They actually need to go a step farther and mandate armed security in these environments.
Shifting liability is nice, and might counter any concern by businesses that that there's some liability involved if they don't post 'no guns' signs, but it really doesn't do anything for actual crime and safety.
If (for example) 5% of the population has a carry license, then they should provide armed security equivalent to 5% of the occupancy of the store. That on-going cost would definitely have a lot more impact on a businesses decision to be a gun free zone.
Even so, I'd like to see this pass, but I think it's been proposed before and never made it through.
Shifting liability is nice, and might counter any concern by businesses that that there's some liability involved if they don't post 'no guns' signs, but it really doesn't do anything for actual crime and safety.
If (for example) 5% of the population has a carry license, then they should provide armed security equivalent to 5% of the occupancy of the store. That on-going cost would definitely have a lot more impact on a businesses decision to be a gun free zone.
Even so, I'd like to see this pass, but I think it's been proposed before and never made it through.