"Concealed Weapons Prohibited"
This is a discussion on "Concealed Weapons Prohibited" within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; IANL, but it appears that South Dakota trespass law would not be broken by remaining in a public place, posted or not, asked to leave ...
December 7th, 2010 01:38 AM
IANL, but it appears that South Dakota trespass law would not be broken by remaining in a public place, posted or not, asked to leave or not.
Guess I just might go traipsing around Toys R Us anyway!
The only common sense gun legislation was written about 226 years ago.
I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.
December 7th, 2010 10:24 AM
From the perspective of a business owner, this is largely a financial decision. Their property liability policy gives them discounts for taking certain actions that are perceived by the underwriter as reducing risk. Having it codified in employee handbooks that firearms aren't allowed on company property is worth a discount, and although I haven't personally bought a property liability policy for a retail establishment, I imagine posting a public notice is worth some discount as well.
Originally Posted by Thumper
Doing as suggested and writing a polite, well written letter will do more to change the policy then any flagrant disregard of the notice will. All the owner has to see is that the discount available (which is fairly minor) isn't worth as much money as he is losing in business to customers wishing to exercise their 2A right on his property. Rules of scale apply here, it is going to be harder to convince a store with 10,000 customers a month then it is to convince a store that only gets 100. If everyone chose to write a quick letter, policies will change that much faster.
December 7th, 2010 01:46 PM
The liability argument is flawed. Under the concept of vicarious liability, the store owner by not allowing you to defend yourself, is assuming the liability of protecting you. Usually with unarmed security guards. If the store owner fails to protect you and allows you to be injured by criminal assault, he can be liable for damages.
Originally Posted by Guantes
U.S. Navy Veteran '65-'69
Retired Police Detective '71 - '01
NRA Life Member / SAF Member
U.S. Constitution (c) 1791, All Rights Reserved.
December 7th, 2010 02:16 PM
I've heard this argument before, but I have never been able to find a single instance of it actually happening. Do you have any verifiable examples?
Originally Posted by Pioneer
AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
"Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig
December 7th, 2010 02:22 PM
The damages the owner could be liable for if you're injured is exactly what he carries the insurance policy for. The underwriters of the insurance company offer the owner a discount for taking certain steps to reduce the risk, such as posting a no firearms notice. The insurance company has come to the conclusion that it is more cost effective to post the notice and assume the liability for protecting you. I'm not an actuary, so I haven't assessed the validity of that conclusion, but from what I know of the insurance industry the decision is likely based on financial motivations, instead of enforcing their political views on policy holders.
Originally Posted by Pioneer
It's certainly easier to generate sympathy for our cause by painting ever business owner with a posted notice as a Brady Campaign zealot, but in reality the owner is just trying to control his costs like the rest of us. All it will take to make a difference is enough potential customers letting him know that they won't be doing business with his establishment because of the notice. It won't take much to tip the scales in our favor. Let them know what you planned on buying, how often you'd be returning and who you chose to patronize instead. No business likes to find out that they had a customer with buying intent in the parking lot drive away because of some tiny discount they get on the property liability insurance.
December 7th, 2010 02:25 PM
This isn't a great example, and the piece is poorly written, but it gives at least a mild precedent:
Originally Posted by MSteve
Here is an excerpt from a book on loss prevention. Starting on pg 30 they discuss and cite case studies going both ways on potential liabilities for property owners/businesses:
By BrianM in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 3rd, 2010, 04:43 AM
By opalelement in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: June 12th, 2010, 12:59 PM
By sspargo in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: June 21st, 2009, 11:44 PM
By paramedic70002 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 02:28 PM
By heavymetalman in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: January 9th, 2009, 10:54 PM
Search tags for this page
concealed carry window decals
concealed carry window stickers
concealed weapons prohibited
concealed weapons prohibited sign
concealed weapons prohibited signs
no concealed weapons decals
protected by ruger decal
protected by ruger sign
protected by ruger sticker
protected by ruger stickers
weapons prohibited sign
where are concealed weapons prohibited
Click on a term to search for related topics.