Spacehog 2,218 Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) I CC just about everywhere I go. But I do not carry into customer production plants. I have seen situations where employees in some of these plants were fired (usually deservedly so) that I fear are just angry or off base enough to come back in and shoot up the joint. There are several times I feel "naked" without my CCW. That got me thinking. We all know "gun free" zones are simply barrels full of fish waiting for a shooter. It makes sense to me that businesses, public, private, and governmental that post "No firearms" should be held liable for any shooting that occurs in their facility. If they are going to post no firearms, thus restricting law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, should they not also be liable for failing to ensure the safety of people inside their gun free zone? I know there are several here that have studied law or have taken the bar. I am just curious what are liability ramifications for businesses that decide to go gun free. I may be way off base in my thinking, but taking away a person's basic right to self defense, in my mind, makes a business singularly responsible for said person's safety while they are on the property. Your thoughts? Edited April 29, 2015 by Spacehog 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
haugpatr 972 Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 This is exactly how it should be, but probably isn't. Makes perfect sense to me. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 Common sense demands that any place where the ability to defend ones self or dependents is removed arbitrarily, then it is incumbent upon those who limit that right to self defense to provide at LEAST equal protection. Failure to provide that protection is 'aiding and abetting' any criminal act that you suffer on their premises. And those who fettered that God given right to self defense should be prosecuted as full and participating defendants responsible for any and all criminal acts that happen on their property. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
csspecs 1,987 Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 I'm of the opinion that the only gun free zones that should be legally relevant are places that actively screen for weapons.. If you get past screening with a weapon and are then discovered, you still can only be asked to leave your firearm in your car before returning. After all a sign is not going to protect my life, neither is a big insurance payout.. Money won't bring back your life or limbs.. Now if a building has both screening check points, and armed security, I don't really see the need to be armed inside. I take issue with signs and nothing to back it up. I want to say the no firearms signs are basically meaningless in FL... However I can't think of any places that have them. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spacehog 2,218 Posted April 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) I'm of the opinion that the only gun free zones that should be legally relevant are places that actively screen for weapons.. If you get past screening with a weapon and are then discovered, you still can only be asked to leave your firearm in your car before returning. After all a sign is not going to protect my life, neither is a big insurance payout.. Money won't bring back your life or limbs.. Now if a building has both screening check points, and armed security, I don't really see the need to be armed inside. I take issue with signs and nothing to back it up. I want to say the no firearms signs are basically meaningless in FL... However I can't think of any places that have them. I believe that so many chain businesses are going the "No firearms" route because they think it resolves them from responsibility. "Hey it's not our fault this massacre happened, we have a no firearms policy posted right there on the door." I would argue the opposite is true.You do bring up an excellent point however. I know there is zero chance of being charged criminally liable for these businesses, and I would imagine most do settle civilly with victims or their families. I was not suggesting that the answer is big payouts by those businesses, which would be done through their insurance. What I would like to see is insurance companies to stop providing coverage for businesses that post no firearms, without providing hard security. It should hit the business directly and give them pause whether they really want that liability. Edited April 29, 2015 by Spacehog 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 I believe a suit was filed against the theater in CO. Could be wrong on that. If I were shot anywhere a no gun policy was in place. A suit would be filed. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDeko 792 Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 It does stand to reason that in our society where every slight is a lawsuit that you should be able to sue a place that put you in danger and failed to protect you after. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodes1968 1,638 Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 This is what pocket guns were made to handle. An LCP in a deep concealment holster isnt going to be noticed, May as well get used to it. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
