Suing stores that ban guns - Page 3

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; Originally Posted by JungleJim That's one of the good things about Fla, I just ignore the signs, they are meaningless here which is why you ...

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 136

Thread: Suing stores that ban guns

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,413
    Quote Originally Posted by JungleJim View Post
    That's one of the good things about Fla, I just ignore the signs, they are meaningless here which is why you see very few.

    On topic, I have heard of businesses being sued for failing to provide a safe environment. That being said, you could still carry pepper spray, knife or other type of self defense device, not my first choice but better than nothing.
    Unfortunately, I can't carry at work (I can lock it in the car) but I do carry OC spray at work.

    How would the OPs question pertain to employers who ban employees from carrying? They have a responsibility to maintain a safe work environment, but does one unarmed guard for 400+ employees in a public service industry constitute safe work environment? I don't know...I'm just thinking about scenarios.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.


  2. #32
    Distinguished Member Array Guardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wichita Falls, Texas
    Posts
    1,618
    It was mentioned just don't go in that store, freewill and all, I say use it and go elsewhere.

    No to lawsuits unless absolutely necessary.
    "I dislike death, however, there are some things I dislike more than death. Therefore, there are times when I will not avoid danger" Mencius"

  3. #33
    Distinguished Member Array bladenbullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    englewood, fl
    Posts
    1,751
    are you guys allowed to buy coffee at mcdonalds?...gezzus!...

    it is your choice to enter the establishment unarmed if that is their policy..there is no negligence involved if someone comes in and robs the place and you are not armed and able to fend them off...are you in a hurry to get sued because you are armed and unable to stop a robbery if they allowed you in the establishment armed?..."the customer had a gun and was unable to stop the robbery. i think i'll sue him."...

    grow a set guys...everyone else isnt here to cater to your wishes...you are responsible for where you are and whether you are armed and noone else...stop looking for other people to blame if something doesnt go your way....and yes...thats exactly what youre doing...

  4. #34
    Senior Member Array Holdcard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, Az.
    Posts
    531
    Honestly, I've never been able to figure out 'property rights' when it comes to commercial property. Actual private property (residential) is different than commercial property.

    The laws governing the two are different. Building codes, parking, which doors remain unlocked, parking areas, accessible parking, accessible rest rooms, storage, signage, notifications and I'm sure there's a bunch I missed. Those requirements are accepted as part of the cost of doing business.

    If you invite the community into your private business and fail to keep them safe you'll get sued. Ladders falling, wet floors, environmental safeties, accessibility issues, etc. Why should physical safety from a crime be any different than physical safety from a bucket of water?

    If I opened a store and did not allow oxygen bottles (for safety, it's an insurance thing - they can blow up you know). If someone dies or becomes ill because they did not have their oxygen, who's to blame. They simply could just as easily gone somewhere else. Instead, they willingly 'contracted' with me and gave up all rights to their oxygen when they willingly entered my store.

    Now think about it.
    In the oxygen scenario the person was responsible for their own health and knew the possibility existed that they may need their oxygen, but I the owner forbid the bottle and person contracted with me not to bring it in (implying that they willingly gave up all their rights). If the person gets sick or dies as a result of this practice would I or would I not have any responsibility/liability?

    On the other hand, If I did not allow oxygen bottles but did provide a concentrator for the persons needs there would be no problem. I restricted their right and at the same time met their needs, even the potential needs. In the same way, a business that restricts my ability to defend myself should bear the burden and liability of my defense. Otherwise, let me do it myself.

    Physical safety is physical safety, whether it be from a violent criminal, wet floor, faulty exhaust system, toxins, lack of equipment, lack of oxygen, etc.

    The oxygen thing is a long reach I know, but the principle is the same. Funny how things change when you apply the same rules to different items. To be honest, I don't think I even have the right to forbid medical necessities (ADA)

    Holdcard
    If You Want To POPULATE Heaven
    You Have To PLUNDER Hell!!

    4th Man Ministries

  5. #35
    Senior Member Array Rotorblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SurfCity
    Posts
    541
    Using some of the logic in these posts, lets say I own an Ice Cream/Candy shop on main street. Many of my customers are parents with their kids, soccer teams etc.
    You have a pit bull that you walk around with who has been trained to protect you. I don't want your dog in my store because I don't want to get sued if your dog bites another customer and I don't want you scaring off my customers.
    Are you gonna sue me?

  6. #36
    Senior Member Array Holdcard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, Az.
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Rotorblade View Post
    Using some of the logic in these posts, lets say I own an Ice Cream/Candy shop on main street. Many of my customers are parents with their kids, soccer teams etc.
    You have a pit bull that you walk around with who has been trained to protect you. I don't want your dog in my store because I don't want to get sued if your dog bites another customer and I don't want you scaring off my customers.
    Are you gonna sue me?
    Is the person being responsible with the dog? Is it running loose or is it leashed? What does the health code in your area say about allowing animals (except service animals). Is this the only animal ejected or have all animal owners been asked to remove their dog?

    Did you put up the 'Enter at your own Risk' sign? You know, the one that exempts you from all liability and wrongdoing

    Holdcard
    If You Want To POPULATE Heaven
    You Have To PLUNDER Hell!!

    4th Man Ministries

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array Rotorblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SurfCity
    Posts
    541
    Ok....here is another way to look at it.....

