Gun free zones - liability

This is a discussion on Gun free zones - liability within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; "Sign, sign, everywhere a sign, blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind. Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign? " I seldom ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: Gun free zones - liability

  1. #16
    Member Array dhbry232's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Madison, Mississippi
    Posts
    172
    "Sign, sign, everywhere a sign, blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind. Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign? "

    I seldom look for signs at businesses and probably wouldn't pay attention to them anyway. I carry concealed for my protection and that of my family if they are with me, so unless someone's property is likewise protected for me, I will do what I think is best.

    I am very much in favor of removing all gun-free zone restrictions for CC permit holders. If I am deemd by the government to responsible enough to carry a weapon in most public places, then why in the world can I not carry anywhere I go. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Member
    Array StevePVB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,000
    I like the idea, but am really confused on how it would work in practice. Suppose the mall takes down their signs. That should mean it is OK to carry concealed. At least that would be the case in FL. If a nut case starts shooting and nobody with a CWP or weapon is present (or does anything) does that mean the mall is off the hook? If not, then it is up to to lawyers and insurance companies to decide where they have the least exposure -- with or without signs.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,097
    Great idea. I would support it in my state.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  5. #19
    wj
    wj is offline
    Member Array wj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    93
    A person, licensed, some trained, (hopefully all) should NOT have that license essentially "suspended" or "restrained" in gun free zones. A licensed person should be able to carry anywhere. Is one required to not use other skills or techniques for their defense when on private property? Then why is there a requirement to be disarmed? Liability! Liability, perceived or feared is the reason. In these times, the Lawyers make the rules for all of us. If there is a shooter in my Granddaughters elementary school, I am in a real mess as my firearm is locked up as required by State Law! Please be assured, I will file legal action against any and all for preventing me from at least exercising my 2nd amendment right to protect my family. This action to overturn gun free zones must be pursued. It has been determined by my lawyer, that I am in violation of the gun free school zone at my church on Sunday morning if I carry my firearm. As most churches, we have "Sunday School". Indiana appears to recognize this as a School! No CCW in church if there is a Sunday School!

  6. #20
    Senior Member Array walvord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    St. Charles County Missouri
    Posts
    991
    It's high time this type of legislation is passed. Don't want us to carry on your property, fine, then you're going to be responsible for my safety. If anything happens to my family, and we're still alive to tell about it, it'll be time to lawyer up.
    The most exhilarating thing in life is getting shot at with no results.
    - Winston Churchill
    Endowment Life Member - NRA
    Life Member - GOA
    Member - Oath Keepers, SAF, CCRKBA
    U.S. Army (72G) 1975-1980

  7. #21
    Member Array Stirling XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    483
    When my wife and I took our training course for our CWPs, our instructor told us that this is why 7/11 no longer forbids firearms in their stores. He said a customer that normally would have been packing was injured in a robbery and sued the store. Since then, their stores are no longer gun free zones. I have never found any details about such an incident so I can't verify that it's true. If anyone has any knowledge of this, I would love to hear about it.

  8. #22
    Member Array jonesy_26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    325
    I agree with this in concept, but how do you tell a place of business that by allowing CCW, does that garauntee that they can't be held resposible? That no "damages" will occur. As Steve points out, what if no CCW is present? We want the chance to carry everywhere, but its no garauntee that we can prevent or stop anything from happening. It just allows the chance for us to prevent or stop.

    Quote Originally Posted by StevePVB View Post
    I like the idea, but am really confused on how it would work in practice. Suppose the mall takes down their signs. That should mean it is OK to carry concealed. At least that would be the case in FL. If a nut case starts shooting and nobody with a CWP or weapon is present (or does anything) does that mean the mall is off the hook? If not, then it is up to to lawyers and insurance companies to decide where they have the least exposure -- with or without signs.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array raevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    4,849
    Everyone is responsible for their own safety. If a store takes away the right for you to carry to protect yourself they become responsible for your safety. If a store doesn't have signs, that means all people can carry. If there is an attack and someone gets hurt, it is not the stores fault because the person should have been taken steps to increase their ability to be safe.

