What's supposed to be wrong with this?
I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited.
I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements.
in most states, the decision to permit firearms on-site is made by the facility owner and must have legal posted signs
so if a hotel in Texas doesn't have legal signage disallowing carrying on-site (no signs means you can carry), you can't just impose those rules for your own function (the correct course of action would be to hold your conference at a facility that operates policies you agree with)
>> What's supposed to be wrong with this?
It is over-reach.
What if the policy stated that all conference participants could only eat vegan foods?
Or that the conference had to have all energy use with 100% green energy sources?
Or that all conference materials had to use the English language?
Or that the conference proceedings must pause for the call to prayer?
>> I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements.
Good luck getting everyone around the world to agree what the 'basic requirements' should be.
Why not leave those details to the conference organizers?
By the way, in some states, it's legal to carry even where private actors forbid it, so you could attend a conference where they are "forbidden", and there could be people legally carrying anyway. People will never know.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to attend conferences where firearms are forbidden. I don't want to be an easy target.
The idea that carrying a firearm is inherently dangerous is absurd.