3
3
0
Seen something interesting this morning with regards to the gun debate. The question posed was rather simple. Should businesses and/or locations that are "gun free" be held financial liable for injuries received as a result the policy. Basically, if as a business decision you remove your patrons and employees right to self defense, you then take the onus to provide that defense and if you fail to do so, you are liable for not doing it. RP Fam, what are your thoughts? Is this a good idea? Will it in read or decrease "gun free zones"?
Posted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
Handguns and Pistols
Firearms and Guns Handguns and Pistols
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
2
2
0
Who cares? in NH those "no guns" signs have no legal authority. They merely state the company policy. If for some reason they discover you carrying all they can do is tell you to leave.
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
That should be the limit of the permissible punishment. The boss of the place made a rule. Somebody was caught breaking the rule, so that rule-breaker gets thrown out. That is the limit of the boss's authority over his business and the people he has as customers.
Making it a crime -- in some places a FELONY, to exercise an enumerated constitutional right in a peaceable, lawful manner is a travesty of Justice.
Making it a crime -- in some places a FELONY, to exercise an enumerated constitutional right in a peaceable, lawful manner is a travesty of Justice.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
No, I am not required to do business with that establishment. If I do chose to do so, I have done just that - made a choice. I could have made a different one. (and, in fact likely would)
The analogous situation where there would be a "duty to protect" is where I am being detained against my will and required to disarm (think in Police custody, jail, a public building that I am REQUIRED to be in).
The analogous situation where there would be a "duty to protect" is where I am being detained against my will and required to disarm (think in Police custody, jail, a public building that I am REQUIRED to be in).
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
All in all I am not opposed to private proprietors setting conditions on their customers' arms.
But I'm hugely opposed to government dictated zones of citizen disarmament (all of them).
Especially the most absurd ones. We need to arm the armed forces.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
But I'm hugely opposed to government dictated zones of citizen disarmament (all of them).
Especially the most absurd ones. We need to arm the armed forces.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
Arm the Armed Forces! | RallyPoint
The outcome of the discussion "Concealed carry for CAC holders?" by [~222148:SGT Bernard Boyer III]. Below follows my skeleton letter to congress, based on the edits RP members have suggested to the 10 points. Anyone and everyone is welcome to edit and personalize the letter for their own use in writing to their congressional representatives. We sent a mass email on 3 January, the swearing in of the new congress, now it's a free for all. You...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Absolutely not.
Here's the reasoning. The patron made an ACTIVE choice to enter. They CHOSE to disarm. They were not coerced. They were not forced. They put their desire to shop in that establishment above their personal protection. The establishment didn't remove your Right to Self Defense. They merely presented you with two options, which you as a free citizen can choose.
When a GOVERNMENT agency does this, it is different, because they have a monopoly on that service. The patron IS coerced. They ARE forced. They do not have the option to choose alternatives. There is no "other" DMV, or other Courthouse, therefore the Government must take on the role of "Protector" when they "disarm" the Citizen.
Capt Richard I P. Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette Please check my logic chain.
Here's the reasoning. The patron made an ACTIVE choice to enter. They CHOSE to disarm. They were not coerced. They were not forced. They put their desire to shop in that establishment above their personal protection. The establishment didn't remove your Right to Self Defense. They merely presented you with two options, which you as a free citizen can choose.
When a GOVERNMENT agency does this, it is different, because they have a monopoly on that service. The patron IS coerced. They ARE forced. They do not have the option to choose alternatives. There is no "other" DMV, or other Courthouse, therefore the Government must take on the role of "Protector" when they "disarm" the Citizen.
Capt Richard I P. Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette Please check my logic chain.
(2)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
lol. Should have just read your reply as it said the same as mine, but more eloquently.
(2)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
Im in agreement... mostly.. If we are talking Bobs Burger barn, then yes, agree. But what about the local hospital that has posted (in Texas it would be 30.06) "no guns" do you just go to the drug store and buy your own bandages and 1st aid book and wing it?
What about the bank in town....how about my local water company, the only one I'm allowed to contract though? what about the power co-op, again the only one that services my area..what about the many other very limited business that provide what are essential services? These are privet businesses that provide essential services that can not simply be dismissed as anti gun and other providers used.
