I Kind Of Suspected This Might Happen - Page 2

I Kind Of Suspected This Might Happen

This is a discussion on I Kind Of Suspected This Might Happen within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; TN already has a law sort of like MI is looking at. If you are injured (or killed?) as the result of criminal action by ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48
Like Tree109Likes

Thread: I Kind Of Suspected This Might Happen

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array ShooterGranny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southeast USA
    Posts
    6,606
    TN already has a law sort of like MI is looking at. If you are injured (or killed?) as the result of criminal action by someone else in a posted place, you can sue the business or organization for damages. It puts the burden on the individual who needs to hire and pay an attorney. Poor folks need not apply.............etc.

    It's at best a half way measure, but better than nothing and it DID result in quite a few gun buster signs being removed. Not nearly enough of them though. Gun buster signs that meet legal requirement for size and content DO carry force of law in TN.

    You can still be asked to leave any (non posted) place for any or even for no reason, and that includes carrying a weapon either openly or concealed, and if you refuse you can be charged with trespassing.
    OldChap and Rock and Glock like this.
    Getting old was not on my list of "things to do" in the Golden Years!

    ==================
    Talking to each other here is good, but taking action is better.

  2. #17
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,384
    @ShooterGranny There is one thing I am absolutely certain about. If anyone, ever, determines that I am carrying concealed, I am immediately filing assault charges of the naughty kind on them.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,563
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post

    All I can say is that you need to be present when a "hostile" business is inspected by the Health Department (who needs to call police to force them to allow inspectors to do their job). There are all kinds of unforeseeable circumstances that are regulated by the government. To say that a business won't comply with requiring certain actions by employees to prevent an outbreak of cholera, or worse, and then actually causing such an outbreak and then demanding no liability is ludicrous.

    Business and public arenas are already held liable for all sorts of things - both legally and civilly. The question is, who would you have responsible for your families' safety in a restaurant, which has a non 51% bar, whose owner thinks the way to attract business is to post signs preventing law abiding citizens from defending themselves? The always late to the dance police officers, or you?

    We need to just disagree on this. I choose to have every opportunity to protect my family - as the founders had in mind when they penned the 2nd Amendment. I've been on far too many calls where all we could do was call for the ME for those who actually believed we might be able to protect them from any harm.
    I would simply exercise my freedom to choose not to patronize that establishment. Just like ( making an assumption here) you chose not to order lunch or dinner from those restaurants. If enough people make that choice the business will either change their policy or go out of business.
    M1911A1 likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,384
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I would simply exercise my freedom to choose not to patronize that establishment. Just like ( making an assumption here) you chose not to order lunch or dinner from those restaurants. If enough people make that choice the business will either change their policy or go out of business.
    This wasn't about boycotts and I expect you know that. I think I'm finished with this.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,563
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post

    This wasn't about boycotts and I expect you know that. I think I'm finished with this.
    Definitely not about boycotts. It is about how some people would rather use the government to impose their values on business owners rather than letting free markets decide.

    One factor that some might not have considered is that even if the business is liable and something happens, damages are not going to come out of their pockets. That is what they pay insurance companies for. Insurance pays out and maybe raises premiums. Price of wings just goes up twenty cents. The only places that might have a problem would be small family owned type places. National chains wouldn't bat an eyelash. They will just pass the cost on to the customers or not pay a dividend that quarter.
    OldChap likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #21
    Member Array Skippys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post

    BTW @Skippys Read carefully. The proposed changes are in MICHIGAN, not KANSAS.
    I only mentioned it because Kansas was mentioned in the original post.


    -------------------------------------------
    I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
    OldChap likes this.
    I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,384
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Definitely not about boycotts. It is about how some people would rather use the government to impose their values on business owners rather than letting free markets decide.

    One factor that some might not have considered is that even if the business is liable and something happens, damages are not going to come out of their pockets. That is what they pay insurance companies for. Insurance pays out and maybe raises premiums. Price of wings just goes up twenty cents. The only places that might have a problem would be small family owned type places. National chains wouldn't bat an eyelash. They will just pass the cost on to the customers or not pay a dividend that quarter.
    No, on the contrary, it is an issue of the government infringing on the 2nd Amendment by colluding with businesses who wish to have their cake and eat it too. All this is a moot point since the courts seem to be siding with aggrieved parties suing businesses which are open to the public for not securing their premises anyway. Not that I like that especially, but I think those who say a business that denies the public the right to protect themselves lawfully on their premises should be liable for bad things that happen on their property may likely prevail - both in the courts and in the legislatures.

    Not bat an eye? How much is Mandalay Bay going to shell out? I am reporting what is happening in Michigan, and a few other places. If you want to argue the point endlessly, maybe Michigan would be a better place?

    @Skippys Gotcha...I missed that the first time I read it too.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,563
    https://www.insurancejournal.com/new.../20/526790.htm
    4200 claimants.
    The 4200 claimants equal about 20% of the 22,000 people that were at the Route 91 Harvest Festival that night.

    What is the seating capacity of your local eatery?
    Let's say they pay the whole $800 million. Their insurance covers $751 million of that. So that leaves MGM Resorts on the hook for $49 million. The 2016 change in the tax code gave them a one time savings of $1.4 billion from their taxes. The total (assumed) $800 million split by 4200 people comes out to about $190k per person. That $49 million MGM is on the hook for comes out to less than $12k per claimant. And let's not forget that any money paid out is deductible from their taxable income.

