Wisconsin Businesses Could Suffer NRA Backlash If Opposed To Concealed Carry


There is more reason to be concerned about Wisconsin Senate Bill 93, the concealed carry legislation that is moving along in the Capitol.  From the start this measure has been highly controversial, but yet seems unable to be stopped due to heavy lobbying by the gun industry, along with too many weak elected officials unable to say no.

While some residents in the state will be delighted to holster up, what about business owners that are either opposed to concealed carry, or are concerned about the safety of their customers and the well-being of society? 

Under SB 93, introduced by Senator Galloway, a business that is not wanting customers to carry a gun into their establishment  will need to place an orange sign in a place where it can be expected to be easily viewed by the public.

The language for that portion of the bill states that the sign must be no smaller than 8.5 x 11 inches.

Again, it needs to be orange.  It must be easy for customers to spot the sign. 

It will also be equally easy to be spotted by the NRA!

Can anyone see the effects of such signs on businesses around the Badger State  that oppose concealed carry?  

We all know the power of the NRA, and the lengths they go to win every political battle.  Can anyone say with a straight face that the NRA will not encourage their members to make contact with businesses that are brave and smart enough not to allow gun on their premises?  Can anyone honestly say that the NRA will not try to muscle these places of business opposed to concealed carry?  If you think this is not likely…

At a time when there is enough discord among state residents over a series of contentious political issues should businesses be placed in the spot of needing to defend their opposition to concealed carry?  That is what it will come down to if this bill is passed.

From the start this legislation has been wrong for Wisconsin.  Every way this bill is looked at leads thoughtful people to the same conclusion.  Concealed carry is a purely political bill that has been  ginned up by the NRA and now is being forced onto the citizens of this state.    If passed this bill will have many consequences that too few have considered.

3 thoughts on “Wisconsin Businesses Could Suffer NRA Backlash If Opposed To Concealed Carry

  1. In all fairness, it ain’t just the Pro-Second Amendment folks that could boycott a business. Many of my pals in Madison have stated that they wouldn’t go into any place that does NOT disallow firearms from being carried inside.

    When commenting on this bill, please keep in mind that Wisconsin and Illinois are the only two states in the nation that don’t allow for concealed carry by citizens. Is there any evidence that these fears you are expressing are coming true in the rest of the nation?

  2. Patrick

    lets also keep in mind that the NRA has always championed respinsible gun ownership and offers more gun safety training courses than any other organization. The NRA are not the thick union thugs protesting Walker. But even if they were, wouldn’t you have to say that is what democracy looks like?

  3. DBK

    The conceal and carry law was passed in Minnesota. Throughout the state, businesses (and even churches) were required to put up these ridiculous signs. Many people who have visited the state, family, friends, and tourists from all over the world, are incredulous when they see these signs. The law rests on the goofy assumption that we all should feel safer because the guy next to you just might be carrying a concealed gun. So, you better shape up. That means you too, criminals–since, we all know how rational criminals are.

    It was funny when the bill was debated on the House Floor and an amendment was offered to exempt churches from having to comply with the signage requirement. It really put many Republicans in a quandary: Do they support the 2nd Amendment or the First Amendment—do they favor personal gun rights or the right to practice their religion, in accordance with their personal beliefs and free from governmental intrusion? They sided with guns but the courts later “recognized that a state mandate requiring church signage, where color and meaning are expressly dictated, could be antithetical to sincerely held principles of religious faith. The court also found it an unrealistic burden to require churches to personally inform the congregation that guns are prohibited on the premises, particularly when the church has a mission that espouses peacefulness.” (Quote from Henningson & Snoxell.)

    And, some legislators’ contortions when presented with amendments seeking exemptions for day care centers, bars, etc. was equally goofy. While I understand the shared belief to make our communities safe–contrary to proponents’ claims–I disagree that this law has made our communities any safer. Just ask the guy who was shot at a bar in Minneapolis by an intoxicated man who had a conceal and carry permit. At end of the day, a more candid assessment of the law would conclude that its enactment had more to do as exercise of political power. I am not the only one to wonder why our country cannot have a civil discussion regarding guns.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s