I Kind Of Suspected This Might Happen - Page 3

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; Michigan Legislature - House Bill 4975 (2019) Michigan Legislature - House Bill 4976 (2019) Introduced 9/17/19. Dead in committee....

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48
Like Tree109Likes

Thread: I Kind Of Suspected This Might Happen

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,039
    Psalm 144:1

  2. #32
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,039
    Quote Originally Posted by gnius View Post
    You guys don't want this discussion out there. Mandalay Bay will pay a billion dollars in settlements instead of fighting, and that means every large business will have gun buster signs TOMORROW, and many GFZs will have metal detectors to make sure. All hotels will ban firearms making travelling with a gun very difficult. Just wait... the litigators are the ones who will put the final nail in this coffin.
    I'm not following. Can you please elaborate? I read HR 4975 opens to liability, private businesses that post "no guns", and have patrons engaged in legal actions harmed by a person illegally using a firearm. HR 4976 removes immunity from liability for government offices if they post "no guns".

    How will opening the possibility of liability for posting "no guns" signage entice businesses to post "no guns" signage?
    Psalm 144:1

  3. #33
    Member Array gnius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    I'm not following. Can you please elaborate? I read HR 4975 opens to liability, private businesses that post "no guns", and have patrons engaged in legal actions harmed by a person illegally using a firearm. HR 4976 removes immunity from liability for government offices if they post "no guns".

    How will opening the possibility of liability for posting "no guns" signage entice businesses to post "no guns" signage?
    To explain my reasoning, I'd like to recruit the brilliant Mr. Denny DeVito:

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Member Array retired badge 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    443
    The main purpose served by posting premises to forbid firearms/weapons is to provide an arm's-length of protection for the business owners and insurance carriers. If someone commits a crime involving a weapon on the premises the owners (and more importantly the liability insurance companies) can simply claim that the person was in violation of company policy, therefore beyond the control of the business owners. If an employee fires up someone on the property that employee is acting outside the capacity of his job and in violation of company policy, so the owners should not be held liable (having done everything reasonably possible, i.e.: prohibiting weapons).

    Comparisons with the situation involving Mandalay Bay are not entirely valid. A hotel offers accommodation and lodging, effectively becoming the guests' residence for the duration of their stay. The hotel staff has very limited access to the guest quarters during that time, and the guest has the right to uninterrupted privacy (presumably including exercise of constitutionally-guaranteed rights).

    I have stayed in a couple of hotels which had "no weapons" signs posted at the entrance. In none of those situations was I aware of such policies prior to booking the accommodations. I was left with a bit of a quandary; should I leave my firearm(s) locked in my vehicle (which I view as potentially irresponsible, given the frequency of break-ins and thefts in parking lots) or should I secure my weapons in my rented room while I spent the night there?

    I serve on the board of a private club which includes a bar. We have signs posted prohibiting firearms and weapons because our liability insurance company requires this. We also have dozens of active and retired cops as members, and most of us carry regularly. It is understood that we have to comply with insurance requirements, otherwise we cannot continue to operate. It is also understood that in the event of an unfortunate incident those of us involved will be left holding the bag.

    Couple of years ago while on the Texas gulf coast for a fishing trip we went to a very nice waterfront restaurant with oyster bar for lunch. As we were leaving I noticed the Texas "30-06" sign on the inside of the entry door (not visible from the exterior, and unlikely to be seen by a customer coming into the restaurant). My buddy and I refer to that incident as our "inadvertent felony", but we each had an excellent lunch with a couple of beers. A tree fell in the forest, but there was no one there to hear it, so there was no noise.
    TimBob likes this.

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,039
    Quote Originally Posted by gnius View Post
    To explain my reasoning, I'd like to recruit the brilliant Mr. Denny DeVito:
    So no serious or cogent opinion. I do enjoy satire. I haven't seen that DeVito movie.
    Psalm 144:1

  7. #36
    Member Array gnius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    So no serious or cogent opinion. I do enjoy satire. I haven't seen that DeVito movie.
    I was being mostly serious. Once your argument becomes a competition in liability, you've lost. If you can sue for a gun-free sign, then they can sue for its absence. In the end this isn't a winnable scenario.

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,039
    Quote Originally Posted by gnius View Post
    I was being mostly serious. Once your argument becomes a competition in liability, you've lost. If you can sue for a gun-free sign, then they can sue for its absence. In the end this isn't a winnable scenario.
    Ok I think I'm catching on. The premise of the law is businesses denying customers the right to defend themselves take on responsibility for the safety of those customers.

    How would expecting everyone to obey state laws bring on additional liability? Explain how that works. (And I am not a lawyer, so I understand common sense, not legal terms...haha)
    OldChap likes this.
    Psalm 144:1

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,534
    The fly in the ointment of the argument is that, at least in my experience, people dead-set on killing someone are generally not deterred by signs. Who cares about a 1 year state jail term for trespassing with a concealed weapon when you're going to either get shot dead by police, face life in prison, or get the needle. Neither are such criminals deterred by police. They know that most policing is after the fact and only very rarely interferes with the actors plan of killing.

    The only thing that seems to deter criminals like this is the very real threat that they will have to engage in a firefight with someone who is legally armed at the scene. And the only alternative is highly invasive security procedures. If anyone has an idea how we may provide a police officer everywhere in the country 24/7, I'm all ears.