What about the bank in town....how about my local water company, the only one I'm allowed to contract though? what about the power co-op, again the only one that services my area..what about the many other very limited business that provide what are essential services? These are privet businesses that provide essential services that can not simply be dismissed as anti gun and other providers used.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGM Erik Marquez Using your examples. A few of them, you just don't go to in person. Though I despise the effective monopoly as much as anyone, cut your personal interaction as much as you can. In the case of Water/Electric, these can be handled by mail.
The vast majority of banking no longer needs to be done in person either. My bank isn't even in the state in which I live.
As for the hospital, we start getting into "bigger problems."
It's not that I disagree with you. I completely agree with where you are going, however most of these are just non issues in the modern world.
The vast majority of banking no longer needs to be done in person either. My bank isn't even in the state in which I live.
As for the hospital, we start getting into "bigger problems."
It's not that I disagree with you. I completely agree with where you are going, however most of these are just non issues in the modern world.
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS " In the case of Water/Electric, these can be handled by mail."
No sir not for all transactions, not the lest of which are setting up, changing or stopping service, nor any customer service issues which at both CO-Ops I must use , must be done in person. Further if you want a receipt for payment you must go in person and present the payment. Otherwise you drop it in a mail slot and it is hopefully applied to your account.
"The vast majority of banking no longer needs to be done in person either"
If your talking about simple withdrawals, deposits and the like then yes. But there are many other customer service actions that must be done in person.
"however most of these are just non issues in the modern world."
I respectfully disagree.. I think you are not considering the many areas that are not designed for or use "wired processes" and the internet all encompassing functions, nor the millions of citizens that do not live by way of a smart phone.
I think we are both in agreement that it should not be the way it is, but we differ on the impact those anti gun businesses have on the general populace..and way of life.
No sir not for all transactions, not the lest of which are setting up, changing or stopping service, nor any customer service issues which at both CO-Ops I must use , must be done in person. Further if you want a receipt for payment you must go in person and present the payment. Otherwise you drop it in a mail slot and it is hopefully applied to your account.
"The vast majority of banking no longer needs to be done in person either"
If your talking about simple withdrawals, deposits and the like then yes. But there are many other customer service actions that must be done in person.
"however most of these are just non issues in the modern world."
I respectfully disagree.. I think you are not considering the many areas that are not designed for or use "wired processes" and the internet all encompassing functions, nor the millions of citizens that do not live by way of a smart phone.
I think we are both in agreement that it should not be the way it is, but we differ on the impact those anti gun businesses have on the general populace..and way of life.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
No. When did America become so litigious? Something bad happened to me an SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I cannot believe that people are allowed to sue firearms manufacturers for manufacturing and selling a weapon that functioned as designed, just because someone decided to use that product in an illegal manner.
_Should I be able to sue Ford for the death of my son? He was hit by a drunk driver.
_Should I be able to sue Verizon? I was t-boned by a teenager that was texting.
_Should someone'S relative be able to sue Estwing and Stihl because their relative was murdered, then dismembered with a hatchet and chainsaw.
Come on.
I apologize for the rant. It isn't directed at you. Judges should throw this crap out and fine the plaintiff's lawyer for being a shyster.
I cannot believe that people are allowed to sue firearms manufacturers for manufacturing and selling a weapon that functioned as designed, just because someone decided to use that product in an illegal manner.
_Should I be able to sue Ford for the death of my son? He was hit by a drunk driver.
_Should I be able to sue Verizon? I was t-boned by a teenager that was texting.
_Should someone'S relative be able to sue Estwing and Stihl because their relative was murdered, then dismembered with a hatchet and chainsaw.
Come on.
I apologize for the rant. It isn't directed at you. Judges should throw this crap out and fine the plaintiff's lawyer for being a shyster.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No this business owner shouldn't be held accountable for some else's actions. However given that businesses cannot refuse to do business with someone based on their sexual preference, and their "right" to force someone to make them a cake, a business owner also should not be able to refuse to do business with a person for exercising their individual right(as affirmed by the Heller decision) to bear arms.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Personally, I think it's wrong for a business to post a sign or policy that contradicts the law in that area. If someone is legally carrying in that area, the law should not change when they walk into a store, restaurant, or place of employment. Also, I think the 'Guns Welcome' signs are just drawing attention to themselves. People should stop posting their legal / political views at the entrances to their businesses. Just my opinion.
