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 Tubby45 ID)As a private business owner, I will be damned if you are going to tell me how I can or can't ...

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 136

Thread: Suing stores that ban guns

  1. #106
    New Member Array TCWVHW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    ID)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.
    Millions of business owners said the same thing in the early sixty's when they elected not to serve blacks!

    Think about it.

    Tom

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #107
    Distinguished Member Array bladenbullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    englewood, fl
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by TCWVHW View Post
    Millions of business owners said the same thing in the early sixty's when they elected not to serve blacks!

    Think about it.

    Tom
    here we go with the protected classes again....think about it...dont even try to compare the discrimination we once had with no guns signs in store windows...

  4. #108
    Senior Member Array JohnLeVick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Texas High Plains
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Guns and more View Post
    Basically, anybody can sue anyone anytime. It just comes down to money.
    "Anybody can sue anybody for anything, but they don't necessarily get to win." I've probably told at least 60 jury panels that very thing in the past 22years.

    Despite the personal attacks, this is an interesting topic. I've not bothered to read the whole thread, but having tried lots of premises liability cases over the years, and being a CHL Instructor, I have an opinion or two. The general rule in Texas, and most other places, is that one is not liable for the criminal acts of another. There are exceptions, however, such as a premises owner in a high crime area who fails to provide adequate security measures for his customers or tenants, or where a premises owner or operator voluntarily undertakes to provide security, but fails to do so reasonably adequately. To some degree, it boils down to forseeability, as some have noted above.

    Now, to the specific topic. First off, while I believe strongly in private property rights, I think a business operator is an idiot to post a "no guns on premises" sign of any kind, but obviously, it's America, and one has a right to be an idiot.

    Second, one has to look at the effect of posting such a sign. What does it say to the invitee/business customer? Reasonably, it could be read to imply that the premises owner/operator is going to provide security. Additionally, and importantly, the owner/operator is taking affimative steps to remove the CHL-holder's ability to provide his own security. Sure, you never had to walk in the door, but customers aren't called "invitees" in the law for nothing. Invitees get lots more protection in the law than trespassers.

    I think that there is a cause of action against the owner/operator if a CHL holder gets hurt or killed inside the posted store, but I also think that it is always going to be a tough case to prove and get a jury to award any damages on, for two reasons: 1. Causation. The injured CHL-holder, or his survivors, must prove that but for the sign posting, he'd have not been hurt or killed. 2. Again, he didn't have to go in in the first place. The end result will depend on lots of factors, as is true in any jury trial. We lawyer types don't call it rolling the dice for nothing.

  5. #109
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Siddhartha View Post
    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....
    In FL, the sign has no law behind it. You are "permitted by law" to have your firearm on your person anyplace not on the do not carry list (gvt building, school etc). All they can ask you to do is leave, but if you are concealed they will never know. If you fail to leave after being asked you can be arrested for trespassing.

    Too many people in this thread say "you do not have the right for this" or "the business has a right to do that" unfortunately for you, generalizations fail against what the law says in your state or in my state. Are the signs just deterrents(like in MO & FL) or do they hold weight with law behind them?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  6. #110
    GM
    GM is offline
    VIP Member Array GM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,866
    Like other people said, if you want to waste time and money you can always sue. It is your time and your money you are talking about.
    "The Second Amendment: America's Original Homeland Security"

  7. #111
    VIP Member Array Majorlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Naugatuck, CT
    Posts
    2,406
    JohnLeVick:

    In terms of liability, is there a difference between providing for the safety of customers and providing for the security of customers?

    It would seem to me that safety refers to slippery floors, falling stock, tripping over stuff, etc., and security refers to protection of the customer from attacks upon their person.
    An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert A. Heinlein

  8. #112
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    2,994
    Ok guys lets look at history. Does anyone know if the survivors or victims in the Luby's shooting sued and won, lost or even had a leg to stand on?
    Same thing with Va. Tech? Ft. Hood? Those are just the ones I can think of at the moment.
    These cases if any would have set case law or presedent for providing security to customers and in the end it is the law that matters, not opinion, not guessing.
    "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. #113
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Majorlk View Post
    JohnLeVick:

    In terms of liability, is there a difference between providing for the safety of customers and providing for the security of customers?

    It would seem to me that safety refers to slippery floors, falling stock, tripping over stuff, etc., and security refers to protection of the customer from attacks upon their person.
    I think this is the point several people (including me) brought up.


    I have a hard time finding anything about a store providing "security". Most tell the employees to roll over (submit) and pray the robber doesn't decide to kill them anyway.

    On the other side of that I don't expect some poor pimply high school kid that is paid 6 bucks an hour to tackle a gun wielding robber either.
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  10. #114
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,245
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLeVick View Post
    Despite the personal attacks, this is an interesting topic. I've not bothered to read the whole thread ...
    Yeah, that'll kill it. Thankfully, it's not so ugly as it's been in the past. Less actual name calling than has occurred, and more pointing at the viability or supportability of an idea/concept ... as it should be.


    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    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??
    JohnLeVick (post #108) addresses some of this, with the legal concept of "foreseeability," which can affect the degree to which a property owner can be held (at least partially) culpable or liable in a situation blowing sideways, such as children drowning in an unfenced pool. Or, I would think, in a business that has taken active pains to disarm its clientèle but where claims of no responsibility are made after a robbery ends up with the robbers largely succeeding because nobody could resist.

    In a state where carry of firearms is perfectly legal, I'd think a strong case can be made for the simple concept that disarmament of clientèle by business owners directly contributes to their inability to mount an effective defense if a robbery occurs. The crime might well not be foreseeable, but the bloody result when nobody is armed certainly can be. On that basis, I'm surprised more lawsuits don't come through ... and win, because of the contributory effect of disarmament in the resulting inability of a person to do a damned thing about a crime.
    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, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #115
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,291
    1) A store is not obligated to provide security from the random dangers of the world. It's not required to have fleets of police, medics, missile detecting radar, a fire department, biological hazard suits or any such protections. It is not required to give the H1N1 vaccine to everyone who shops there before you enter the premises - so you are protected from Swine Flu. etc.etc.etc.etc

    It needs to be up to building codes and codes that allow safe exit in a fire, or occupancy room limits if there are any - that kind of thing and, as well, adhere to codes concerning its particular business activity (e.g. food/health codes for restaurants etc )

    In other words, it is responsible for what it is responsible for: no business property - or any private property, like yours for example,- could ever survive the massive law suits were it obligated to protect you and everyone who chose to enter from all the dangers of the world. It is, in fact, from another view point, protecting other customers from gun accidents by denying you permission to enter with a gun. And, by default from this point of view, if the owner should let you in with your gun, he would then be liable for any injury/death from any such accident if it occurred. You see how it works? Once you accept the incorrect premise that a business must provide security for customers from everything, you are left with an impossible burden on the owner, who - no matter what he does- will always be responsible for some extreme danger to any and all who enter his premises.

    2) And as has been said multiple times in this thread: you do not enjoy constitutional protection on private property from property owners wishes. People who don't like you can't march around your family room with placards and bullhorns to criticize you.
    Your children are not protected by the 4th Amendment from you going into their rooms when you want. If you don't want someone carrying a gun on your property you can ask them to leave (forcing them to is up to the cops, who will if need be).

    So, the store owner is not depriving you of your Gun rights. You don't have them there.

    If you want to carry a gun in a store, find a store that allows the carrying of guns. Otherwise, forget it if you choose to go into the ones that don't as far as legal actions. You have no basis for such actions.

  12. #116
    Senior Member Array JohnLeVick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Texas High Plains
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Majorlk View Post
    JohnLeVick:

    In terms of liability, is there a difference between providing for the safety of customers and providing for the security of customers?

    It would seem to me that safety refers to slippery floors, falling stock, tripping over stuff, etc., and security refers to protection of the customer from attacks upon their person.
    I think that's a good observation, but I also think that in this context, it is a distinction without a difference, as my old law professors liked to say. Here's why: In this context, what is important is what a reasonable customer thinks is implied by the sign. Security? Safety? All that matters is what the "reasonable" customer thinks, as determined by 12 people who were not smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury service. How is one's security different than one's safety in this context? Not at all, I believe. The difference is a common language/conventional wisdom difference, not a legal one.

    As Hamlet correctly noted, store owners do not usually have any duty to protect anyone from the criminal acts of others, as I originally stated is the general rule. However, we often see defendants in civil cases who lose jury verdicts or pay settlements because they assumed duties the law did not originally impose upon them. That is exactly why there is any cause of action at all when a Section 30.06 sign is posted, and why it is so silly to post them.

    I'd add this, just as food for thought: The posting of a sign under Tex. Pen. C. Sec. 30.06 is the posting of a sign forbidding that which the State of Texas has deemed permissible. Why would anyone ever think that there is a good legal reason to do that? There are some lawyers out there giving some business operators some REALLY bad advice.

