Suing stores that ban guns - Page 2

Suing stores that ban guns

This is a discussion on Suing stores that ban guns within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Hold on...while it may be private property...the public is invited in to conduct commerce. If a property is properly posted, and the signs hold legal ...

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 136

Thread: Suing stores that ban guns

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,112
    Hold on...while it may be private property...the public is invited in to conduct commerce. If a property is properly posted, and the signs hold legal weight, then why shouldn't the store be held responsible for my safety since it was denied at their doors?

    Is there a sign at the door that says "enter at your own risk...this store may be robbed at some point and we are not responsible for your safety...?"

    While it's easy to say "I'm gonna go somewhere else"....the reality of the situation is you are going to that store because they have something you need. And it's not like you haven't been to this store before...

    I mean, come on...there is tort law on slippery floors in stores...but a criminal act whereby the store prohibits your ability to defend yourself, and they can't be held liable? I think this is more than "It's private property...end of story."
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know


  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    If you don't like the policy of the store owner/manager, then don't go in there. It is that simple. You will not win that lawsuit because no one is forcing you to be there.
    Walk softly ...

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,112
    OK.....change in tack

    If I'm in the store and one of the employees drops a ladder on my head by accident....then I can't sue? Because I'm not forced to be there for the employee to drop the ladder on my head...

    So where does the store's liability start/end?
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  4. #19
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    11,309
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    Hold on...while it may be private property...the public is invited in to conduct commerce. If a property is properly posted, and the signs hold legal weight, then why shouldn't the store be held responsible for my safety since it was denied at their doors?

    Is there a sign at the door that says "enter at your own risk...this store may be robbed at some point and we are not responsible for your safety...?"

    While it's easy to say "I'm gonna go somewhere else"....the reality of the situation is you are going to that store because they have something you need. And it's not like you haven't been to this store before...

    I mean, come on...there is tort law on slippery floors in stores...but a criminal act whereby the store prohibits your ability to defend yourself, and they can't be held liable? I think this is more than "It's private property...end of story."
    You have it right. While it is privately-owned property, there is an implied invitation if not exhortation to the public to enter the store. It is clearly NOT the same as a stranger walking into your back yard without invitation. If the store is open for business and you don't have to ask permission to enter, it is out of the realm of private property with respect to the safety of the shoppers.

    While I'm unaware of any specific cases involving unarmed customers suing a store for not protecting them, there is a reasonable expectation that the store will provide a safe environment for its shoppers, such as the "slippery floor" example cited. In the right state, with the right jury, a suit against a posted store in which someone was shot by a BG could hold up. It won't take a unanimous jury or "beyond the shadow of a doubt", just a simple majority and a preponderance of evidence.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    OK.....change in tack

    If I'm in the store and one of the employees drops a ladder on my head by accident....then I can't sue? Because I'm not forced to be there for the employee to drop the ladder on my head...

    So where does the store's liability start/end?
    That's not a very good analogy IMO. Any court is going to see your case favorably if someone drops a ladder on your head. You won't win a lawsuit over a no gun policy in the scenario the OP presents. Of course stranger things have happened so I could be wrong but I say; don't count on winning this one in court.

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,112
    Not arguing the no-gun policy per se. However, if the store's policies prohibited me from carrying the tools to defend me and my family....and in the course of a robbery/[insert scenario], whereby my family members were injured or killed, my question is---where is the store's liability? When did it stop? Obviously their policies did not prevent foreseeable harm (in this scenario)...
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    E) You are ultimately responsible for your own safety. No one else is obligated to protect you and to think anything different is absolute foolishness.
    Absolutely right on this one. You are foolish if you allow somebody like a private property owner to willingly disarm you.

    A) It is private property.
    B) You have no constitutional rights protections on private property from a non-government entity or person as the constitution only states which rights the government cannot infringe upon.
    Better study this one a lot closer. Commit a civil rights violation against one of your customers (with whom you engage in commerce), and you will find out all about "private property". They can sue you in federal court and end up becoming the new private property owners. There was a Denny's awhile back that found that out the hard way. They may not have lost their business, but there were several African-American guys that became quite wealthy in the aftermath....

    D) As a private business owner, I will be damned if you are going to tell me how I can or can't run my business or which policies I can or cannot have in place.
    This is true, but with that attitude, depending on the situation, Pride carries a hefty price tag.......