    Apparently, as a business owner I will be sued if I ban firearms in my establishment because I've removed your right to defend yourself, however; If I allow firearms I will be sued if you have an AD and kill one of my other customers because I didn't take precautions to protect them from you.
    Looks like I'm gonna have to lawyer up either way.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Array Holdcard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, Az.
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Rotorblade View Post
    Ok....here is another way to look at it.....

    Apparently, as a business owner I will be sued if I ban firearms in my establishment because I've removed your right to defend yourself, however; If I allow firearms I will be sued if you have an AD and kill one of my other customers because I didn't take precautions to protect them from you.
    Looks like I'm gonna have to lawyer up either way.
    Welcome to America

    We have become a very sue happy society. If a customer has an NG and injures or kills someone that is not your responsibility. You will probably be sued for anything that happens in your store.

    I remember reading about one lady that tripped over an unwatched child, broke her leg and sued. The child was HERS.

    Holdcard
    If You Want To POPULATE Heaven
    You Have To PLUNDER Hell!!

    4th Man Ministries

  9. #39
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    You can sue the store owner and the example of someone causing and accident that holds you up for an important appointment: yes you can sue - or try to - but no one will take these cases - and even if you did on your own the judge would throw them out of court: because you have no case.

    The store owner didn't take away your rights - you don't have rights to Carry without permission on private property not your own. In a more general way, he didn't take way your right to defend yourself. Self-Defense law is not about guns - that's Gun Law. You have the right to defend yourself with whatever you choose - except if you've chosen a store that won't allow guns, you put yourself in a position where you can't have a gun, then fine - but that was your choice. Nor could you prove that had you had a gun you could have defended yourself better anyway.
    That's conjecture.

    And the freeway accident thing - well of course you wouldn't win a suit. There's no proximity to the act you're suing about and the damage you're claiming. Otherwise you could see you could sue the city for not having an exit ramp you could have used to get off the freeway, the person who set the appointment up you're now late for for choosing THAT day, and yourself for choosing that route. Plus the police for not clearing the accident quicker and a thousand other people. We all could see everyone all the time. There has to be a direct relationship between one person's negligent act and the damage it causes another.

  10. #40
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Sue happy is not the word. Lawyers are the ones that will make money out of this either way.
    The other spectrum of this. You are carrying enen though the store is posted, you are involved in a lethal force encounter. Legal force all is good as far as the shooting part. Hung out to dry or the hero of the hour?
    This is one of those topics that "You enter at your own risk"

    Hamlet good post
    "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

  11. #41
    Member Array arkansas ducker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    ne arkansas
    Posts
    16
    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."

    Nice comments SIG I have to agree wholeheartedly.

  12. #42
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    I all comes down to what is the legal standard that they would have to follow. It would vary greatly from state to state.
    I honestly do not know if they have any legal obligation to protect you other that to provide you with a safe shopping enviroment, meaning accidents and so on not criminal acts that they have no control over.
    "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

  13. #43
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,168
    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?
    If an employee shoots you, you could sue the store. If a another customer shoots you, then you will have to sue the shooter. The store has no responsibility to protect you from other customers.

    The exception is a bar. If they sold the shooter liquor and then he shoots you while under the influence, then the bar is also liable. I sat on a civil jury with a case where the shooting took place outside the bar, after starting inside, and the bar was held liable. The preponderance of case law behind this is one of the big reasons bar owners fight "carry inside bar" legislation. An individual CCWs in a bar, has a few drinks and then goes outside, gets in fight and blazes away. Bar gets sued along with the now arrested CCWer who drank while carrying.


    Lots of case law floating around on this one!
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  14. #44
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    I personally wouldn't waste my time on it.


    C) If you don't like the policy of the business or premises, simply don't go there.
    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.
    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.
    I believe that Tubby summed it up for me, if you don't let me use what tools I think I need to protect myself, then you won't get my business.

    I will not tell another man how to run his business. I personally believe that if you own a resturant and want to allow smoking then you should. If I don't want to eat or work there then I don't have too.

    We sue to much in this country already and I am not about to try to use the courts to force my will on someone else
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  15. #45
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    As much as I hate it and despise the places that do it, I recognise the property owners right to dictate what is/isn't done on his property.
    However, there is precedent in allot of areas that would support him giving up some of that right by being "open to the public." For example, in several states/cities, it is illegal for restautants to allow smoking. I think that's nonsense because of the private property argument, but the local/state governments have said that is too bad because the establishment is open to the public.
    How this relates: should there be different standards for private, private property, versus "open to the public," private property?
    I would say no, but I think the government has already said yes. So, if the answer is yes, why should it not apply here also?
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

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, 02:24 PM
  2. Guns Stores are Marking Prices Up
    By tom1965 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2009, 08:48 PM
  3. kel-tec suing?
    By fernset in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 09:15 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, 03:50 PM
  5. Suing politicians
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 20th, 2008, 01:54 AM

Search tags for this page

can a business ban guns

,

can a private business ban guns

,

can a private establishment ban guns

,
can businesses ban guns from entering their establishment
,
can i ban guns in my business
,
can private business ban guns
,

can private businesses ban guns

,
can+an+establishment+ban firearms
,
establishments that ban guns
,

mn business banning firearms

,

stores that ban guns

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