Suing stores that ban guns

[proscene]

Serious suggestion:
Find some other battle to spend your energy on.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Holdcard]

As a rule, I avoid criminal protection zones on nothing more than principle. They don't want me, I'll do my best to honor that and take my money elsewhere.

The OP's question is something I've wondered about for a long time. Like it or not there is a big bias concerning self defense and firearms. Seems like many times even if you're right, you're still wrong.

Holdcard

[razor02097]

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.

In Ohio that would be a moot point.

(2)(a) A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer’s decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, “private employer” includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

(b) A political subdivision shall be immune from liability in a civil action, to the extent and in the manner provided in Chapter 2744. of the Revised Code, for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto any premises or property owned, leased, or otherwise under the control of the political subdivision. As used in this division, “political subdivision” has the same meaning as in section 2744.01 of the Revised Code.

Carrying around a paper with these subsections is a great way to make businesses aware they aren't liable for negligence.

[bladenbullet]

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.

youre kidding right?...if a person pees on the floor in their home should the store owner allow them to do that in the store because he is "inviting" the public in to do business?...if a guy gets cranky because he isnt allowed to smoke in the business can he sue because of pain and suffering...please...

its your choice to visit a business that does not allow guns...and if thats the only defense you have you are poorly prepared both mentally and physically...

good comments?...this is the weekest thread ive seen in this place and thats saying a lot...if you ever wonder why people are anti gun...listen to yourselves...

[razor02097]

not to disagree with some here but I believe "safety" is a misused term. I would think the topic should be "security".

Stores say "safety of the customers is out #1 concern" but pretty much say NOTHING about security. I know it is taking it out of context but when you deal with bureaucrats you sometimes have to be very specific.

INAL

[SIGguy229]

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...

Up until your post, this was polite discourse...one of the fine things about this board. Not to question your reading comprehension, but no one is asking for anything from anyone...This was a discussion between adults about "what if"...or (in my case) "Where does a store's liability start/end in terms of posting a sign that is legally enforceable, in the event of a criminal event whereby my family is harmed?"

We're not curing cancer or determining world peace--we are having a discussion. Please take note of it when reading future posts.

[Tubby45]

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....

Should have clarified. By constitutional rights I was talking about those in the original bill of rights, not the "civil rights" stuff afterward. That's a whole other thread.

This is true, but with that attitude, depending on the situation, Pride carries a hefty price tag.......

For every customer that is lost, more come to take their place.

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.

You didn't lose security. You willingly entered an establishment and made a conscious decision to abide by their rules. Businesses are in business to conduct commerce in services and goods for profit. They are not in business to provide personal security at their establishment. My company manufactures and sells ammunition, machine guns, and silencers. I do not provide security. That is not my business.

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.

Hand to hand combat is effective, even against conventional weapons.

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.

That's the point. The business has no responsibility to provide for security. That's YOUR responsibility as a human being.

I also find it hilarious that the same people who get all bent out of shape about their gun rights seem to think it's OK to violate private property rights of others. "You can't violate my rights but I can violate yours because it has to do with my gun.".

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.

Commercial property is private property and it's owner(s) have the same rights as a homeowner in allowing or disallowing certain things or people onto the premises or conduct while in their establishment.

If I don't want people in my home wearing hats, they take it off or they will leave. If they refuse they are committing trespassing and will be forcefully escorted off the premises by the police.

If I don't want customers in my business wearing hats, they take it off or they will leave. If they refuse they are committing trespassing and will be forcefully escorted off the premises by the police.

Commercial property owners have no less rights than private dwelling owners.

[razor02097]

Also wanted to throw this out there... we aren't talking about suing for pain and suffering in an emotional sense. Arguments for suing for not being allowed to smoke or not allowing hats don't hold water. The OP actually said if the person or person's family was physically hurt or killed, could they sue for damages.

So we are all law abiding citizens and we all know the bad guys ignore the "no guns allowed" signs. 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??? I am interested in your thoughts....

Just sayin....

[SIGguy229]

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.

I'm purposefully leaving the bar part out...as not everyone goes to a bar...but everyone goes to a store....

Following along your scenario--chances are he is violating some employee policy as a condition of their employment. However, if he's a disgruntled employee who has criminal intent...then he goes into the BG column.

Lumping him in with other BGs...the store's policy doesn't permit you to carry...you know, for everyone's safety.

But yet, me or a member of my family is shot by a criminal...doesn't the store, by virtue of posting a legally approved sign ("for safety") assume responsibility for my safety?

To everyone--I'm asking you to think this out. The assumption is made that "the store has no responsibility to protect you from other customers"....then why the signs? Ask these questions to your lawmakers...when you run into management of stores that ask you to leave because you carry--ask them these questions....put them in a position to think what a sign does....nothing.

When I'm home, I carry everywhere (except where prohibited by state/Fed law); signs are ignored--because i know who is responsible for the safety of me and mine.