  10. #24
    Member Array citizen510's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    329

    case law

    http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/law...aw/walmart.asp It appears that case law is ahead of legislation on this matter. I have recently heard this case cited by plantiff's counsel in a "my client got jacked up in your parking lot" case in Shelby County Civil Court. I did not get to stay for the whole case but what I heard was very interesting. It was being argued that the business was responsible for the safety and well being of the patrons or employees of said business. Interesting stuff since I work in a gun free office.
    It is not the Bill of Privileges. It is not the Bill of Permits. It is the Bill of Rights.

    People should not be afraid of the government; the government should be afraid of the people.

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array havegunjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,206
    When my company made each employee sign a form stating that we know that for "our safety and that of our visitors" they have posted the building "no guns allowed" I wrote a short protest back along with my signed copy. I stated that in no way did I see how this posting of signs made me or anyone else "safer". I stated that it inherently makes us less safe. I then told my wife if anything were to happen to me she should sue them. It may not work but at least I gave warning that their policy was a waste of time and laid the groundwork.
    DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONtestING THE VOTE.

    Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
    NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
    Utah Permit Certified Instructor

  12. #26
    Member
    Array GBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    468
    If one owned a business and the insurance company asks if there is a no carry sign, and the owner knows he will get a substancial discount if there is, and be shielded from (some) liability I'd be hanging the signs too.

    I wish a store owner would respond, I do not own a business but understand that liability is the driving force - no one wants to 'piss gun owners off' just for the heck of it.

    My point being reform the tort laws, liability and such concepts as 'deep pockets' are what make signs - including the tags that say 'do not eat' on inedible products prevelent.

  13. #27
    Member Array dang.45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wherever I may wander...
    Posts
    315
    I agree with what has been stated here - mostly. I believe that the right to self-defense is one of two foundational rights, i.e. rights upon which all other rights are based. There is absolutely no rational reason why anyone should be deprived of the most effective tool available to protect ourselves & our loved ones - a handgun. The person or entity (usually a government of some type) that creates a so-called "Gun Free Zone" must then take on the responsibility for protecting everyone who enters the GFZ. If they fail to do so, then they should be held liable.

    However, the reason I said I agree only "mostly" is because I believe that the other foundational right is the right to private property. The owner of any private property should be able to determine whether or not they want to permit law-abiding citizens to be armed while on their property. So long as you are not required to enter this private property, then by doing so, you agree to abide by whatever rules the property owner sets, and to live with the ramifications. This means that if you voluntarily enter the private property of some business which is posted, you must only do so after disarming, and you cannot hold the owner responsible for the actions of some other person who has voluntarily entered that private property, other than the owner himself or one of his employees.

    Let me say again, as I've said many other times, anyone who decides to create some so-called Gun Free Zone is acting irrationally. It makes no sense to do so, as those of us who are law abiding won't cause any trouble, and those who aren't, well, aren't. GFZs are silly, and I'll try to convince anyone who says otherwise that they are wrong.

    But how can you hold a business owner responsible for the actions of someone unrelated to them (meaning not an employee...), if you have voluntarily chosen to disarm yourself? Basically, your decision to follow the rules (disarming before entering a posted facility) is what caused you to be unprotected - isn't it your fault, not the owner of the private property?

    Again, this only holds true for private property which you are not required to enter. I expect a bunch of you to disagree. Have at it...


