Suing stores that ban guns - Page 6

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; I see people argue the "private property rights" when supporting a business owners ability to ban CCW; however when making private property open to the ...

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 136

Thread: Suing stores that ban guns

  1. #76
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    I see people argue the "private property rights" when supporting a business owners ability to ban CCW; however when making private property open to the public some otherwise absolute rights are surrendered; this is a clearly established legal president.

    What would happen to a business that posted "NO BLACKS ALLOWED" or "NO WETBACKS", I think there would be some legal consequences don't you; but what about the property owners rights???

    What would happen if said business owner posted a sign "NO CRIPPLES ALLOWED", not only would there be legal consequences but the federal government has MANDATED the store owner (on his $$) make the facility accessible to the handicapped. BUT doesn't the property owner have the right to decide who he wants in his business, in actuality NO! He surrendered some property rights when he opened the business to the public.

    Personally I see no difference in a business operating in a Concealed Carry or even Open Carry state, some property rights are surrendered when making property open to the public.


  2. #77
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    The standard is pretty much universal for most states.

    Land owners have the obligation to exercise reasonable care in order to provide a premises safe from reasonably foreseeable dangers, or to warn of such dangers in a way that a reasonable person would be aware of them.

    The trick is determining what is reasonable & foreseeable...question of fact for a given situation.

    Further, Courts have always held that your permission to be on a premises as an invitee is subject to the conditions of the land owner.

    Effectively, if you don't like the conditions I set - go some place other than my establishment.

    You would be hard pressed to get past that issue in any lawsuit, and would likely fail before going to trial under a motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim (because you had none) or in a motion for summary judgment where claims of law are judged, not fact.

  3. #78
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    I see people argue the "private property rights" when supporting a business owners ability to ban CCW; however when making private property open to the public some otherwise absolute rights are surrendered; this is a clearly established legal president.

    What would happen to a business that posted "NO BLACKS ALLOWED" or "NO WETBACKS", I think there would be some legal consequences don't you; but what about the property owners rights???

    What would happen if said business owner posted a sign "NO CRIPPLES ALLOWED", not only would there be legal consequences but the federal government has MANDATED the store owner (on his $$) make the facility accessible to the handicapped. BUT doesn't the property owner have the right to decide who he wants in his business, in actuality NO! He surrendered some property rights when he opened the business to the public.

    Personally I see no difference in a business operating in a Concealed Carry or even Open Carry state, some property rights are surrendered when making property open to the public.

    The law allows a land owner to set any conditions he desires; however, the courts will not enforce what they consider a reason contrary to public policy.

    For instance, their are still many communities who's initial charter, and the covenants on the original deeds which run with the land, prohibit the sale of the land to "hebrews, negros or orientals" yet these restrictions are unenforceable.

    If, however, the law does not consider a restriction contrary to public policy...such as a policy determining who may or may not carry a firearm on someone property...

    It's kosher.

    Your attempt to link racial or other disability based restrictions to firearm rights is not an accepted argument under current law.

  4. #79
    VIP Member Array JonInNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mid-Hudson Valley New York State
    Posts
    4,207
    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?
    The difference here SIG, is that an employee caused the accident.

    To take it one step further, let's say an employee of the business used a firearm to shoot someone. THEN you might have a case. You might not be able to sue becuase you were not allowed to carry, but you can certainly sue becuase it was their employee.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
    -- Benjamin Franklin

  5. #80
    Member Array Jcabin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Greatest State in The Union, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    414
    Enough about the businesses. How about schools?

    In states where you are legally allowed to carry on campus, but the school has a no weapons policy. How about that? If you are discovered to be carrying a firearm, you will likely face expulsion. For instance, you've spent 3 and 1/2 years on your bachelors degree, but part way through your final semester, someone notices your gun, and reports you. The administration investigates, and finds you were in fact carrying, and now they have expelled you.

    All the tuition you paid is now lost.

    The thing is, they never provided any security. Most campuses have some security, but most are unarmed. Even if they were armed, there is no garauntee they will be capable, or willing for that matter, to stop an active shooter. What if you are killed because the school has a no guns policy, which you obeyed, leaving yourself defenseless, but a gun man came into the school and murdered you?

    I think those are pretty good grounds for suing a school.