THE NEW GUY 113 Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 I carry concealed everywhere but , 3 places ,schools , banks , and government buildings. I live in a free state KY , and I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 . I asked my local sheriff whom I have known for over 30 years about the sign on the door he said , and I quote it shouldn't be a problem unless you have to use it, and if you do make sure you are in the right and it still shouldn't be a problem. I could care less about their sign on the door . I might get shot in a target rich environment ,but you can bet your sweet ass I will be shooting back and I don't miss . I carry at the malls and the movies, bars, and dinner, Christmas shopping, etc. Glock 26 or 17 IWB depending on the weather and a Glock 43 in the right front pocket all loaded with Hornady Critical defense +p or Critical duty +p . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 Interesting question. I for one think that private property rights also enter into it. If the guy who owns the joint demands no firearms, then he must be given that right. That also means that we as whomever entering his private joint also have the right to go elsewhere. This also includes working some place else. Where it gets interesting is when you have a prior set of conditions agreed upon by both, then the agreement or conditions change. What then? If I have worked for the man for 10 years and have a lot invested in the job, then the boss up and changes the gun toting conditions, then what do I do? Comply or quit? My private medical doctor's office is a good example. For years no problem packing. Then the front office girls hung out a sign saying "no weapons". I asked my Doc and he just smiled and said ignore it. So I do. So does he. So far, so good. Yep ... about all they can do is ask that you remove your weapon. Your decision. I am not a lawyer. HB of CJ (old coot) 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spacehog 2,218 Posted April 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 Interesting question. I for one think that private property rights also enter into it. If the guy who owns the joint demands no firearms, then he must be given that right. That also means that we as whomever entering his private joint also have the right to go elsewhere. This also includes working some place else. Where it gets interesting is when you have a prior set of conditions agreed upon by both, then the agreement or conditions change. What then? If I have worked for the man for 10 years and have a lot invested in the job, then the boss up and changes the gun toting conditions, then what do I do? Comply or quit? My private medical doctor's office is a good example. For years no problem packing. Then the front office girls hung out a sign saying "no weapons". I asked my Doc and he just smiled and said ignore it. So I do. So does he. So far, so good. Yep ... about all they can do is ask that you remove your weapon. Your decision. I am not a lawyer. HB of CJ (old coot) Interesting point of view HB, and I can't say as I disagree. It is a slippery slope for freedom either way, particularly in the case of private business. I hate frivolous lawsuits and believe most of those are filed by people who just want a payday. I am a strong supporter of people's right to carry. Gun free zones tick me off, but I also respect the freedom of an individual (private business) to set the rules, regardless of my beliefs. And as you mention, I am free to take my business elsewhere, or ignore their rules and carry anyway, which I do often. I feel very strongly that gun free zones equate to target rich environments for nut jobs that want their 15 minutes of fame. I also believe that businesses, school boards, and governments that promote it, have culpability in the danger, but weighing that against private property rights, which I also strongly support does muddy the water somewhat. Hence the purpose of the original question. Thanks for your perspective. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigtwin 219 Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) Interesting question. I for one think that private property rights also enter into it. If the guy who owns the joint demands no firearms, then he must be given that right. That also means that we as whomever entering his private joint also have the right to go elsewhere. This also includes working some place else. Where it gets interesting is when you have a prior set of conditions agreed upon by both, then the agreement or conditions change. What then? If I have worked for the man for 10 years and have a lot invested in the job, then the boss up and changes the gun toting conditions, then what do I do? Comply or quit? My private medical doctor's office is a good example. For years no problem packing. Then the front office girls hung out a sign saying "no weapons". I asked my Doc and he just smiled and said ignore it. So I do. So does he. So far, so good. Yep ... about all they can do is ask that you remove your weapon. Your decision. I am not a lawyer. HB of CJ (old coot) HB of CJ (old coot), nailed it! OP lets take your situation and change up the scenario. Business does not have a sign banning firearms, yet some nut job walks in and does some damage with a firearm. BUT, nobody was carrying at that time/place, do you still get to sue for not being protected by the business? Just a thought! Edited April 30, 2015 by Bigtwin 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 In my final reflection, perhaps it is somewhat fuzzy combination of both individual rights of self protection and the private property owner's right of making whatever distinctions he sees fit ... if we understand that we have the right also to go elsewhere. Ideally; if the property owner decides to prohibit the right of self protection on his private property, then he also assumes the greater burden of providing for the adequate safety of those individuals he has chosen to disarm. I would agree with you. But only to a certain point or level. I also have the right to take my business/employment elsewhere. He also has the moral (legal?) obligation of providing reasonable security at his private property if my presents there is necessary for both of us. Fuzzy. Just me. I am not a lawyer. HB of CJ (old coot) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigtwin 219 Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 Old Coot, I changed the wording in my last post. The part after agreeing with you was (or was intended at the OP, now fixed), I agree with what you said before. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
