
If there's no such sign at the entrance of a facility, and as long as firearms aren't explicitly prohibited in the location by law, concealed carry of a handgun -- again, with a valid permit -- is allowed.

Mrs. KintlaLake and I exercise lawful concealed carry of our handguns, both here and in other states where an Ohio permit is valid. We abide by statutory prohibitions, which includes looking for no-guns signs and conducting ourselves accordingly. Typical of citizens who hold a concealed-carry permit, we obey the law.
If you're like most gun-control advocates I've encountered, you hold that laws allowing citizens to possess and carry firearms constitute a threat to public safety. The argument follows, then, that a building displaying a no-guns sign must be safer than one displaying the guns-welcome sign or no sign at all.
Now suppose you're strolling along a sidewalk in downtown Columbus, Ohio, when you hear a loud bang. At first you think it's a car backfiring, but then you hear several more -- bang, bang-bang...bang -- and you notice terrified people running in all directions.
"Gun!" screams a woman who knocks you off-balance as she barges past you. "Guy with a gun! Shooting people!"
You hear more gunshots. Two people fall to the ground, one of them less than a hundred feet in front of you. Just beyond, you see a man with a rifle.
You, of course, are unarmed. The police are nowhere in sight.
As you turn to flee, you notice two storefronts. Each has a sign posted on the entry door -- one prohibiting all firearms, the other welcoming their lawful carry. What do you do?

Remember, you truly believe that a place that bans guns is safer than allowing trained citizens to carry guns on the premises. You believe that laws and signs are your best defense.
You walk through the first door. Do you feel safe?
More to the point: Do think that crazed guy with the rifle -- or any other armed criminal -- gives a damn about laws and no-guns signs?
And do you, in that moment, still believe that you're safer seeking refuge where all law-abiding citizens voluntarily disarmed before entering, rather than choosing that "dangerous" place next door, where there just may be a responsible private citizen prepared for armed defense?
Look, I'll respect your choice not to own or carry a firearm -- the Second Amendment codifies a right, not a requirement -- but please, please stop trying to impose your ill-conceived rules on those of us who choose to lawfully take responsibility for our own defense.
