Found an AntiGun Establishment....

[Superhouse 15]

Leaving in a huff and refusing to spend money is one thing, but no good if you don't take the time to let the business know. In MO, you could have just said heck with it, carried anyway, and left if you got caught. Felt bad or mad, and gone on with your life. I try to make it a point to let those businesses know. Sent the receipt for 4 new tires I bought at the competition to the local posted tire store recently. Make a quick email to one posted movie theater evey time I go to the non-posted one across town. In FL, I could just CCW anyway and ignore the signs, and I sometimes do, but I applaud those that do more than preach to the gun-board choir when they find a posted business. Well done.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[dwolsten]

Wahhoo! Great Job Storm! That is awesome... I will be following suit as well.

You should tell them about your incident with the gang member, and ask how they intend to protect people from violent MS-13 gang members.

[Bark'n]

I Live right across the street from that Truck Stop...

I Left them one of my No Guns No Cash Cards.

Hoppy... I lived in OG from '88-'91 I see Corn's is still there, but the town has really changed.

Can you post where you get your No Guns, No Cash cards?

I saw one a while back online, but can't remeber where I saw it. I do think those are a great idea and I would like to get some to keep in the car.

Thanks!

[Lew]

I saw the No guns card on this site....
http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_links.asp

Half way down the page...

[Hoppmeister]

Hey Bark'n PM me your Email addy and I'll send ya one Missouri Specific.

[Rotorblade]

I think you did the right thing but I'm not sure if the following statement is true:
I also pointed out that truckers are not the only patrons of the facility and the posting makes them liable if a badguy shoots us and we were unarmed because of the sign.
I'm guessing the courts would say that a person has free will to not stop there if they don't agree with the sign...........Don't flame me...it's just an observation.........

[General Geoff]

Rotorblade, if that argument was a viable legal defense, there would be no civil liability suits.


Besides, the sign does not deny transfer of responsibility. You could equally argue that since the establishment does not allow personal sidearms, it is expected or presumed to guarantee the safety of its patrons in some other way, which it failed to do.

[peacefuljeffrey]

Thanks. After I hung the phone up, the wife says to me, "You know if truckers are not supposed to have guns as they state, then they don't need the sign then do they..."

Exactly.

If what he believes were true -- that truckers could not carry firearms -- then they don't need the sign because the truckers wouldn't have guns in the first place.

Oh, what's that? He believes that some truckers may just carry guns anyway, in spite of the rule (apocryphal though it be) that says they can't? Then what good would your sign do, genius?? They're gonna ignore the truckers' no-gun rule but then obey your sign??

From there, he should be able to understand that even if the sign is intended for the general public, those inclined to ignore the sign would also do so. It's rather tautological.

[Lew]

Oh, what's that? He believes that some truckers may just carry guns anyway, in spite of the rule (apocryphal though it be) that says they can't? Then what good would your sign do, genius?? They're gonna ignore the truckers' no-gun rule but then obey your sign??

Exactly! Just like the bad guy.

As to the post on liability, in civil courts you don't have to prove anything, just have a reasonable premise. In a criminal trial, it may not hold, but if you can convince just 12 people they failed to protect you in a civil trial, you got them... Just the doubt of whether on not you or they would win, their lawyer will be looking for a settlement FAST! Which is the whole idea with civil suits anyway.

It can be argued either way with good points to both sides, but the level of doubt each way lends it to be a very iffy guess which way a jury would rule. Flip a coin. The person bringing the suit has a stronger position with less to loose.

[Rotorblade]

Rotorblade, if that argument was a viable legal defense, there would be no civil liability suits.


Besides, the sign does not deny transfer of responsibility. You could equally argue that since the establishment does not allow personal sidearms, it is expected or presumed to guarantee the safety of its patrons in some other way, which it failed to do.

I'm not a lawyer but I think it's a stretch to say the business would be liable. I would even go so far as to say that many businesses put up the no guns signs at the urging of their corporate lawyers who feel there is more liability if someone comes in and shoots up the store and it isn't posted. I can easily see a person making the claim that the business owner didn't take reasonable precautions by prohibiting weapons in the store. This is one issue that isn't a problem in California. So few of us have permits that it isn't common knowledge and there are very few restrictions.
You need to remember, even in a civil suit it is likely that the panel will be mostly sheep!

[peacefuljeffrey]

I have read of lawsuits against movie theaters because people were mugged in the parking lot. Sometimes they sue because there was no security patrol. Sometimes they sue because there was a security patrol, but it wasn't omniscient and omnipresent.

The sad fact is that these suits need have no merit to proceed; all that is required is a greedy trial lawyer who is willing to extort a company because that company knows how expensive and damaging it will be to go to trial. Most of these cases, I believe, are settled because the companies do not like to gamble.

It's a sick system, and desperately in need of tort reform. Loser pays is the way to go, even though it's not that great either.

[ttpete]

Merit to proceed is determined by the judge on a motion for Summary Judgment brought by the defendant.

[Lew]

Today, I again stopped by the Petro in Oak Grove to see if the offending sign was still there or not. It was still there. So I left the following card I have printed out for such occasions with the following information and a larger logo on the back....


I had planned on the following purchases today, but instead will be crossing the highway and taking my business to your compeditors....

120+gallons of diesel fuel
a premium PM service with mobile delvac oil
breakfast for 3 in the resturant
beverages and snacks in the convience store.
tractor and trailer wash with wax and engine cleaning

My Approximately $600-$700 will not be coming to your facilities today or anyother while you take the antigun stance. Thank you.

As I type this I am across the street at the compeditor having the truck washed....

[teknoid]

I'm not a lawyer but I think it's a stretch to say the business would be liable.

If a business can be liable for serving hot coffee, they can be liable for anything. Being robbed/shot is a bit more uncomfortable than spilling coffee.

[BIG E]

Hey Lew,

I hate to see that they haven't responded and taken the sign down. I can't say I expected them to do otherwise though. It would have been nice to see a business respond.

Are you emailing or letting the manager know of his missed revenue? It looks above like you are, but you didn't say if you passed it along to him.

If i were running a business like that and was aware that 700 bucks was lost I would be doing something about it.

It would be interesting to see how many other truckers are doing the same thing you are and not telling the manager. Or how many are just ignoring the sign and carrying anyway. I guess there is no way to tell other than standing in front of the truck stop and polling everyone.

It would be interesting to know though.

Good luck with getting through to them.