Businesses usually have the right to set rules in their own establishments, but under HB 462, they would not have the right to keep guns out without the fear of liability..."
Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too.
Why should a business that allows public access not be held responsible if they set a rule that takes that "responsibility" away from an individual?
I can protect me when the issue warrants said protection. If you remove one of my primary tools to do... so that I can enter your establishment... by proxy... aren't you now at least partially responsible for providing me an acceptable alternative of that "protection"?
Granted... I am NOT forced to enter your place. I can choose to go somewhere else.
In the courts of FL... we have armed security and the door and metal detectors and/or x-rays and they check packages.
I would say that it's reasonable to expect a certain level or "protection" when I enter one.
What does the typical "business" do to provide for the "protection" that I am not allowed to have when I enter their place?