I'm not sure you could prove that not having a gun, due to a gun free zone, resulted in death or injury. I guess it's possible but with so many variables in a self-defense scenario it would probably be viewed as speculation. Then again, I don't know if there have been any cases to set a precedent for this.
When I'm out with my family, I avoid so called 'gun free zones' almost completely. Don't give these businesses your money, vote, and make your voice heard through your civic leaders. I know that is difficult or impossible in some parts of the country but that's my advice.
I'm not sure you could prove that not having a gun, due to a gun free zone, resulted in death or injury. I guess it's possible but with so many variables in a self-defense scenario it would probably be viewed as speculation. Then again, I don't know if there have been any cases to set a precedent for this.
When I'm out with my family, I avoid so called 'gun free zones' almost completely. Don't give these businesses your money, vote, and make your voice heard through your civic leaders. I know that is difficult or impossible in some parts of the country but that's my advice.
(1)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
I also avoid 'gun free zones.' However, the business in this case is NOT contradicting the law. It is merely establishing rules for use/entrance onto THEIR property. Similarly, in my area, it is legal to smoke both cigarettes and pot. If you wish to come into my home, you will be allowed to do neither.
I question a businesses' DECISION to do so, but not their right.
I question a businesses' DECISION to do so, but not their right.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Sir, I agree with a property owner's right to make this type of decision in a residential setting. My house and my rules. However, my house is not open to the public. That is the dynamic that changes the game in my opinion. I just don't think a business that is open to the general public should be restricting or exempted from legal carry or the self defense laws where they operate. Unless...they screen every John Q. Public that walks through their doors for weapons.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I certainly think so.
If I have a CHL/CCW and I carry everywhere I go in order to defend myself against life-threatening or otherwise serious injuries, and lets say that I NEED to go to a particular business for some reason, and they happen to be a gun-free zone.
If I disregard that sign and carry anyway, I am violating the law. I obviously don't want to do that.
I take my gun off and secure it in a vehicle or leave it at home (IE: someone who does not own a vehicle or prefers to walk), and obey the law like a good upstanding member of society should, and while I am in this establishment something happens to me where I suffer serious or life-threatening injury (stabbed, shot, hit with a blunt object, or just seriously beaten by one guy or a small group)
Now i'm more than likely going to be forced to pay hospital bills, take time off work to recover and put a financial burden on my family, etc.
If there's a chance that I could've reasonably defended myself or escaped unharmed if they had not forced me to disarm, and I had to choose between my own personal safety and obeying the law, and I erred on the side of the law and suffered because of it, I absolutely think there's an argument to be made there.
If a business wants to say "No, we don't want weapons in here, because we don't want someone to get hurt or to threaten us or someone else while in our establishment, so we can't allow you to have the ability to defend yourself"...and they choose to control their patrons in such a way, then I absolutely think that they then take on a responsibility to provide reasonable security measures to ensure that people cannot bring weapons in illegally and do harm with them, or that someone cannot simply walk in from outside and start shooting or stabbing their unarmed patrons and employees.
If they fail to do that, then they are unintentionally putting those certain individuals (who ordinarily have a means to protect themselves) at risk, and I believe that they should be able to be held liable for that.
Of course this can be avoided by not having a gun-free zone in the first place, and simply allowing patrons to do as they please.
It makes sense for a variety of thoer reasons as well. It would increase your potential customer base (as people who carry firearms tend to avoid gun-free establishments altogether, and also take their friends and family elsewhere) and it also inconviences customers them by making them disarm.
If you as a business owner give them the freedom to do as they please, and something happens to them, then they have a much harder case to be made against you. You almost surely cannot be held liable.
At least in my state currently, business owners also cannot be held liable for the actions of patrons or employees who carry concealed. Even if they happened to have a negligent discharge or shoot someone mistakenly or unnecessarily, it is not your fault for allowing them to have guns. Liability should not be a concern if you let your patrons and employees be armed.
If it is something that a CHL/CCW could not defend against (gas explosion, fire, toxic/dangerous gases, car ramming through the side of the building, etc) then obviously these types of situations would not apply...but in the case of a deranged individual stabbing people or shooting at everyone (or one specific person in the establishment), it is entirely possible that the defendant could have seen the threat and actually have time (usually only a matter of seconds) to react and protect themselves by shooting and stopping the threat...but instead since they were forced to be disarmed, there was little or nothing they could do to stop that threat (short of tackling the guy or something), and the reason that they did not have the ability to defend themselves was due to the store's policies and threat of violating the law.
Just my thoughts.
If I have a CHL/CCW and I carry everywhere I go in order to defend myself against life-threatening or otherwise serious injuries, and lets say that I NEED to go to a particular business for some reason, and they happen to be a gun-free zone.
If I disregard that sign and carry anyway, I am violating the law. I obviously don't want to do that.
I take my gun off and secure it in a vehicle or leave it at home (IE: someone who does not own a vehicle or prefers to walk), and obey the law like a good upstanding member of society should, and while I am in this establishment something happens to me where I suffer serious or life-threatening injury (stabbed, shot, hit with a blunt object, or just seriously beaten by one guy or a small group)
Now i'm more than likely going to be forced to pay hospital bills, take time off work to recover and put a financial burden on my family, etc.
If there's a chance that I could've reasonably defended myself or escaped unharmed if they had not forced me to disarm, and I had to choose between my own personal safety and obeying the law, and I erred on the side of the law and suffered because of it, I absolutely think there's an argument to be made there.
If a business wants to say "No, we don't want weapons in here, because we don't want someone to get hurt or to threaten us or someone else while in our establishment, so we can't allow you to have the ability to defend yourself"...and they choose to control their patrons in such a way, then I absolutely think that they then take on a responsibility to provide reasonable security measures to ensure that people cannot bring weapons in illegally and do harm with them, or that someone cannot simply walk in from outside and start shooting or stabbing their unarmed patrons and employees.
If they fail to do that, then they are unintentionally putting those certain individuals (who ordinarily have a means to protect themselves) at risk, and I believe that they should be able to be held liable for that.
Of course this can be avoided by not having a gun-free zone in the first place, and simply allowing patrons to do as they please.
It makes sense for a variety of thoer reasons as well. It would increase your potential customer base (as people who carry firearms tend to avoid gun-free establishments altogether, and also take their friends and family elsewhere) and it also inconviences customers them by making them disarm.
If you as a business owner give them the freedom to do as they please, and something happens to them, then they have a much harder case to be made against you. You almost surely cannot be held liable.
At least in my state currently, business owners also cannot be held liable for the actions of patrons or employees who carry concealed. Even if they happened to have a negligent discharge or shoot someone mistakenly or unnecessarily, it is not your fault for allowing them to have guns. Liability should not be a concern if you let your patrons and employees be armed.
If it is something that a CHL/CCW could not defend against (gas explosion, fire, toxic/dangerous gases, car ramming through the side of the building, etc) then obviously these types of situations would not apply...but in the case of a deranged individual stabbing people or shooting at everyone (or one specific person in the establishment), it is entirely possible that the defendant could have seen the threat and actually have time (usually only a matter of seconds) to react and protect themselves by shooting and stopping the threat...but instead since they were forced to be disarmed, there was little or nothing they could do to stop that threat (short of tackling the guy or something), and the reason that they did not have the ability to defend themselves was due to the store's policies and threat of violating the law.
Just my thoughts.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No, because of a patron's choice to patronize the establishment if it's private property. However, I would then say that following that logic that bar employees could not be held responsible for such things as underage drinking or if they let a patron drive drunk. Even if no criminal charges were filed in such a case, there's nothing stopping someone suing a bar restaurant if someone was driving while intoxicated or under the influence and ended up in a serious accident.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
So basically, a business decides it doesn't want to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and that's okay, because why force the business to do something on their own property that they don't want to.....but a business decides it doesn't want to allow guns on its own property, and that's not okay, because how dare they have a different view of things than us?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google