3

I work in a state facility in the US, and there are signs at the doors which say "No Concealable Weapons Allowed" with a picture of a handgun with the red slash through it. Recently the signs had been replaced, the former wording was "concealed". My thought is, "so it is OK to walk in with a bazooka, because it is not concealABLE"? (Or concealED, with the old signs) Why don't they just say "No Weapons" which should be the point? What distinction am I missing here?

4
  • 1
    Probably the logic is to be found in the regulations of the site you visited rather than in the wording used.
    – user66974
    Nov 4, 2014 at 16:43
  • @Josh61: there are signs that say "No Smoking", which seems unambiguous. Can the phrase No xxxx actually ALLOW the thing in some circumstances? Even the word Allowed seems redundant. What else could I be meaning by saying No?
    – user126158
    Nov 4, 2014 at 17:00
  • @nocomprende There are lots of redundant signs around. "Authorized personnel only" is my favorite.
    – Barmar
    Nov 4, 2014 at 17:19
  • @Barmar: that one is sometimes altered to UNauthorized. I think that is from Catch-22.
    – user126158
    Nov 4, 2014 at 17:43

1 Answer 1

4

Presumably, if the sign had said "no concealed weapons allowed" and you took the prohibition literally, you might conclude that you could enter with either a bazooka or a handgun readily visible in your hand(s).

The point of the distinction here, I suspect, is that—what with the emergence of "open carry" laws in various state and municipal jurisdictions of the United States—the facility where you work wanted to emphasize that carrying a handgun or other "concealable" weapon inside the facility is prohibited, whether it's visible or not. I admit that the bazooka loophole looms rather large, but I wouldn't recommend testing it: Even a howitzer is concealable if you have a big enough tarp.

4
  • 8
    And driving a tank through the doors shouting "Conceal THIS" is right out.
    – user126158
    Nov 4, 2014 at 17:08
  • 1
    That you could try, just to test the new wording.
    – Sven Yargs
    Nov 4, 2014 at 17:11
  • I still think that a simple "No Weapons" covers the newly legislated concealed permits and open-carry laws (do we really need both? If guns are allowed, they are allowed.)
    – user126158
    Nov 4, 2014 at 17:11
  • Either way, James Bond would be allowed in your building, but his hands would be prohibited.
    – Sven Yargs
    Nov 4, 2014 at 17:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy