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 TCWVHW Millions of business owners said the same thing in the early sixty's when they elected not to serve blacks! Think about ...
Right.How is it we only respect the rights that affect us in a way we like?
That's the great good we have in the Constitution. Passing popular choice about which rights we honor and which we trample over is not the final word, The Constitution is. Otherwise, sooner of later we'd all be at the mercy of whatever popular choice was current as regards whose rights were in favor and whose expendable at the moment. If you deny the right of business owners to make decisions about their own property, you deny your right to be left in peace in your own home. The sword cuts both ways.
"Be careful of what you wish for".
MitchellCT is dead on. This is not an issue based on opinion. It's one that has been decided time and time again in the courts.
This is not a complex issue and I am shocked that there are some here, who I am sure rail against Government intrusion on our lives, are actually in favor of being allowed to sue someone / businesses that do not allow CC.
There is no implied invitation, extension of carry rights or any sort of thing on private property. Period. End of subject. My back up to my argument? The Supreme Court in over 75 cases dealing directly with rights of the individual and corporations who own property.
When I found out California Pizza Kitchen was asking CC'ers to leave, I stopped eating there even though I love their BBQ chicken pizza.
Ditto for Peet's Coffee and BW3's when I travel via Hobby Airport.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.
I know of a business that did not allow the carrying of weapon on their premis by citizens or employees and the County had a bad man in for treatment. The bad man got away from the deputies and the company's security guards ran the other way. A lady employee was taken hostage and sexually assaulted. The lady employee became a multimillionaire.
Graduate: University of South Vietnam-
School of Jungle Warfare
CURRAHEE My Brothers In Blood
Yes, but you've left out all details, the main one being: who did she sue successfully? If it was the County she likely had a case if the man brought in was violent - had a violent crime he was convicted of etc. The county might have been liable for not providing adequate retention, like guards, or proper procedures, when they brought him onto a private person's (business's) premises. The woman, necessarily present as an employee of the business on the premises, was damaged due to the county's negligence.I know of a business that did not allow the carrying of weapon on their premis by citizens or employees and the County had a bad man in for treatment. The bad man got away from the deputies and the company's security guards ran the other way. A lady employee was taken hostage and sexually assaulted. The lady employee became a multimillionaire.
Perhaps she sued the agency providing the business's security guards - or the business itself if they hired them - for substandard professional security performance. Guards are not supposed to run away when needed.
If it was either of these, it would be completely different than a posted store that a person chose to walk into.
But without details, this case - and if and how it relates to the matter discussed here - is a mystery.
Hmmm, Houston, interesting point, but it really is a premises liability discussion. Maybe we are being too loose with terminology, though. There are basically two theories of premises liability, depending upon the negligent acts alleged, and different jury instructions are given. Any suit against a premises occupier for negligent or grossly negligent acts falls into one of these categories. A suit based on posting a 30.06 sign would be a "negligent activity" case, I believe, as opposed to what we often call a "pure premises" case, like a slip and fall on a wet floor. I suppose some folks would take "inadequate security" cases out of the definition of premises cases, but they are still a species of premises case. These would be a similar subcategory.
Oh, and congratulations on the wealthy girlfriend, though I wouldn't want to be married to a lawyer. I sure did screw up, though, not marrying a rich girl...
I'm having a bad flashback to Legal Research & Writing, circa 2000.
I am nostalgic for my old rig...
S&W 637 rated for +p without a lock and a few speed loaders of 110 grain Federal Low Recoil Personal Defense Hydrashock, a RJ Martin Kozuka with Red Stingray & a dragon menuki and an Emerson CQC-7Waved, black blade with serations.
Ah. Those were the days.
I'm so old...I wanna cry.
Aaaaah, Mitchell, you arent old!! I was 31 when I started law school, with a wife and 3 kids, and I finished in 1987. You ain't seen nothin' yet!
I believe that gun owners should carry their own sign. When they go to a business that has a 'no guns' sign in a municipality that the citizens have collectively agreed that carrying a firearm is ok then the gun owners should pull out their sign that says, 'this establishment discriminates against gun owners and refuses to recognize the laws within the location it does business'. I know the law allows them to put up a sign, but, the law also allows you to stand on a public sidewalk with your sign. If business owners are afraid of legal CCW customers, let them carry their own gun.
I'm not allowed to CCW in Illinois and if I lived in a state that did allow it I'd be very critical of business' who expect me to disarm myself outside in order to enter their business.
I would attempt to organize a demonstration by CCW's. If there are a group of demonstrators outside his store carrying afformentioned signs I'd suspect other customers going into his store may not want to cross the picket line.
Other people have to realize he is not only discriminating against CCW he is discriminating against gun owners in general. The liberals discriminate against anyone who doesn't see things their way. Why do we conservatives not use all our influences to tell people how we won't things done. We have to stop being sheep and become sheep dogs.
I definitely would not buy anything at that store. See how he likes discrimination.
"I would attempt to organize a demonstration by CCW's. If there are a group of demonstrators outside his store carrying afformentioned signs I'd suspect other customers going into his store may not want to cross the picket line.
Other people have to realize he is not only discriminating against CCW he is discriminating against gun owners in general. The liberals discriminate against anyone who doesn't see things their way. Why do we conservatives not use all our influences to tell people how we won't things done. We have to stop being sheep and become sheep dogs. "
You and your fellow Illinois citizens need to be doing this in front of your state capitol building. Until all of you can carry, no business is really is taking anything away from you. Don't just say it, do it. Demonstrate at the capitol. I've done it and I've raised h---y h--l with my Representatives. You have to change the law or it will always just be a "pipe dream."
Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.
be honest if youre gonna exercise your right to free speech...