I Kind Of Suspected This Might Happen

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; Laws shielding folks who post no guns signs are in for a rude surprise, if Michigan is any indicator. Critics have pointed out that a ...

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48
Like Tree109Likes

Thread: I Kind Of Suspected This Might Happen

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,690

    I Kind Of Suspected This Might Happen

    Laws shielding folks who post no guns signs are in for a rude surprise, if Michigan is any indicator.

    Critics have pointed out that a sign on the door read that guns were not allowed inside, potentially creating another soft target where a shooter could commit an excessive amount of carnage in a short amount of time.

    A string of recent mass shootings in areas that are considered gun-free zones has sparked a national conversation about who should be held liable when a shooting occurs in an area where citizens are told they cannot carry.

    The vast majority of these kinds of shootings occur in these gun-free zones.

    Why? Because the sick individuals who commit such heinous acts are looking for a way to accumulate a large casualty count. That is hard to do in an area where an individual, or many individuals, may respond by pulling their concealed weapon and return fire, potentially neutralizing the threat. So how are we protected in these environments? We arenít. But maybe there is hope, at least for the people of Michigan.

    Ironically, the only people who abide by the gun-free zone signs are the ones that are following the laws to begin with.

    A state representative has introduced legislation that would hold government offices and private businesses liable if anyone is injured during a shooting in a gun-free zone on their premises.

    State Rep. Gary Eisen, R-St. Clair Township, introduced House Bill 4975, which would revoke governmental immunity from lawsuits arising from injuries sustained on government property where guns are banned. Eisen is also the sponsor of House Bill 4976, which would make a government, business or individual that designates a property a gun-free zone legally responsible for the safety of individuals who enter it.
    It took a shooting in a bar in Kansas to move legislators off dead center.

    https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...shot-9-people/
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    My avatar is of Princess. We lost her after many years. Her little sweater says, "Meet me under the Misltletoe."

  2. #2
    Member
    Array Talldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    476
    Common sense, what a concept!

  3. #3
    Member Array gnius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    410
    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.
    OldChap likes this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    404 Page Not Found
    Posts
    22,341
    the litigators are the ones who will put the final nail in this coffin
    They will certainly try, and remember, the plaintiffs bar is a huge contributor to progressive politicians. What could go wrong. Same with tobacco, same with asbestos, Round-Up, Opioids........you name it, the vultures are there, or waiting in the wings.
    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

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array WrongRecroom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    AZ moutain lands
    Posts
    9,272
    There was a attempt in AZ to pass a law saying that if you had GFZ signs that you the company would have to pay for armed guards and metal detcorts it did not pass
    RedSafety and AzQkr like this.
    ďEvery normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.Ē H.L. Mencken
    "Vous ne les laisserez pas passer, mes camarades"
    "We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."Chesty Puller

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,702
    I first heard about this as a possibility around 25 years ago from a co-worker. He was of the opinion that this would give pause to those businesses that post No Gun signs.

    However, I do have one problem with this. If someone enters a business that is posted and starts shooting people, that individual is directly responsible for his actions, not the business owner. But as for civil liability, one could argue, successfully in my opinion, that by having a No Guns policy and NOT having personnel on the premises to protect patrons does, in fact, show the business owner to be negligent and therefore liable to damages.

    Could be very interesting if Michigan does sign something like this into law.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    America First!

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,830
    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.
    IMO, Mandalay Bay should not have paid a nickel. I don't know its policy on firearms--at the time of the shooting--but it did not shoot anyone, and the "should have known" argument just won't hold water.

    Making gun-free zones responsible for any shooting injuries will do one of two things: remove a lot of No-Gun signs or create a lot of security job openings. In the meantime, we'll have to see where this MI law goes.
    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

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,690
    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.
    There are alternatives. Legislation that removes the signage ability, (restricting lawful carry), for any place that is publicly accessible is underway in several states. Licensed legal carry is one thing, restricting access to public places by criminals carrying guns is quite another. While there are some good lawyers, I find that, generally speaking, allowing lawyers to determine anything beyond 4th grade level logic is problematical.

    I'm just not really comfortable with allowing lawyers to determine the safety and security of my family. I will take that responsibility - as will my wife.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    My avatar is of Princess. We lost her after many years. Her little sweater says, "Meet me under the Misltletoe."

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,652
    More feel good legislation that isn't going anywhere. Even if it did pass it won't realistically change anything.

    Not every drunk that gets thrown out of a bar goes there with that being their plan for the night. So as a business owner you have to ask yourself, which is more likely? I post and we have a mass shooting, or I don't post and my bouncer and my staff have to deal with more drunks with guns? As the insurance company for the business which will result in me paying more claims?
    OldChap likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #10
    Member Array Skippys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    Laws shielding folks who post no guns signs are in for a rude surprise, if Michigan is any indicator.
    https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...shot-9-people/
    Could be a sticky wicket for state law. Kansas is a constitutional carry state, PLUS no-gun signs do not carry the force of law (think "No Shoes - No Service" signs in restaurants).