  13. #117
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,266
    Quote Originally Posted by friesepferd View Post
    i believe in the right for a private business to be able to put signs on their front door. I believe in the right for them to ask someone to leave if they see them dissobeying their sign, or really for any reason (like them acting up, etc).
    I am not a big fan of states making a place a 'no carry zone' b/c they have a sign. I think the concenquenses should be the exact same as that of most signs. if you dissobey and are caught, they can ask you to leave. if you do not leave, you are tresspassing. Thats how a lot of states do it. I wish TN was one of them.

    As far as going into a place that has a sign or sueing them b/c of it?
    Meh, If you have a problem with them, then dont go there.
    Sorry to thread jack, but here is a question. I am in a store or business that has a no guns allowed sign, which BTW I happen to agree the store has the right to put there, and I chose to ignore the sign and carry a concealed gun into the store. If I am discovered, am I already in violation of the unlawful trespass law? Do they need to ask me to leave verbally, or could they just call the police without my even knowing it until the police officer taps me on the shoulder.
    I'm not saying it's right, but I think a good prosocuter could make the argument that by knowingly ignoring the sign, I was already trespassing.
    Same as if you put a no trespassing sign on your property. You should be able to charge them with trespassing without having to ask them verbally to leave. If you had to ask, then what woudl the point be of even buying the sign?

  14. #118
    Distinguished Member Array bladenbullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    englewood, fl
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by TedBeau View Post
    Sorry to thread jack, but here is a question. I am in a store or business that has a no guns allowed sign, which BTW I happen to agree the store has the right to put there, and I chose to ignore the sign and carry a concealed gun into the store. If I am discovered, am I already in violation of the unlawful trespass law? Do they need to ask me to leave verbally, or could they just call the police without my even knowing it until the police officer taps me on the shoulder.
    I'm not saying it's right, but I think a good prosocuter could make the argument that by knowingly ignoring the sign, I was already trespassing.
    Same as if you put a no trespassing sign on your property. You should be able to charge them with trespassing without having to ask them verbally to leave. If you had to ask, then what woudl the point be of even buying the sign?
    you are only in violation if the signs carry weight by law...then you are breaking the law as any no carry zone would....

    if the signs are meaningless by law then once discovered they must ask you to leave...if you refuse to leave you are trespassing...

    hence the frequently used term...concealed is concealed...you are allowed to carry legally in stores with signs if the state law does not recognize the signs...if you are concealed properly there is no reason for management to ask you to leave...unless youve also ignored the "no shirt, no shoes, no service sign...

  15. #119
    Member Array MN2Go's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    MN, U.S.A.
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLeVick View Post
    "

    Despite the personal attacks, this is an interesting topic.
    I agree.

    It's sad that so many interesting threads degenerate into veiled insults and power-trips and discourage input from people who really posses the most germane factual information, such as attorneys.

  16. #120
    Senior Member Array JohnLeVick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Texas High Plains
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by TedBeau View Post
    Sorry to thread jack, but here is a question. I am in a store or business that has a no guns allowed sign, which BTW I happen to agree the store has the right to put there, and I chose to ignore the sign and carry a concealed gun into the store. If I am discovered, am I already in violation of the unlawful trespass law? Do they need to ask me to leave verbally, or could they just call the police without my even knowing it until the police officer taps me on the shoulder.
    I'm not saying it's right, but I think a good prosocuter could make the argument that by knowingly ignoring the sign, I was already trespassing.
    Same as if you put a no trespassing sign on your property. You should be able to charge them with trespassing without having to ask them verbally to leave. If you had to ask, then what woudl the point be of even buying the sign?
    Ted, I have no idea what would be the case in CA. In Texas, it is relatively clear. When our CHL statute was passed in 1995, Section 30.06 was also added to the Penal Code. 30.06 is entitled "Trespass By Holder of License to Carry Concealed Handgun." It allows premises owners and occupiers to post a sign, in the form prescribed by the statute (letters at least 1" tall, English and Spanish, contrasting colors, citing the statutory language, etc.) at every public entrance. If a business is properly posted under the statute, and a carrier is discovered, no further notice or warning is necessary. Notice can also be given by handing everyone who enters a card with the same information on it, but I've yet to hear of that being done. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor.

    Before, simple criminal trespass was an A misdemeanor, but criminal trespass by an armed person was enhanced to a state jail felony. I suppose it still would be for a non-licensee.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 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 business ban guns georgia
,
can a business ban guns on its property
,

can a private business ban guns

,

can a private establishment ban guns

,
can businesses ban guns from entering their establishment
,

can private business ban guns

,

can private businesses ban guns

,

mn business banning firearms

,
stores banning guns
,

stores that ban guns

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