    C) If you don't like the policy of the business or premises, simply don't go there.
    This is my policy, when and where I can apply it. I also make it a point to tell them exactly why I won't do business with them, either and make sure it is public where everyone can hear it.......
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array Majorlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Naugatuck, CT
    Posts
    2,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Siddhartha View Post
    Ok let me throw this out at you then, lets say you are late due to somebody causing an accident on the freeway. Can you sue that person for making you late??? If your being late caused "damages" to your life??? These are things that go through my head while sitting in traffic....


    Talk about frivolous lawsuits ...
    An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert A. Heinlein

  9. #24
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Commit a civil rights violation against one of your customers
    Little bit different you the property owner are now commiting the offense against one of your customers.
    Certain places have long been posted before there were CCW holders. I have been to many a bar that had the sign on the door, No Colors, No weapons, No Drugs and investigated the shootout inside of two opposing biker gangs involved in a shootout over meth, or the oldie but goodie No shirt, No shoes, No service.
    Just as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public bathroom you have a reasonable expectation of safety in a 7-11. The store has cameras, signs stating they have cameras, the robbery prevention stickers on the windows and so on.
    Banks do not employ armed security guards anymore simply because the risk outweighed the benefit. If I am in the bank and not armed and the bank is robbed could I sue, sure you can sue for anything but you must have damages of some type. Barring injury maybe emotional distress or something along those lines. But the standard would be something to the effect would a reasonable and prudent person feel they did whatever they could to provide you with the reasonable expectation of safety. Private businesses should have the right to say who or what comes into their businesses it is theirs.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,112
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Little bit different you the property owner are now commiting the offense against one of your customers.
    Certain places have long been posted before there were CCW holders. I have been to many a bar that had the sign on the door, No Colors, No weapons, No Drugs and investigated the shootout inside of two opposing biker gangs involved in a shootout over meth, or the oldie but goodie No shirt, No shoes, No service.
    Just as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public bathroom you have a reasonable expectation of safety in a 7-11. The store has cameras, signs stating they have cameras, the robbery prevention stickers on the windows and so on.
    Banks do not employ armed security guards anymore simply because the risk outweighed the benefit. If I am in the bank and not armed and the bank is robbed could I sue, sure you can sue for anything but you must have damages of some type. Barring injury maybe emotional distress or something along those lines. But the standard would be something to the effect would a reasonable and prudent person feel they did whatever they could to provide you with the reasonable expectation of safety. Private businesses should have the right to say who or what comes into their businesses it is theirs.
    Agreed...so my question is--IF my family members are injured or killed during [insert criminal scenario], where is the store's liability? As you state, it's risk vs gain--and IMO, they (the store) lost when their "no weapons" posting (or cameras or guards, for that matter) failed to prevent harm (as the intent behind the signs...you know "For your safety...blah blah blah") Because in this scenario, the only people protected by the signs were criminals--and any reasonable person would see that...
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Siddhartha View Post
    So lets say I am in one of those establishments and a BG causes great harm or death to myself or my family. Should you be able to sue the establishment for not protecting you or not allowing yourself to protect you and yours while in their establishment?
    If I or my family members am harmed in an attack while visiting a business, I think that any person so harmed should be able to sue for damages, yes, if in fact the business provided zero security in exchange for the cost I paid at the door to lose my own.

    I'm of the belief that a business that takes zero pains to protect its visitors while simultaneously ensuring they are disarmed so as to have no effective means of defending themselves should be held liable for security that's not provided, if it turns out that lack of security contributed to the injury or death or any visitors during an attack.

    I believe the exchange of value is a contract. The cost paid by the visitor is loss of security and personal effects, along with increased loss of peace of mind. In exchange, the business owner provides diddly in spite of having a responsibility to replace that lost value with something of similar or equivalent value, ignoring the essential bargain dictated by the contract.

    Imagine ... Shoes are claimed to be disallowed in a store. Shoes, no service. The only parking area is 100yds away, over a field littered with broken glass shards and sharp rocks. The store's owner audaciously posts a sign stating "Management not responsible for your cut and injured feet. That's your problem."

    Malarkey.

    It's the same with disarmament in exchange for entry.

    But I'm sure that this little sticking point is what the attorney types point to when scoffing at such an idea: it's merely a requirement for entry, and the visitor agreed to the terms of entry by voluntarily disarming. Yes, it's a contract, the attorneys will say, and the parties both agreed to the terms, given that the visitor entered the business. It's all a crock, IMO. There's nothing really voluntary about it. A person in a small town with a single grocery store is supposed to never enter the store, hm?. It's coerced, obviously, in these situations; but the same mechanism is at play in all situations, I believe.

