Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,197 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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 aren’t. 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/bartender-wouldnt-serve-him-so-he-shot-9-people/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
23,375 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,602 Posts
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzQkr and RedSafety

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,779 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,197 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,782 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Laws shielding folks who post no guns signs are in for a rude surprise, if Michigan is any indicator.
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/bartender-wouldnt-serve-him-so-he-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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,197 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
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?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,782 Posts
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" .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,189 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,197 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rock and Glock

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,290 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,197 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
@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. :vs_lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,782 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,197 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rock and Glock

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,782 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top