For the flippant answers of "I don't go there [places that are posted]"--I bet you do...why? Because the store has something you want/need.....or more to the point, the store has something your wife/son/daughter/mother/father/cousin/grandparent needs or wants.

Private property for the sake of commerce...isn't exactly private when you invite the public in...

youre kidding right?...if a person pees on the floor in their home should the store owner allow them to do that in the store because he is "inviting" the public in to do business?...if a guy gets cranky because he isnt allowed to smoke in the business can he sue because of pain and suffering...please...

This is what we would call and apples <> oranges post...

its your choice to visit a business that does not allow guns...and if thats the only defense you have you are poorly prepared both mentally and physically...

So, no constructive comments, but attack the poster...got it.

good comments?...this is the weekest thread ive seen in this place and thats saying a lot...if you ever wonder why people are anti gun...listen to yourselves...

This thread hasn't been running a week...but I have seen some weak posts....Where does the anti-gun argument come from?

[bladenbullet]

Private property for the sake of commerce...isn't exactly private when you invite the public in...

yes it is...it remains private property no differently than your home remains private property when you invite people in...and you have a right to make whatever rules you wish legally as to the use of that property and the behaviour or actions of the people you invite in...if you are not happy with their behaviour, they break the rules or they do something you dont care for you can have them removed...just as a store owner can have you removed...because its private property...

you can bend it anyway you want...the store may have something you want...but that doesnt make it a necessity to go to that particular store...you make that choice and accept the rules that go with it...looking for liability for your safety beyond actual negligence (thats where ladders falling and such come in by the way) is looking to create a problem where one doesnt exsist...

[SIGguy229]

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?

A dog can operate independently...not a gun...plus there are probably health codes that prohibit dogs in places that serve food....

[SIGguy229]

yes it is...it remains private property no differently than your home remains private property when you invite people in...and you have a right to make whatever rules you wish legally as to the use of that property and the behaviour or actions of the people you invite in...if you are not happy with their behaviour, they break the rules or they do something you dont care for you can have them removed...just as a store owner can have you removed...because its private property...

you can bend it anyway you want...the store may have something you want...but that doesnt make it a necessity to go to that particular store...you make that choice and accept the rules that go with it...looking for liability for your safety beyond actual negligence (thats where ladders falling and such come in by the way) is looking to create a problem where one doesnt exsist...

So...if a store like, Target, posts "Tattoos, sandals, ripped t-shirts or jeans, hats/headscarves, visible piercings, heavy makeup, wheelchairs and scooters are prohibited and English is the only language spoken"...that would be ok? There wouldn't be a cry of discrimination? The business wouldn't be forced to allow these things?

That's different than one's home...but I digress...

This thread was about a business' liability of posting a "no guns" sign...where does it start/end in the event of a criminal event.

From the OP:

So we are all law abiding citizens and we all know the bad guys ignore the "no guns allowed" signs. 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??? I am interested in your thoughts....

[digitalexplr]

What many of you don't stop to think about is your opinion is meaningless when compared to what the laws of your state are.

I would suggest looking up your state statutes on the issues being raised here. That knowledge may well save you a lot of grief down the road.

Safety and security and not synonymous. Safety has to do with wet floors, falling ladders, objects left on the floor that can cause injury. Private property owners are statutorily responsible for the safety of visitors. That is why you have a liability rider on your homeowners or renters insurance - or should. If a visitor is injured in your home or in your yard, you are going to be liable.

If on the other hand, you are have some friends over for a BBQ and some wacko walks up and announces a robbery and in the course of the robbery some of your guest are injured or killed do you feel you are civilly liable for your guest misfortune? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

[INccwchris]

So...if a store like, Target, posts "Tattoos, sandals, ripped t-shirts or jeans, hats/headscarves, visible piercings, heavy makeup, wheelchairs and scooters are prohibited and English is the only language spoken"...that would be ok? There wouldn't be a cry of discrimination? The business wouldn't be forced to allow these things?

That's different than one's home...
__________________




Sig, I would probbabley not have a problem with the English speaking part of that statement

[SIGguy229]

What many of you don't stop to think about is your opinion is meaningless when compared to what the laws of your state are.

I would suggest looking up your state statutes on this issues be raised here. That knowledge may well save you a lot of grief down the road.

Safety and security and not synonymous. Safety has to do with wet floors, falling ladders, objects left on the floor that can cause injury. Private property owners are statutorily responsible for the safety of visitors. That is why you have a liability rider on your homeowners or renters insurance - or should. If a visitor is injured in your home or in your yard, you are going to be liable.

If on the other hand, you are have some friends over for a BBQ and some wacko walks up and announces a robbery and in the course of the robbery some of your guest are injured or killed do you feel you are civilly liable for your guest misfortune? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Good post....

I think part of the problem lies not so much in the State law as much as it lies in case law....