The supreme court back that up: no duty to protect.
Police Chief Magazine - No Duty to Protect
This is a discussion on insurance and 'gun-free zones' within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The supreme court back that up: no duty to protect. Police Chief Magazine - No Duty to Protect...
i guess that makes sense. I mean we choose to protect ourselves.
That is "exactly" why the 2nd amendment is so important.
The police start their duty when the yellow crime scene tape is up around your dead body. The U. S. Supreme court has made that abundantly clear time after time.
Make you feel all nice and warm and secure? Me either.
All the politicians that want us disarmed so we have no protection at all have body guards hired to protect them.
Anybody that understands this and isn't an NRA member should be. The NRA isn't perfect but they are on our side.
When we got our renters insurance back when we lived in town, one of the questions he asked was "Do you have any assault weapons" This was back in the day when I had one handgun, a rifle and a shotgun. I'm sure "gun free" areas do get a cut on insurance. Doesn't make sense, but thats the anti gun mentality. Personally I'd like to see just the opposite. If you have a gun you get a cut on insurance because burglars won't take your stuff then. In turn no insurance pay out... maybe a broken window.
I don't believe there should be any legal advantage/disadvantage to "no firearms" policies. I do not believe a building owner should be sued for not having a sign and some creep lights up 40 people,but at the same time should not be sued if something happens with a sign and the creep does his dirty work anyways. The creep was not invited in to do this in any case,so only he can be held accountable.
So that being said, I think this is something the NRA needs to look into, because I believe a number of these places are putting up signs for insurance breaks and to avoid liability. Just put up signs saying,"Shooting firearms prohibited,except in self defense." That's more accurate to me anyway.
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848
This topic irritates me since I am one of those who is disarmed at work.... and while driving to work... and while driving home... and while at lunch outside of work... and often when I go out right after work. This is only because of my work's "no weapons" policy. It is legal for me to ignore the policy, but I do risk losing my job (being made) if I carry.
Why can't companies have a policy that says "anything illegal is also against company policy"?!?!? Then, they are fully covered without infringing on my rights!!
If they must state "no guns" in order to be protected from lawsuits caused by a gun's misuse, then... Choking or hitting someone is not against company policy (not explicitly, as are guns), so apparently they could be sued for that, right?
If a police officer makes a promise to protect an individual, the department becomes liable for failure to do so. Nevermind that doing so would be nearly impossible, barring the taking of that person into protective custody.
For this reason, most police officers are smart enough to promise no more than to "do everything we can" to achieve an end.
So i guess "To Protect and Serve" goes out the window on that one. Is that still the motto of the Police?
If so, it would sound to be living under a false creed. According to what you say.
I am not cop bashing at all. I am just confused about what I have been taught, and what is true.
IANAL and don't pretend to be, and have heard of no legal challenges to support this idea, so for what it's worth.
"Deine Papieren bitte?" or "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ !"
(Choose only one)
NRA Endowment Member
"I bark at no man's bid. I will never come and go, and fetch and carry, at the whistle of the great man in the White House no matter who he is." -- David Crockett
"To Protect and Serve" is a motto. It is not, however, a legal obligation. Many LEOs would, I believe, lay down their life to protect a citizen, and sadly, too many do every year. But there are too few of them for a legal obligation to exist to protect any given individual. They do protect the society at large by investigating crimes and apprehending as many criminals as possible. But they cannot be everywhere at once.
I am not an LEO, and never have been, but I have great respect for what they do. But they cannot be everywhere, and most criminals are cagey enough not to commit crimes in front of them. Hence, those who recognize the potential for danger must provide for their own defense, while the rest live in denial....
Okay, I am adding an addendum to my previous post; I am no longer advocating getting scum sucking lawyers to sue business owners. Instead, I will draw reference to a discussion regarding this subject with an individual (restuarant manager of a Texas eatery who PO'd a bunch of us here with her imperious attitude regarding CCW here in TX) whose name I will not mention here. we had an animated phone conversation with her copping the same attitude that all "property/corporate slug owners" seem to have, in that everyones' civil rights end on their property line. I told her that her liberal politics werent appreciated here in Texas, and while she could put up any sign she wanted, rest assured I would never eat there again; When she inquired as to whether I would change my mind if they took the sign down but required everyone to keep their weapons in the car, I replied "sure, I will be happy to come back; just understand though, that if anything goes down, I will use you as a human shield on my way out the door, since you dont want anyone defending themselves".
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
I'm always surprised to see ardent supporters of individual rights rail against private property owners.
It's also surprising how many people think that property owners are automatically responsible for individuals, or become responsible because they put restrictions on access to their property.
This is an exercise in Capitalism. Show the rest of the world that unfettered Capitalism works, take your business somewhere else. It's the American way.
"Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington
require, but are supposed to reccomend posting per insurance underwriters suggestion" He also said he usually forgetsthat part of his sells pitch . He then asked me why I asked and I told him I don't go where I'm not welcome and a lot of companies say the insurance requires it (the posting).
He then asked me if I have a ccw and are carrying, I politely informed him it was none of his concern if I was carrying and he pulled his jacket back to reveal a Tauras 45, I politely then introduced him to my xd45c. He then bought my coffee and we chated guns for a bit and I had to leave.
Sorry to be long winded, but it really irks me when a store/ manager just say's 'the insurance company says they have to post'.
Last edited by Captain Crunch; January 30th, 2008 at 12:56 AM. Reason: Fixed quote tags