    And of all the businesses where a mass shooting could take place, the odds of it being one owned by a specific corporation are?

    I don't think any of them will be jumping out their chairs to change policy over something like this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,384
    If you want to argue the point endlessly, maybe Michigan would be a better place?
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,563
    Michigan law has an "open and obvious doctrine" .
    From the Michigan Supreme Court opinion Bertrand v Alan Ford Inc. 449 MI 606 (1995)
    If the plaintiff is a business invitee, the premises owner has a duty to exercise due care to protect the *613 invitee from dangerous conditions. Beals [v Walker, 416 Mich 469, 480; 331 NW2d 700 (1982)]. However, where the dangers are known to the invitee or are so obvious that the invitee might reasonably be expected to discover them, an invitor owes no duty to protect or warn the invitee unless he should anticipate the harm despite knowledge of it on behalf of the invitee.
    They have also held that if you trip in a pothole in businesses parking lot they are not liable unless there is something unusual about that particular pothole that makes it more dangerous than a "normal" pothole. They have held that a security guard who tripped over electrical wiring in a hallway while an alarm system was being repaired could not collect damages because he should have watched where he was walking.

    So, this bill has to get voted out of committee. Then it has to get voted on (and passed) by the full house. Then it has to get passed by the Senate. And then it has to get signed by the Governor. We can expect the various chambers of commerce to lobby against it along with various business trade associations at every step.
    But let's say it gets that far. Now we need to have a shooting in a posted business. Now to collect all a victim has to do is get the Michigan Supreme Court to ignore two hundred years of precedent. When all of that happens Zurich American, Lloyds of London, or whoever it is that insures the business will write a check.

    Just another politician pandering to gun owners.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,563
    A Michigan Supreme Court opinion that is directly on point is Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores.
    We conclude as a matter of law that the duty of reasonable care a merchant owes his invitees does not extend to providing armed, visible security guards to protect customers from the criminal acts of third parties. The merchant is not an insurer of the safety of his invitees, and for reasons of public policy he does not have the responsibility for providing police protection on his premises. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #27
    Senior Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    404 Page Not Found
    Posts
    22,132
    Let's say they pay the whole $800 million. Their insurance covers $751 million of that. So that leaves MGM Resorts on the hook for $49 million. The 2016 change in the tax code gave them a one time savings of $1.4 billion from their taxes. The total (assumed) $800 million split by 4200 people comes out to about $190k per person. That $49 million MGM is on the hook for comes out to less than $12k per claimant. And let's not forget that any money paid out is deductible from their taxable income.
    Please explain the tax considerations in your comment. Particularly the bolded above.

    Don't forget the costs embedded therein - legal, etc.

    Personally, I think the Tobacco Industry had the right idea. Litigate the opposition into surrender, and never settle a case except on your terms. Legal highwaymen are still highwaymen, even if sanctioned by the Courts and Congress, a whole different set of highwaymen. And add to that the whole industry of expert witnesses using questionable science, lousy epidemiological studies and analysis, and a plaintiffs bar full of corruption and filth all focused on Tobacco. Or Asbestos, or Round-Up.....
    montejames likes this.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ: Buy These Stickers Here



    "If we suppose them sincere, we must pity their ignorance; if insincere, we must abhor the spirit of deception which it betrays." Alexander Hamilton

  14. #28
    Senior Member Array ButtShot14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    560
    Well said OldVet.

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post

    Please explain the tax considerations in your comment. Particularly the bolded above.

    Don't forget the costs embedded therein - legal, etc.

    Personally, I think the Tobacco Industry had the right idea. Litigate the opposition into surrender, and never settle a case except on your terms. Legal highwaymen are still highwaymen, even if sanctioned by the Courts and Congress, a whole different set of highwaymen. And add to that the whole industry of expert witnesses using questionable science, lousy epidemiological studies and analysis, and a plaintiffs bar full of corruption and filth all focused on Tobacco. Or Asbestos, or Round-Up..... <img src="https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/images/smilies/vol_1/blink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Blink" class="inlineimg" /> <img src="https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/images/smilies/vol_1/blink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Blink" class="inlineimg" /> <img src="https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/images/smilies/vol_1/blink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Blink" class="inlineimg" />
    That was to give perspective on dollar value of the settlement relative to the financial health of MGM Resorts. Even if they paid the total settlement out of their own funds it would not break them. The $49 million (max out of pocket if settlement is full $800 million) they would pay is a deductible business loss which means their net loss from the payout will actually be less than $49 million when all is said and done. The "threat" of civil liability from a bill like is referenced in the OP is so small as to be insignificant to a major corporation.
    As far as the legal fees there is actually pending litigation between MGM Resorts and Zurich American over their billing.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  16. #30
    Member Array OttoLoader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    SE North Carolina
    Posts
    64
    My opinion , Michigan has Republican controlled state Senate and house. So this proposed legislation could get passed. However Michigan elected a Democrat governor so not likely it waould be signed. Also even if a republican give without Michigan State Police support it would likely not get signed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •