Suing stores that ban guns - Page 5

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 SIGguy229 So...if a store like, Target, posts "Tattoos, sandals, ripped t-shirts or jeans, hats/headscarves, visible piercings, heavy makeup, wheelchairs and scooters are ...

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 136

Thread: Suing stores that ban guns

  1. #61
    Distinguished Member Array bladenbullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    englewood, fl
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    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:
    there are protected classes...i would figure youd be better prepared than that...but you are determined to make it work because you started the thread...you are looking for liability where liability does not exsist and you can make up whatever argument you want to your defense...it isnt a flippant answer that you choose to patronize a store that doesnt operate the way you want it to...but you label it flippant because it doesnt support your cause...

    and sorry about the spelling...i didnt realize i would be tested on spelling errors...then...if i mispell a word and its misinterpreted and causes mental diress...can i be sued?...work that one out for me....

    otherwise you make the rules...ever seen a no shirt, no shoes, no service sign?...


  2. #62
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,478
    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.
    True. And our opinions about what is right or what should be are meaningless compared to how things will be judged in a court of law. Some may feel that a store should be liable for damage done if they are victimized by a criminal while shopping absent their gun due to store policy. Maybe right, maybe not right, but the fact is it probably ain't going to hold up in court.

  3. #63
    Member Array Cycler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdcard View Post
    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.
    I'd like to throw in another wrinkle...Why should a legal entity have the same property rights as an individual human being?

    Most commercial property is owned by corporations and last time I checked, corporations aren't human beings and should never have the same rights as human beings. Unfortunately in our country today, they often have more rights than people.

    The thing that really bugs me about today's corporations is the hypocrisy thy engage in - everything is public when it suits their bottom line except when it's better to be private. Bailouts - public. Guns in stores - private. Selling shares - public. Bonuses to CEOs for destroying the company - private.

  4. #64
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    As I said guys we cant have it both ways. We either tolerate not being armed in some places respecting/obeying the owners right to say who or what comes onto his property or we tolerate more laws in regards to CCW.
    "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

  5. #65
    Distinguished Member Array Knightrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    I personally wouldn't waste my time on it.

    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.
    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.
    X2
    Glock: G22 .40 S&W and G23 .40 S&W Sig Sauer: P938 9mm Smith and Wesson: Model 437 .38 Spl, Model 65 357 Mag, and Sigma SW9VE 9mm

  6. #66
    Distinguished Member Array bladenbullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    englewood, fl
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    I'm purposefully leaving the bar part out...as not everyone goes to a bar...but everyone goes to a store....

    of course youre leaving it out...it doesnt support your argument...not everyone has to go to stores with no guns signs posted either...

    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?

    arent you making an assumption that the signs are posted for the safety of their patrons?...how do you know they just dont like guns?...they are allowed to not like guns...but i'm pretty certain you are aware of that...

    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.

    theres that assumption....assumptions arent legally binding terms of an argument...

    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.

    and do you believe that your carrying is the only protection you have available to you and your family?...i'm sorry...

    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.

    previously answered...sorry it doesnt work for you...

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

    previously answered...and yes it is...you wanting to be in control of it does not make it so...


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

    of course...if it doesnt fit into your argument it will be considered apples and oranges...but other people aren allowed to not welcome guns in their homes or businesses because it leaves you out...


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

    as opposed to your considerate outlook on business owners rights to restrict who and what comes into their stores...


    This thread hasn't been running a week...but I have seen some weak posts....Where does the anti-gun argument come from?
    again...i apologize...but it must make you feel better knowing you have gained superiority through inteligence by catching an error in spelling...take a shot at my grammar and punctuation...thatll really pump you up...

    have fun with it...

  7. #67
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  8. #68
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Scoot over razor and pass the popcorn.
    "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

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,085
    OK....while it seems we've deviated from polite discourse--I see that this thread has become more about the posters than the discussion at hand, and we'll agree to disagree IRT public vs private property.

    The question that has been barely discussed (except by a few posters) is the liability of store in the aftermath of a criminal act.

    My usual objective demeanor was clouded by my intent on having a serious discussion that focused on an area that I believe was worth discussing and getting past the usual "I don't go there" answers. Sniping at other posters does not promote healthy discourse; and for my posts, I apologize.
    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

  10. #70
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,515
    Everyone needs to calm down and leave your egos at the door!

    Keep the discussion polite or I will close this thread
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  11. #71
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Has anyone considered doing some actual research on this issue before simply posting what they feel?

    I mean, really...this is NOT a complex issue to research.