    Of course, I'm not an attorney. I cannot gauge the likelihood of any court even accepting such a legal claim by someone who is robbed at a store by criminals who know that all visitors have been disarmed at the door.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,883
    Our state is considering a law that if they "post" no guns, they have to provide a minimum... defined... level of security, metal detectors, etc. and basically provide protection for all people while they are there.

    I hope it passes.... it would be a strong statement that people do have a right to protect themselves and that no one else can willy nilly take that right away.

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Our state is considering a law that if they "post" no guns, they have to provide a minimum... defined... level of security, metal detectors, etc. and basically provide protection for all people while they are there.
    Do you have any info on the legislative bill number or title, or who the lead sponsors are? I'd be interested in pushing a few groups here in Oregon to take a stand on something like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,883
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Do you have any info on the legislative bill number or title, or who the lead sponsors are? I'd be interested in pushing a few groups here in Oregon to take a stand on something like this.
    http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2010/2685.pdf

    the first part appears to be not allowing CC if they are posted, but go to the last 1/2.... where it says they must however provide security if they do post .... no gun signs.

    (b) It is not a violation of this section for a person to possess a
    firearm as authorized under the personal and family protection
    act unless the facilities or premises have adequate security measures
    as defined in subsection (e) to ensure that no firearms are
    permitted to be carried into or on such premises or facilities.

    and it goes on from there.....

  15. #30
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Eagleks that may be the start of something who knows.

    Sigguy absolutely agree, the only people that are protected are the criminals, so this is different how from our current legal system because they will not abide by any laws anyway. Just like putting a fence up at the border, do you think an illegal who has paid thousands of dollars and travelled hundred of miles when they get to the fence, Damn a fence we cant cross, lets go back. You are absolutely right in regards to reasonableness. That is how any action would be judged, in regards to a shooting or lethal force incident, "What a reasonable and prudent man would do in the same circumstances faced with the same situation".

    CCW9mm the only problem is that is a verbal contract is worth the paper it is written on. To get around the contract issue they could have you sign a waiver to enter or the sign could say "By entering this store you hereby waive all rights to pursue legal action against blah, blah. That would never happen but they would work the system to their benefit.

    I do not want to start a war on here in regards to this next statement but wanted to ask. It has been posted on here in regards to having training above and beyond the CCW class is the responsibility of the individual and should not be dictated they have to have it. If that person shoots someone or the wrong someone or does something wrong it is on them they must pay the penalty and the government or authority should not dictate what they should or should not have. Is this not the same case here? The government or authority should not dictate to a mom and pop grocery that they will provide metal detectors and armed guards to ensure your safety, it is on you.
    If a gun shop owner says and has posted "The only loaded firearm allowed in this store is mine, period no questions asked" that is his right, it is his store. Does he assume liability for your safety? The NRA/City/Convention center has said no carrying of firearms at the convention, have they assumed liability for your safety?
    In our society today people can sue and win for anything. In the case of something like this yes the injured party may be able to sue the store for not protecting them, but the store COULD SAY we fufilled our obligation by having a panic alarm wired into the PD, or rest assured the defense would be used "We posted the rules and the criminal broke the rules so he is now responsible, we need more gun control laws". People have sued and won because they ordered coffee and burned themselves because it was hot! Well No S**T that is why it is called fresh hot coffee.

    There is no standard and the only ones to set the standards would be the government/authority which has been clearly stated on the forum is not what is needed or wanted. Got to have it one way or the other. Either tolerate more rules and laws or be vunerable at times but still have the right to carry in most places, most of the time. Is there a middle ground that everyone could agree on?
    Just my opinion
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Poll Should Starbuck Allow Guns In Their Stores???
    By 007BondJames in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: March 18th, 2010, 03:24 PM
  2. Guns Stores are Marking Prices Up
    By tom1965 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2009, 09:48 PM
  3. kel-tec suing?
    By fernset in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 10:15 AM
  4. NO Guns stores in DC but LOOK WHO HAS A LICENSE!!!!
    By Rob99VMI04 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: July 8th, 2008, 04:50 PM
  5. Suing politicians
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 20th, 2008, 02:54 AM

Search tags for this page

can a business ban guns

,
can a business ban guns georgia
,

can a private business ban guns

,
can a private business ban guns in minnesota
,

can a private establishment ban guns

,
can businesses ban guns
,
can i ban guns in my business
,
can private business ban guns
,

can private businesses ban guns

,

mn business banning firearms

,

stores that ban guns

,
what stores ban guns
Click on a term to search for related topics.