Suing stores that ban guns - Page 7

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; My thoughts have always been that my rights end where another's rights begins and theirs ends where mine begins. If a business chooses to prohibit ...

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 136

Thread: Suing stores that ban guns

  1. #91
    Member Array Dakota97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    363
    My thoughts have always been that my rights end where another's rights begins and theirs ends where mine begins.

    If a business chooses to prohibit firearms, that is their right. It is my right to spend my money at their competition.
    NRA life member.


  2. #92
    Member Array farmerbyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    187
    Have you ever seen a car dealership that didn't have a gunbuster out front? I agree on principal about not giving your money to a gunbuster business but in practice things are a little less clear. What do you do if you wish to buy a new car? I'm sure that they do exist but I have yet to see one in my area. Then beyond that are you willing to pay thousands more for a vehicle just because that dealership doesn't prohibit carry? Call me crazy but I would rather save the money and buy more guns/ammo.
    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.

  3. #93
    Member Array Dakota97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerbyron View Post
    Have you ever seen a car dealership that didn't have a gunbuster out front? I agree on principal about not giving your money to a gunbuster business but in practice things are a little less clear. What do you do if you wish to buy a new car? I'm sure that they do exist but I have yet to see one in my area. Then beyond that are you willing to pay thousands more for a vehicle just because that dealership doesn't prohibit carry? Call me crazy but I would rather save the money and buy more guns/ammo.
    Good point. Fortunately I haven't had that problem with car dealerships.
    NRA life member.

  4. #94
    Distinguished Member Array bladenbullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    englewood, fl
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    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.

    I didn't even use pay research services.

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

    Have fun...
    your research is exceptional mitchell and congratulations...unfortunately it is not applicable to the original post...although the business must provide for reasonable safety that does not apply to allowing concealed carry...because regardless of whether the business owner allows it or not it is not going to change the fact that an attack may occur on their property...the only thing it "may" change is the outcome...and that is not what your research has uncovered as a liability...it only reveals that the business should take actions to protect the patrons from attack...not allow them to defend themselves as they choose...

    i will try to keep my response tied directly to the original post...because the entire thread has lost that track with multiple comments regarding what the business owner allows and doesnt and even mentioned it as contradictory to state law....

    it is not contradictory to state law...in states where signs have meaning it is law that if a sign is posted you are illegally carrying in the facility if you ignore them...if state law does not recognize the signs as legally binding you are free to carry in the facility...but...if discovered and asked to leave by the owner you must or be faced with trespass...up until that point you have carried and been able to "protect" yourself as you see fit or are capable...once ejected from the property you are no longer under the responsibility of the property owner...therefore they have no liability...and it is within the law...(reference "no shirt, no shoes, no service...it is up to the property owner to set these standards and carry of firearms in most cases is one of those standards some choose to exclude)...

    the other issues that will come up in court in the event you are involved in an incident and not able to "protect" yourself because you did not carry in the business because of the signs are:
    if you were unable to carry a gun to "protect" yourself with then why didnt you choose a non listed weapon or protection device with you?...the sign did not prohibit canes, fighting sticks, body armor, blades, pepper spray or extensive training in martial arts as prohibited...because you have apparently chosen only one form of defense you feel it is their responsibility to recognize that?...

    the mistake many seem to be making is assuming that property owners exclude guns to prevent violence...not necessarily...they may just plain not like guns...period...it is their right and if they choose to exclude them from their property they are welcome to...reference no shirt, no shoes, no service...again...just as many have found their parents or friends are not gun friendly once they started carrying you will also find that retailers who you may have patronized in the past are the same way and prefer guns were kept out of their facilities for various reasons...

    also...could you prove without a reasonable doubt that your having a gun in a self defense situation "would" have changed the outcome for the better for you?...are you prepared with a high degree of training (not square box range shooting) and can you be sure the person you were defending against wasnt of a higher skill level than you?...you may respond that it would have leveled the playing field or made it more likely you "could" have protected yourself...but thats an assumption...as statistically we have seen that many people have defended themselves with guns...but there are also many who have been unsuccessful or had their own guns turned on themselves and others...you want to take an embarrassing seat on a stand and sit through that?...

    the other consistant comment in this thread that is not applicable is the continual reference to race, religious belief, handicap, etc....these are protected minority classes...sorry...but gun owners are not protected classes...just as toyota or chevrolet, or swimming pool owners are not...take a step into reality...

    to read gun owners painting themselves as victims in this thread is truly embarrassing and says volumes about how so many feel their right to carry steps on the rights of others...only because we choose to carry...thats sad people and it reeks of reverse discrimination against the rights of private property owners...and for people who use the term "sheep" with great regularity to describe people who choose not to use guns to protect themselves...it exemplifies what the term "guncentric" has come to mean and paints gun carriers as people who believe that safety and happiness hinges on the fact that they choose to carry a gun...it doesnt...

    even if a business owner has an obligation to offer a reasonable amount of security in their place of business it does not mean they are to be forced to allow you to decide how that security is performed...and to trust your judgment with a firearm in their place of business...it really doesnt take much time to see how poorly prepared many concealed carry license holders are when it comes to training...why should they be trusted by people who dont particularly like guns in the first place....

    i hope this helps to explain my position...i enjoyed a baseball game last night with my family...not allowed to carry at sporting events in florida...all i had was a kubiton, tac light and pepper spray..they didnt enter my mind once...and we had a riot...