    ***NOTE*** - I can think of one exception to this - I believe what I described above should be true for customers, or other people who come for a specific purpose for a brief period of time, and then leave. Employees should never be forced to disarm as a condition of employment. Many people spend as many of their waking hours either at, or traveling to or from their jobs as they spend away from them, and to expect any person to spend 1/2 of their waking hours without an effective means of self-defense seems a bit much to me...
    "It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had a right to choose: his own." - John Galt, from Atlas Shrugged

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array Supertac45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Michigan's U.P.
    Posts
    3,657
    Criminals have never cared about anyone other than theirself.
    Les Baer 45
    Sig Man
    N.R.A. Patron Life Member
    M.C.R.G.O.

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array raevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    4,849
    I wonder If one was shot at the Post Office whether they could sue since it is a Federal law that makes it a "illegal' to carry but they do not provide protection in the form of armed guards and metal detectors.

  16. #30
    New Member Array jimmyh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    3
    I'm a bit suprised you guys all agree with this. Dang.45 got on the right track, but got off a bit early.

    Would any of you agree with a law stating that someone can just come into your house and start cussing you out, because after all, it's his first amendment right?

    Would you guys be ok with a law requiring you to pay for damages for people that trip and fall when in your house? What if you put an 'enter at your own risk' sign up?

    I sure hope you wouldn't. You lose your first amendment right when you make a(n) (informal) contract to waive your first amendment rights for permission onto the property. You don't have responsibility to pay for someone's hospital bill unless you promised to do so.

    No one has a 'right to self defense' any more than they have a 'right to education' or any other right you feel like dreaming up. There is just the fundamental right to do whatever you please so long as you are not using force to deprive others of their right. The right to self defense, the right to free speech, and the right to education (that you pay for) are all consequences of the one true right. Any philosophy with more 'rights' has too many axioms and cannot be internally consistent (as Dang.45 noted, his two rights were contradicting eachother).

    Limiting what contracts can be made is a breach of their fundamental rights. In this case it means limiting the ability of the store owner to make a contractual agreement with customers and employees that they need to disarm before entering the store. The converse is true as well; it is wrong to make them pay for damages that people carrying guns do, since they did not agree to that. Their contract was under the terms that you are responsible for their own safety.

    If you own a store, and want to put a "no guns" sign up (for employees or customers), then you can, it is your right. You are not infringing on anybody elses rights (work/shop elsewhere). If you want to put up a sign saying "no white people", that's fine too. It's racist, but it's your right to be an ass. If it's bad for business, your business will suffer. Carrying a weapon into a 'gun free' store is breach of contract, and should be punishable as such, with real consequences.

    What you guys are missing is that liberals should be allowed to have 'gun free' stores to shop in, even if it makes them less safe. If they want to feel safe and be less safe, that's their choice, and they have a right to do it (they aren't infringing on your rights by doing it). Liberals are people too, even if they aren't the clearest thinking.

    I am in complete agreement that gun free zones are stupid, but it's up to the owner to decide his rules. The right way to approach this is to explain the issue to him/her. If the store owner understands that they make everyone less safe, and will lose business, then they might well change it. (http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3844/83/)

    If you see a 'gun free zone' sign on the wall, you have three options. Don't go in, disarm and go in, or break their rule (which basically means agreeing to the contract that you will pay the fine/penalty if caught being armed). If the penalty is light, go ahead and carry! There's no moral objection because you know you're making people safer. An unenforced policy could make liberals 'feel' safer while not actually infrining on your ability to protect yourself at the store (win win!). If the penalty is harsh, and enough people feel the need to carry, they can go to places that allow it, and the first store will lose business.

    It really is possible to not infringe on peoples rights, if you're consistent.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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. Gun Free Zones...
    By wht06rado in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 24th, 2007, 02:12 PM
  2. Gun Free Zones?
    By mdusn in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 16th, 2007, 06:36 PM
  3. Gun Free Zones
    By TonyW in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 26th, 2007, 12:10 AM
  4. UN gun free zones
    By RU98A in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: January 21st, 2006, 09:59 PM

Search tags for this page

gun free zone liability

,

is southwest plaza mall a gun free zone

,

liability for gun free zones

Click on a term to search for related topics.