    So where does the liability eventually fall? On the state or the business for posting a toothless No Guns Allowed sign? For example, most nursing homes, care homes, group homes, rehab and women's shelters are posted with some such sign in the great state of Kansas.... Would they also be subject to liability for posting such signage, or the state for making these signs pointless?

    Just wondering.



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

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,690
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    More feel good legislation that isn't going anywhere. Even if it did pass it won't realistically change anything.

    Not every drunk that gets thrown out of a bar goes there with that being their plan for the night. So as a business owner you have to ask yourself, which is more likely? I post and we have a mass shooting, or I don't post and my bouncer and my staff have to deal with more drunks with guns? As the insurance company for the business which will result in me paying more claims?
    Iím sure you know itís already illegal for a TX LTC licensee to carry in a bar. Right? I suspect those who carry illegally wonít care if itís posted or not - so not much changes. Certainly nothing a sign accomplishes will stop those who decide to commit homicide.

    I donít ascribe to the claim of the antis that a good guy with a gun is a problem. I think anywhere a bad guy believes is a ďsafe hunting groundĒ - meaning law abiding citizens are disarmed, is a target. I believe the presence of those armed law abiding citizens fills a gap in the shield of protection that understaffed and overworked law enforcement provides.

    Perhaps Iím wrong.

    BTW @Skippys Read carefully. The proposed changes are in MICHIGAN, not KANSAS.
    ETXhiker, airslot, baren and 1 others like this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    My avatar is of Princess. We lost her after many years. Her little sweater says, "Meet me under the Misltletoe."

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,652
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post

    I’m sure you know it’s already illegal for a TX LTC licensee to carry in a bar. Right? I suspect those who carry illegally won’t care if it’s posted or not - so not much changes. Certainly nothing a sign accomplishes will stop those who decide to commit homicide.

    I don’t ascribe to the claim of the antis that a good guy with a gun is a problem. I think anywhere a bad guy believes is a “safe hunting ground” - meaning law abiding citizens are disarmed, is a target. I believe the presence of those armed law abiding citizens fills a gap in the shield of protection that understaffed and overworked law enforcement provides.

    Perhaps I’m wrong.

    BTW @Skippys Read carefully. The proposed changes are in MICHIGAN, not KANSAS.
    But not every bar is a "bar" . There are plenty of restaurants that promote themselves as "sports bars" that do not hit the 51% threshold.
    Also, it is not just an issue of the armed people potentially being drunk. I have seen plenty of stupid drunks do stupid stuff during MLB playoffs, March Madness, and UFC fights with people cheering for the other side. Sometimes only one party is apparently intoxicated.

    So why is it more reasonable to assume the business is liable for the mass shooting by having a no guns policy than it is for them to be liable for stray rounds if they don't have one? In one case you have injuries because their policy allows guns in the other there were injuries because their policy was violated.
    For liability the incident has to be foreseeable. Just because something bad happened somewhere else is not enough. There have to be specific identifiable indicators as to why this particular property, or why this particular circumstance has a higher risk than "normal" .
    OldChap likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    3,919
    Too many people don't want the responsibility of their own safety so it is easier to believe that someone else will provide it for them. That, or course, plays quite nicely into the goals of the anti-gunners. Whatever the court may decide, ultimately the only rational solution is the one devised by our founders. OMO
    airslot, CWOUSCG and OldChap like this.
    "...as politics in Washington and elsewhere grows increasingly un-moored from reality, humanist wisdom provides us with one final consolation: There is no greater lesson from the past than the intractability of human folly." Heather Mac Donald

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,690
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    But not every bar is a "bar" . There are plenty of restaurants that promote themselves as "sports bars" that do not hit the 51% threshold.
    Also, it is not just an issue of the armed people potentially being drunk. I have seen plenty of stupid drunks do stupid stuff during MLB playoffs, March Madness, and UFC fights with people cheering for the other side. Sometimes only one party is apparently intoxicated.

    So why is it more reasonable to assume the business is liable for the mass shooting by having a no guns policy than it is for them to be liable for stray rounds if they don't have one? In one case you have injuries because their policy allows guns in the other there were injuries because their policy was violated.
    For liability the incident has to be foreseeable. Just because something bad happened somewhere else is not enough. There have to be specific identifiable indicators as to why this particular property, or why this particular circumstance has a higher risk than "normal" .
    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.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    My avatar is of Princess. We lost her after many years. Her little sweater says, "Meet me under the Misltletoe."

  16. #15
    Distinguished Member Array RedSafety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by WrongRecroom View Post
    There was a attempt in AZ to pass a law saying that if you had GFZ signs that you the company would have to pay for armed guards and metal detcorts it did not pass
    Should be nation-wide.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails I Kind Of Suspected This Might Happen-gun-free-zone.png  

    OldChap and rotorhead1026 like this.
    When seconds count, help is only 18+ minutes away!

Page 1 of 4 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
  •