  6. #81
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,505
    It would seem that if CCW laws permit by law the carrying of a weapon, that the stores who post bans on law authorized by the state, would be liable for the patrons due to denying them rights guarrenteed by state law. Basically they are denying state law. It seems that they would hold some liability for this action. But then again law is not based on common sense.

  7. #82
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    You didn't lose security. You willingly entered an establishment and made a conscious decision to abide by their rules.
    I certainly understand that entrance to a business or other establishment is voluntary, and said it.

    And yet, a person does indeed "lose" security in the bargain, in the sense that a person has less security by "agreeing" to the terms and allowing disarmament in exchange for entrance. Because it relates to life and death, though, I do not believe that businesses should be able to be in such contradiction with state law without being required to exchange at least some of the value that has been taken from visitors/customers in the "agreement."

    Whatever. It is what it is, with reduced security when the hole isn't filled. It can't really be called anything else.
    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.

  8. #83
    Member Array Cycler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    The law allows a land owner to set any conditions he desires;
    In the case of corporate owned property, there is no actual land owner. Only a CEO and board that's in charge of the legal entity's property. The property is an asset of the corporation and there's no "person" who's a land owner.

    If a legal entity can open its mouth, not via proxy, and make such a declaration - sure, that'd be fine. However, last I checked, legal entities aren't humans and while having lots of fine print, don't have mouths.

  9. #84
    Member Array farmerbyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    187
    Really the best solution is to reform the laws of your state to be more like MO or FL laws. If the signs carry no weight of law then this whole thread is a moot point.

    In regards to private property rights, businesses are subject to more regulation than that of a private residence. Think of all the ADA compliance issues for instance. Your home does not need to be ADA compliant, but a place of business sure does because if you do not, you are denying service to disabled persons. Or denying service to whomever you want can get pretty dicey with discrimination laws. The point is that private property rights are slightly different with a business open to the public than they are for a persons private property such as a residence or acreage.
    The Second Amendment ...... Because crime SHOULD be a hazardous occupation.

    If you want to piss off a conservative, lie to him.
    If you want to piss off a liberal, tell him the truth.

  10. #85
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,891
    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?
    If one of the kids attack me..... LOL.

    But, will a BG walk in with a pit bull ? The argument doesn't hold water.... the threat is from an outside threat that you are not in control of. I hope you and/or the parents are in control of the kids.

  11. #86
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Mitchell thank you for the legal aspects of all this it does help to clear up some issues.
    In regards to the carrying on school grounds issue.
    I do not know if the families of the slain students, Va tech, have or can taken legal action against the school. Against the estate of the shooter yeah the school dont know.
    Another issue would be private vs. public colleges. Would private schools have the right to say no weapons and public schools not have that right.
    There would have to be serious debate and discussion on this one before it happened.
    "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

  12. #87
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycler View Post
    In the case of corporate owned property, there is no actual land owner. Only a CEO and board that's in charge of the legal entity's property. The property is an asset of the corporation and there's no "person" who's a land owner.

    If a legal entity can open its mouth, not via proxy, and make such a declaration - sure, that'd be fine. However, last I checked, legal entities aren't humans and while having lots of fine print, don't have mouths.
    Corporations are, for these purposes, legal persons.

    For the purposes of land ownership the act, via delegates, as any person would.

    How do you think banks own property?

  13. #88
    Member Array Zach and Holly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    479
    Yeah, this is right along the lines of suing McDonalds because you got fat, or suing big Tobacco after you smoked for 30 years. It's up to the individual to do what they want. If you know you can't carry, and choose to disarm and enter the business, you are making that choice while knowing the risks. It would be wrong to turn around and try to sue. Again, you did what you did knowing the risk. If you carry a gun, you KNOW the risks. So use your judgement.
    It is utterly illogical to believe that passing laws to reduce gun violence will be successful when those who are commiting the gun violence do not obey the law.

  14. #89
    Member Array Cycler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Corporations are, for these purposes, legal persons.
    I know, and I have a problem with that. As should every American that's not a c-level officer.

  15. #90
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,672
    I don't expect any business to protect me. I also don't expect any business to deny me self-protection. For those businesses who attempt to do so, some other business has what I'm looking for.

    Nuff said.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 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.