    Hotels, apartments, and stores have an obligation to use reasonable care to protect those lawfully on their premises. Their responsibility includes not only their own employees, but reasonable safeguards against the acts of third parties. As put by the New Jersey Model Jury Charge. The owner/operator of of a store, restaurant or office owes a duty of reasonable care to its customers and patrons to provide a reasonably safe place to shop, conduct business, and enter or exit the building. The duty owed requires the owner/operator of a store, restaurant, or office to exercise ordinary care to protect people using the premises, . customers, patrons, from potential injury inflicted by individuals that the owner/operator could have reasonably foreseen might be present on the premises. NJ Jury charge

    FORESEEABILITY OF THE RISK

    New York Standard

    New York courts have articulately the owner's duty more narrowly. A landowner has a legal duty to take minimal precautions to protect members of the public from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts by third parties (Leyva v Riverbay Corp., 206 AD2d 150, 152). The landlord has no duty to safeguard tenants from neighborhood crime as such. The duty to protect against criminal intruders only arises when ambient crime has seriously infiltrated the premises or when the landlord is on notice of a serious risk of such infiltration (Todorovich v Columbia University, 245 AD2d 45, 46, lv denied 92 NY2d 805). Defendants had no general duty to protect tenants or other members of the public from criminal activity on the sidewalk outside their building (Rodriguez v Oak Point Management, 87 NY2d 931, 932).

    NJ standard:

    The building owner and manager can only protect against foreseeable risks. It is a duty to take steps that are reasonable and prudent and several components come into play. The Jury Charge mentions these factors: "When determining whether or not criminal activity on defendant’s property was reasonably foreseeable, you may consider the following factors: prior criminal acts that occurred on or around defendant’s property even if not as bad as the one committed against the plaintiff; the property’s size and location; the absence of adequate security; the architectural design of the building in relation to the area where the crime occurred (for example: the size of the parking lot); the type of business defendant operates; the nature and circumstances of nearby businesses; and the increasing level of crime in the general neighborhood." NJ Jury charge

    It is well settled under New Jersey law that business owners and landlords have a duty to protect patrons and tenants from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496, 500, 516-17 (1997) (supermarket liable in negligent security for customer's murder after her abduction from parking lot); Butler v. Acme Mkts., Inc., 89 N.J. 270, 274 (1982) (supermarket liable to customer who was mugged in parking lot); Trentacost v. Brussel, 82 N.J. 214, 231-32 (1980) (imposing liability on landlord for failure to "take reasonable security measures for tenant protection on the premises"); Braitman v. Overlook Terrace Corp., 68 N.J. 368, 371-72, 382-83 (1975) (holding landlord could be liable for burglary of tenant's apartment because landlord had breached duty of care by failing to provide functioning deadbolt lock).

    When a landlord knows or should know of a pattern of criminal activity on his premises that poses a foreseeable risk of harm to his tenants and their guests and does not take reasonable steps to meet the danger, he cannot escape liability merely because the criminal act was committed by a third party who was not within his control. See Trentacost, 82 N.J. at 222; see also Taneian v. Meghrigian, 15 N.J. 267 (1954) at 281 (describing landlord's duty of reasonable care to protect tenants and their social guests against dangers in common areas); Scully v. Fitzgerald, 179 N.J. 114 (2004) (holding that landlord owes duty "to take reasonable steps to curtail the dangerous activities" on premises "of which he should be aware and that pose a hazard to the life and property of other tenants"); Williams v. Gorman, 214 N.J.Super. 517, 523 (App.Div.1986) (asserting that landlord has duty to protect tenant from other tenant's foreseeable criminal acts), cert. denied, 107 N.J. 111 (1987).

    As the Court held in Clohesy, foreseeability does not require the existence of prior similar criminal incidents, but depends instead on an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances. Clohesy supra, 149 N.J. at 506-08. In this regard, the Supreme Court in both Butler v. Acme and Clohesy v. Food Circus adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 344, Comment (f) as a standard for determining in cases of injury by third persons "which criminal incidents may give rise to liability." Butler, 89 N.J. at 280; Clohesy, 149 N.J. at 506-07. The Restatement articulates the duty owed by a proprietor of premises to those who enter the premises as follows:

    A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons or animals, and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to (a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or (b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.

    Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 344 at 223-234 (1965). The official comment states:

    f. Duty to police premises. Since the possessor is not an insurer of the visitor's safety, he is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care until he knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur. He may, however, know or have reason to know, from past experience, that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons in general which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor even though he has no reason to expect it on the part of any particular individual. If the place or character of his business, or his past experience, is such that he should reasonably anticipate careless or criminal conduct on the part of the third persons, either generally or at some particular time, he may be under a duty to take precautions against it, and to provide a reasonably sufficient number of servants to afford a reasonable protection.

    Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 344 at 225-226, Comment (f) (1965). See also, e.g., J.S. v. R.T.H.155 N.J. 330 (1998) at 338; James v. Arms Technology, Inc., 359 N.J.Super. 291, 324 (App.Div.2003); Morris v. Krauszer's Food Stores, 300 N.J.Super. 529, 535 (App.Div.1997); Gaita v. Laurel Grove Cemetery Co., 323 N.J.Super. 89, 94-96 (Law Div.1998). The Supreme Court has embraced a liberal negligent security standard as a matter of public interest. Butler, 89 N.J. at 280 (imposing duty because store is in the best position to provide either warnings or adequate protection for its patrons and because the public interest lies in providing a reasonably safe place for a patron to shop).