    One day, that reality will find its way into codified laws. Right now the only concern seems to be money. Lives lost matter little, if any - except as a basis of extracting money. If anyone thinks there is enough money in the world to satisfy greedy lawyers, you really have another think coming. And I can state very confidently that no amount of monetary settlement fills the void of a lost loved one.

    What really matters to me are the lives of my family. Money, any amount of money, can never replace one of them. I will not rest until I have the freedom to protect them without going around reading signs on every door all day.

    Right now the question is who is preventing that protection? And why?
    Rockymonster likes this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

  10. #39
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia, w/summers in Pottsylvania
    Posts
    6,861
    I hate these laws with a burning passion.

    Whenever a criminal kills someone with a gun, we say the responsible party is the criminal, not the gun manufacturer.

    Now we want to say that the owner of business that posts a no gun sign is partly responsible for the criminal's action.

    Don't you see how these laws that impart liability on an otherwise law-abiding person or company have unintended consequences?

    How about this - if you don't post a no-gun sign, and a law abiding carrier negligently discharges his gun in your store, will the store owner be liable? After all, had the store owner banned guns, the carrier would not have been there. Same rationale as the proposed law.

    Sue everyone! Everyone is responsible for everything! We're all victims and everyone should pay! Sue, sue, sue!!!!

    It's nuts.

    How about this - if someone doesn't want you to bring a gun into his or her store, don't go to the store if you feel strongly about it.
    OldVet, Bikenut and Rockymonster like this.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    -PEF, Refugee from the Island of Misfit Toys

  11. #40
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia, w/summers in Pottsylvania
    Posts
    6,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    I hope both are buried six feet under.

    Laws like these are absolutely stupid. Wait until the next assembly passes a law making a store owner liable for negligent discharges that occur when a gun free sign is not posted.

    Post a no gun sign, and a criminal robs the store and kills a customer. Store is now bankrupt because they did not hire armed security (or if the store did, the security guard was "not properly trained" as evidenced by failing to stop the shooting).

    Don't post a no gun sing, and a carrier has a ND and kills a customer. Store is sued and is now bankrupt.

    Lawyers win. Yay.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    -PEF, Refugee from the Island of Misfit Toys

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,670
    I would never consider anyone else responsible for my security, short of privately hired armed security--which I wouldn't have. No one forces me to enter any business either armed or unarmed. It is my choice to do so, or not to do so. No one else's.

    Life is a matter of risks. Heart attack during a shower, t-boned by a Mack truck, struck by lightning--all of these are "risks" we take daily. Yet we don't give them a second thought. Yet throw a gun into the equation and people go nuts, either to one end of the spectrum or the other.
    OldChap and Rockymonster like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  13. #42
    Distinguished Member
    Array 1942bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    1,977
    I commend the Legislator for the two Bills he introduced since they reflect:
    • acknowledgment of the risks of gun free zones,
    • support for the 2A right of self defense,
    • fairness by putting liability for harm done on the governing body or owner
    • common sense legislation, a rarity today.
    OldChap likes this.
    "You don't hurt them if you don't hit them." Lt. Gen. Lewis "Chesty" Puller, USMC Retired

    USMC 9/59 through 9/69
    Vietnam June ‘66 to February ‘68
    MOS: 4641, Combat Photographer

    Memberships:
    Gun Owners of America
    Second Amendment Foundation
    Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Against Crime

  14. #43
    Senior Member Array Poorly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    687
    If a business owner denies the right to self-defense, it should assume responsibility for a person's safety to some extent. For those of us who believe self-defense, the right of every single creature God created, is important and necessary, then those who deny it assume the responsibility for safety. A person either believes the rightful concept of self-defense or they don't. That's the place to start the conversation. No amount of "what-ifery" negates the central importance of the concept of the freedom and right of self-defense.
    "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." --George Washington

    Never confuse illegal with immoral. Beware of those who do.
    "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2

  15. #44
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia, w/summers in Pottsylvania
    Posts
    6,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorly View Post
    If a business owner denies the right to self-defense, it should assume responsibility for a person's safety to some extent. For those of us who believe self-defense, the right of every single creature God created, is important and necessary, then those who deny it assume the responsibility for safety. A person either believes the rightful concept of self-defense or they don't. That's the place to start the conversation. No amount of "what-ifery" negates the central importance of the concept of the freedom and right of self-defense.
    Why don't you just not go to the business? Aren't you also responsible for your own safety? If so, aren't you also responsible for willingly going into a GFZ? Nobody is forcing you to go into the GFZ.
    Bikenut and AzQkr like this.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    -PEF, Refugee from the Island of Misfit Toys

  16. #45
    VIP Member
    Array Rockymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Idaho!
    Posts
    2,055
    How about this sign....


    “This store/mall does not guarantee your safety and
    does not prohibit legal CCW.... Enter at your own risk.”

    Doesn't that cover EVERYTHING?!

    Would shoppers really avoid a store/mall with this sign? I don’t think so....
    Poorly likes this.
    "Once that bell rings, you're on your own. It's just you and the other guy.” - Joe Lewis

    “I’m not obsessive about cleaning my guns. I like them like my martinis and my women....a ‘little’ dirty.....”

    Member: GOA, SAF






Page 3 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
  •