  5. #95
    Member Array Gibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    455
    A place I used to work banned us from having a gun locked in our vehicle. Just for good measure and to get a reaction, I told their "security" department that if I ever was assaulted/mugged/beaten on the way to or from work, I would get a lawyer and drag them into court kicking and screaming. They would suffer bad PR. Needless to say, nothing came of it.
    Can't blame a guy for trying.

  6. #96
    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
    I know, and I have a problem with that. As should every American that's not a c-level officer.
    Your problem with that influences reality...how?

  7. #97
    Member Array MN2Go's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    MN, U.S.A.
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota97 View Post
    If a business chooses to prohibit firearms, that is their right. It is my right to spend my money at their competition.
    I concur.

    I started my campaign against Toys R Us a few years ago after seeing their signs that here in Minnesota have no powers.

    I was planning to purchase a couple of ATWs and stuff for my grandsons, but the sign stopped me in my tracks. I ended up ordering all toys online and sent a letter to the Toys R US HQ with the copies of receipts of my purchases worth over $1500.

    They replied and thanked me for letting them know.

    I send them a letter every year with copies of my yearly toy purchases. I do the same with other anti-gun businesses.

    I doubt my campaign has any effect, but I feel better for not buying anything from them and doing something.

  8. #98
    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 bladenbullet View Post
    your research is exceptional mitchell and congratulations...unfortunately it is not applicable to the original post...
    Actually, the original post asked the following:

    Siddhartha

    "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.... "

    And I thought I addressed the issue rather well. Please don't backhandedly compliment me while telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

    If you disagree with me, say so.
    If you have contradictory sources, share them.

    Don't just say "Thanks for the research, but you are off base and don't have a clue what you are talking about..." Then proceed to ramble on about...

    What exactly were you talking about?

    Knives to the face, not the back, OK?




    Quote Originally Posted by bladenbullet View Post
    although the business must provide for reasonable safety that does not apply to allowing concealed carry...because regardless of whether the business owner allows it or not it is not going to change the fact that an attack may occur on their property...the only thing it "may" change is the outcome...and that is not what your research has uncovered as a liability...
    Actually, liability is the heart of the matter of suing anyone. If you cannot establish liability, you are merely wasting your time in a useless action.

    The outcome of the attack isn't relevant to the issue of being allowed to sue someone. Without liability, all you are doing is complaining - not suing.



    Quote Originally Posted by bladenbullet View Post
    it only reveals that the business should take actions to protect the patrons from attack...not allow them to defend themselves as they choose...
    For the purposes of litigation, it's not an issue. The issue is liability of the property owner, not the ability of the patron to protect themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by bladenbullet View Post
    the other issues that will come up in court in the event you are involved in an incident and not able to "protect" yourself because you did not carry in the business because of the signs are:
    if you were unable to carry a gun to "protect" yourself with then why didnt you choose a non listed weapon or protection device with you?...the sign did not prohibit canes, fighting sticks, body armor, blades, pepper spray or extensive training in martial arts as prohibited...because you have apparently chosen only one form of defense you feel it is their responsibility to recognize that?...
    You obtained your understanding of premises liability and the liability of a land owner to third parties from what sources?

    The measures you take to protect yourself against a third party are not factors which are dispositive in terms of the land owner's obligations to you.

    Seperate relationships, seperate facts, seperate theory of liability.

    Further, courts are not going to limit a land owner's liablity in this situation unless you have been contributorily negligent - you deliberately engaged in risky behavior such as egging people on, or ignoring warnings made known to you of the condition of the property.

    The general public's lack of training in martial arts, or failing to carry a fighting cane is not something which will limit a property owner's liability, and quite frankly, your suggesting that it does displays a vulgar lack of understanding of the issues.

    You aught to read a bit more before telling people how it's going to be in court unless you can cite sources.



    Quote Originally Posted by bladenbullet View Post
    also...could you prove without a reasonable doubt that your having a gun in a self defense situation "would" have changed the outcome for the better for you?
    The standard in a civil action is "a preponderance of the evidence" not "without a reasonable doubt" (actually, beyond a reasonable doubt...)

    Further, RE: The outcome - See above regarding liability.


    While I am coming across like a...well. Figure it out...The point I'm trying to make is that a body of law on this subject actually does exist, and it's well hashed out.