    For example, in Butler, 89 N.J. 270 (1982), the plaintiff customer was assaulted in the parking lot after having just finished shopping at the defendant supermarket. The plaintiff contended Acme was negligent in failing to provide a safe place in which to shop and park. Id. at 274. The area had a history of criminal activity, including 7 muggings over the course of a year. Additionally, although Acme had hired off-duty police officers to supply security for the Acme market on certain evenings, only one security officer was on duty inside the store at the time of the attack. Moreover, no signs or warnings were posted advising the patrons of the possibility of criminal attack. Id. at 274-75.

    The Supreme Court held that Acme owed a duty of reasonable care to safeguard its business invitees from criminal acts of third persons. Id. at 280. It was reasonable for the jury to determine that absent warnings, hiring one guard who primarily remained inside the store was an insufficient response in light of the known, repeated history of attacks on the premises. Id. The Court further held that Acme as the business invitor is in the best position to provide either warnings or adequate protection for its patrons when the risk of injury is prevalent under certain conditions, and the public interest lies in providing a reasonably safe place for a patron to shop. Id. at 284.


    I didn't even use pay research services.

    Google things like "Negligent Security" & "Liability of Land Owner to Invitee"

    Have fun...

  12. #72
    Distinguished Member Array bladenbullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    englewood, fl
    Posts
    1,751
    well then for discussions sake...

    should someone who carries concealed be present during a violent act and they are not able to stop the act should they be held liable for the act continuing and others being injured...whether they are injured or not?...

    apples and oranges i'm sure...but isnt it worth discussion if we are considering liability?...

    i am sorry i dont have an apology for my posts as i believe that anyone thinking along the lines of considering a business liable for not allowing someone to carry a firearm on their property is trolling for trouble and bringing the wrong attention toward gun owners...as non-gun owners could very well be reading these posts and if i were one i would be putting up a no guns allowed sign in an effort to prevent gun owners from patronizing my shop and looking for a reason to sue me...

  13. #73
    Member Array Sledzep01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    ATL
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    I personally wouldn't waste my time on it.

    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.
    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.
    +1
    I will add one caveat. If you can afford a much better lawyer than they can you might win. So forget Walmart, but maybe you could bankrupt some poor SBO. IMHO it is not worth it.
    Here in GA signs are doors mean nothing, and I make it a point to be looking IN past the door as I walk up so I never see them anyway.

    Sled

  14. #74
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,085
    Quote Originally Posted by bladenbullet View Post
    well then for discussions sake...

    should someone who carries concealed be present during a violent act and they are not able to stop the act should they be held liable for the act continuing and others being injured...whether they are injured or not?...

    apples and oranges i'm sure...but isnt it worth discussion if we are considering liability?...
    I think you make a good point...except permit holders do not have a duty to act, unlike LEOs

    Quote Originally Posted by bladenbullet View Post
    i am sorry i dont have an apology for my posts as i believe that anyone thinking along the lines of considering a business liable for not allowing someone to carry a firearm on their property is trolling for trouble and bringing the wrong attention toward gun owners...as non-gun owners could very well be reading these posts and if i were one i would be putting up a no guns allowed sign in an effort to prevent gun owners from patronizing my shop and looking for a reason to sue me...
    I think this is where we are seeing different sides of the same thing. What I asked is what liability does a store have in the aftermath of a criminal act. MitchellCT posted a case where it was found that "business owners...have a duty to protect patrons and tenants from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties".

    My point is this--IMO...and not in a court of law...because this is a discussion board, of course, "no guns" signs carry a greater liability than no signs at all. Why? Criminals carry anyway. My home state notwithstanding, in states where posted signs have legal weight and consequences for carrying, the only person to be caught will be the gun owner who took responsibility for his/her safety & security. By taking that tool away from the legal gun owner (who is most likely NOT a ninja master), the business assumes responsibility for those in their establishment. And in the event of a criminal act harming a patron of a business, the business may be open to civil action by the victims of the act.

    That said, if you decide to post signs in your shop, preventing gun owners from carrying....what about the criminals? It's been shown that they carry anyway. Aren't the results you're looking for (not to be sued) opposite from the actions you intend (posting a sign).

    I'm not looking to sue anyone...and I apologize if it appears that way...again...my question was about liability, and MitchellCT addressed the question.

    Thank you.
    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

  15. #75
    Member Array Ssmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southwest MO
    Posts
    113
    Its private property. Dont go on there property and you dont have to abide by there rules. Or just move to MO and ignore the petty signs of the sheeple.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... 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.