asked this question to a Chief Judge who was testifying against a bill allowing prosecutors to carry concealed on the job. He would not answer the question.” The legislation allowing prosecutors to carry has since become law. Premises that provide adequate security measures are allowed to be exempt from the requirement of allowing prosecutors to carry concealed.

“Placing a sign”, Knox stated, “is sometimes perceived to provide some level of security. But it does the opposite. It becomes an invitation for criminals to a ‘gun free zone’.”

Knox questions whether liability issues need to be considered here. Does the placing of a sign imply an acceptance of responsibility for the provision of security? Does government owe the public more than this? These questions will undoubtedly be dealt with when HB 2685 is heard this week at the Capital in House Federal and State Affairs Committee on Thursday, February 25 at 1:30pm.