YOT 3,743 Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 I carry everywhere. That said, I also have a right to not go everywhere. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sobrenegade 795 Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 Being right handed and having surgery on the right elbow and wrist, the last couple of months taught me a life saving lessen. Practice with your weak side before you need to. I had to dress myself for six weeks wearing a cast and sling and after finally getting ready to go out every morning for my paper and groceries realized all my holsters were for the right. More often than not I didn't stick the .45 in my pocket which was already holding keys, change, and cell phone. It definitely made me feel less protected since I am responsible for my safety, not Walmart, Dennys, the gas station and such. Even with the absence of no firearms signs, none of any of the businesses I entered had security of any kind to protect me, except the courthouse, but I think the sheriffs on duty were to protect the courthouse and employees from me not the other way around. Sure, I carried a blade as temporary as it was, but nothing projects security like having your weapon available. I still am not allowed to use my dominant side for risk of extending the damage that was repaired, so left handed I am. I won't rely on anyone to protect me except a few close acquaintances I do trust with my life. Been redesigning my holster situation to include a couple lefties. Try being opposite dominant for one day just to prove a point and you will look at your security situation differently. I planned to be left handed knowing what the surgery entailed, but until you lose the use of your strong arm/ hand, remember, you still have to protect yourself. I still say fuck their signs. As csspecs said no signs are going to protect me. That's still my job. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sim_Player 1,939 Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 This is the angle we should be taking! A few successful lawsuits would make businesses think twice before hanging that scary picture of a gun on the door! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
semper299 284 Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 I had a lengthy discussion with a liberal friend of mine about the signs. He actually believes and told me that when he sees that sign, his first thought is "Good. No one will have a gun here." I'm pretty sure he is not the only person who thinks that way. Nothing I said swayed him one bit either. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 Idiot 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
YOT 3,743 Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 I had a lengthy discussion with a liberal friend of mine about the signs. He actually believes and told me that when he sees that sign, his first thought is "Good. No one will have a gun here." I'm pretty sure he is not the only person who thinks that way. Nothing I said swayed him one bit either. You can't fix stupid. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 Spacehog; Excellent Thread and thank you. Excellent answers everybody and thank you again. Amazing. This Shotgun Forum seems to have more intelligent people than most of the idiot so-called "smart" political/environmental forums I hit. I for one would gravitate towards a strict interpretation of the US Constitution AND natural law. Just me. We have a right of self protection. Darwin stuff. Mother nature. Private property owners should understand this, but some shit head liberals do not. Some actually believe criminal intent on multiple murder will obey just some silly dinky sign? Yep! They also voted for our President. Our nation is in deep do do. So, what can I do to just get along? Yep, like all the other good answers here, I carry 24-7-365.26. Even in my dumpy abode I live in now. CrossBreed Supertuck. Kahr P45 SS. Was FMJ hardball. Thick wintertime clothing This has changed to low penetration Corbon Powerball. Special situation here in SW OR. Josephine County. Long political story. We need self protection here. My local Bank has no signs. Good folks have conducted business there with OPEN CARRY! We all know each other. No problem. Again, special situation. Some business's have placed up "those signs". I make contact and explain it to them. Be amazed what they are assuming or just do not know. A liberal ignorance. Sometimes I sway them over. Sometimes not. Yep ... these educated idiot business owners not wanting weapons think the sign will save them. "How DARE you! Didn't you see that dinky sign?" My read is that they come from a very fuzzy warm safe cozzy environment or upbringing where nothing BAD ever has happened to them. Most, (some?) come up from Kommiefornika? Yikes! Is it moral or ethical for a "carrying" individual to knowingly enter a place that prohibits weapons? Yes it is. My right to self protection over rides their right to place the signs? But ... if they catch me at it carrying, then they have the right to toss me out? I also have that right not to go into their place of business AT ALL, but sometimes I must. HB of CJ (old coot) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spacehog 2,218 Posted May 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 Excellent answers and