    Further, the research isn't that difficult, the information is highly accessable, and people who just want to go off about "how it's going to be in court" usually are those who couldn't be bothered to do 10 minutes of research in the first place.

    Research, like shooting, martial arts or learning CPR at a red cross class is simple:

    Do The Work.

  9. #99
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,101
    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. #100
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Trust me..It'll be good...

  11. #101
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,673

    Baloney!!

    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.

    Baloney^^^^^^^^^^^


    Private property, be D*m#ed.
    Here in Michigan, in some townships, it is illegal if you own a pond or a pool, to not have it fenced and posted. If some dummy comes along and decides to TRESSPASS and go swimming , and then subseqently drowns, the property owner oftentimes gets sued.
    How is this any different??
    They were even doing something they should'nt have and the property owner still ends up getting sued


    I got no use for this!!!
    Terry Radzwion
    I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

    M&Pc .357sig, 2340Sigpro .357sig

  12. #102
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Not a good analogy, but thanks for playing.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  13. #103
    Distinguished Member Array bladenbullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    englewood, fl
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Actually, the original post asked the following:

    Siddhartha

    "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.... "

    And I thought I addressed the issue rather well. Please don't backhandedly compliment me while telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

    If you disagree with me, say so.
    If you have contradictory sources, share them.

    Don't just say "Thanks for the research, but you are off base and don't have a clue what you are talking about..." Then proceed to ramble on about...

    What exactly were you talking about?

    Knives to the face, not the back, OK?






    Actually, liability is the heart of the matter of suing anyone. If you cannot establish liability, you are merely wasting your time in a useless action.

    The outcome of the attack isn't relevant to the issue of being allowed to sue someone. Without liability, all you are doing is complaining - not suing.





    For the purposes of litigation, it's not an issue. The issue is liability of the property owner, not the ability of the patron to protect themselves.



    You obtained your understanding of premises liability and the liability of a land owner to third parties from what sources?

    The measures you take to protect yourself against a third party are not factors which are dispositive in terms of the land owner's obligations to you.

    Seperate relationships, seperate facts, seperate theory of liability.

    Further, courts are not going to limit a land owner's liablity in this situation unless you have been contributorily negligent - you deliberately engaged in risky behavior such as egging people on, or ignoring warnings made known to you of the condition of the property.

    The general public's lack of training in martial arts, or failing to carry a fighting cane is not something which will limit a property owner's liability, and quite frankly, your suggesting that it does displays a vulgar lack of understanding of the issues.

    You aught to read a bit more before telling people how it's going to be in court unless you can cite sources.





    The standard in a civil action is "a preponderance of the evidence" not "without a reasonable doubt" (actually, beyond a reasonable doubt...)

    Further, RE: The outcome - See above regarding liability.


    While I am coming across like a...well. Figure it out...The point I'm trying to make is that a body of law on this subject actually does exist, and it's well hashed out.

    Further, the research isn't that difficult, the information is highly accessable, and people who just want to go off about "how it's going to be in court" usually are those who couldn't be bothered to do 10 minutes of research in the first place.

    Research, like shooting, martial arts or learning CPR at a red cross class is simple:

    Do The Work.
    i dont have to do the work...the op asked if the store owner not allowing you to carry a firearm allowed you to post suit if you were attacked...

    you proved that you could sue if attacked....but not because the store owner did not allow you to carry a gun...because the store owner is expected to provide a certain amount of safety to their customers...

    and it wasnt a back handed compliment...it was a real compliment...your research ability is impressive and you seem more than willing to let everyone know how simple it is but many of us choose not to take the time...but that doesnt make your research relevant to the op...they were asking if you could sue based on the fact that you werent allowed to carry guns...your research showed that you could sue...but not because you werent allowed to carry guns...i thought i covered that very well...

    so...i wasnt getting personal...and i appreciate the fact that your misinterpretation made you take a few personal stabs at me...just to get that straight...sorry...now lighten up...cause i had to agree to some specific terms to post again in this forum and you have broken several of them since...

    oneshot...as for the post about suing a property owner for not fencing a pond on private property...that does apply to business owners also...thats what the infamous research proved for us...but the business owner not allowing guns on the property doesnt change that...or add to it...

    so i suggest you read my posts as thoroughly as you expect me to read yours...and would greatly appreciate it...have a nice day...

  14. #104
    Member Array Cycler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Your problem with that influences reality...how?
    In a similar fashion to how your unpopular outlooks do.

  15. #105
    VIP Member Array Guns and more's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Fl
    Posts
    2,391
    Basically, anybody can sue anyone anytime. It just comes down to money.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 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

a right to ban guns from my establishment
,

can a business ban guns

,

can a private business ban guns

,

can a private establishment ban guns

,
can private business ban guns
,

can private businesses ban guns

,
can+an+establishment+ban firearms
,

mn business banning firearms

,
private business ban guns
,
stores banning guns
,

stores that ban guns

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