A buddy of mine sent this to me.  I cannot confirm that it is real, but I will take it at face value.

It was posted to the Instagram account of Fenix Ammo.

This is what the disclaimer says:

ALTHOUGH WEAPONS ARE BANNED FROM THIS MUNICIPAL FACILITY, THE CITY OF RACINE CANNOT ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF VISITORS OR ITS EMPLOYEES FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO UNLAWFULLY ENTER WITH WEAPONS AND DOES NOT OFFER PROTECTION AGAINST THE ACTIONS OF VIOLATORS.

Translation: if a bad guy chooses to ignore this sign, you’re pretty much dead and it’s not our fault.

That is… honest, and a gun free zone in a nutshell.

I wonder how many employees who walk past that sign every day really understand what it is saying.

If anybody lives in the Racine area and has reason to stop by a municipal building, confirm that this is real.  I’d love to know.

Update

Thanks to a reader, this warning was confirmed real and is worse than I thought.

From the Journal Times:

Weapons ban signs go up on some city buildings

The sign includes a disclaimer at the bottom: “Although weapons are banned from this municipal facility, the City of Racine cannot ensure the protection of visitors or its employees from individuals who unlawfully enter with weapons and does not offer protection against the actions of violators.”

Letteney said the disclaimer was in part based upon advice from the city’s liability insurer.

“We’re just trying to protect (the city) to the extent we can,” he said.

So the disclaimer has nothing to do with warning people that being in a Gun Free Zone doesn’t make them safe, it is all to protect the city from any litigation that might stem from a resident being killed in a city Gun Free Zone.

 

 

Spread the love

By J. Kb

5 thoughts on “Honesty in the disclaimer – Update: Confirmed real”
  1. I’ve got one that’s even better.
    One of my clients has a sign that they don’t allow guns, but “per SB-9999, you are under our protection while in this facility.”

    SB-9999 (which isn’t the real number) never passed, so this language is literally only meant to confuse people in to thinking that company is liable.

  2. At least they are admitting that the Gun Free Zone is a fiction.

    I disagree that this releases them from liability. They are admitting that they are disarming people without providing any meaningful protection. I think most juries will award damages.

    1. I would award damages. And at the same time be ashamed that it had to come to that point. The point that someone had to suffer for lack of their 2A rights.

Login or register to comment.