discussion. Thank you all for the responses. If you are up for round two, here's another question. If a private business can not refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple, even if it goes against their personal religious beliefs, why do they have a right to violate an individual's 2A rights, by being able to ask someone carrying to leave their business if they post a no firearms sign. Again, one can choose not to patronize that business and go somewhere else. Don't want this thread to delve into religion or a debate on same sex marriage. So let's keep it on topic. I use that analogy strictly to relate it back to a private business' ability to control the carry of firearms by its customers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDeko 792 Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 Because for the most part if your average person were told that the person right next to them was gay they might be disgusted but they would very rarely fear for their life whereas a lot of people would lay an egg to know how many people around them at every moment are armed. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigtwin 219 Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 While I do not agree with the forcing of a business "To bake a gay cake"(since that is the analogy you set forth), the difference is that the gays are a protected class, as well as minorities, and age....AND Religious folks....(some are more protected than others)....see where I am going with that? On the other hand the US constitution, in particular for our discussion, the Second Amendment, is a contract between the citizens and the government. Do we have the first amendment rights on this board to say what we want without being censored? No we don't. If you are in my home/business I have the right to say no fire arms allowed(I would not do that, but it is my right). I also could do the opposite and mandate in my home you must be armed(silly yes) but like old coot said, and I also believe in property rights just as I do individual rights. If you are in my home and unarmed or armed and some lunatic breaks in and injures you is it my fault, I believe no! I have no obligation to make sure anybody is protected due to unforeseen circumstances. That is my view and thoughts, sure some states may see it different, but I am all for personal responsibility! After reading this folks, please understand you are welcome to be armed in my home and business! Until you are not, but that would be an entirely different situation! lol 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spacehog 2,218 Posted May 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 Good posts all of them, although I disagree slightly with the idea that the 2A is a contract between people and the government. It limits the power of the Federal government with no requirement placed on the people to ensure or demand compliance by the government. I guess it was a round about way of doing it, but the my desire for this thread and the questions posed was to frame the discussion and get people really thinking about how we really view "freedom". It is tempting to restrict freedom of others, when focusing on the ones that are nearest and dearest to ourselves. If we are all honest with ourselves, I think many of us would agree that whether we mean to or not, we each value some freedoms over others. The responses illustrate quite well how our passions frame our points of views. The freedom guaranteed to us all through the Constitution is often limited by using that very same document to support the argument for taking them away. It is frustrating to see the Constitution watered down, twisted, and interpreted into irrelevance by today's society and culture. IMHO It's dilution has directly coincided with a large portion of society's willingness to exchange their freedom for government control and security. Things aren't going to change in America until we all start really valuing freedom in the ways our founders did. I don't know if we are too far gone or if going over the cliff will be the catalyst to respark the flame of Liberty once we hit rock bottom. Either way I believe that this great nation can be restored. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDeko 792 Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 I'm not sure about the chances of a third American Revolution turning out well. I mean ask Robert E. Lee how the second turned out and then look how our rights "eroded" away after 1865 in the same way a mudslide is erosion. Pretty much the Civil War showed that the citizenry is perfectly fine with giving the government the right to revoke rights they don't like then never asking the government to give said power back [not in favor of slavery by-the-by, just don't like how it was done away with]. If the doomsday scenario did in fact occur we'd all get slaughtered and get used as examples as to how "freedom" and "constitutional rights" are just things that dangerous anarchist terrorists rally for. Fact is that for the most part we're pack animals and tend to just go with the flow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sobrenegade 795 Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 It won't be a war between the blue and the grey, it will be between the blue and the red states. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
YOT 3,743 Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 It won't be a war between the blue and the grey, it will be between the blue and the red states. Nah, it will be more Revolutionary than Civil. You know, to free ourselves from a tyrannical government. Too many haven't experienced the tyranny yet. When ALL State's rights are trampled like NY, CA, IL, MA , CT,..... You will see it then. It is coming. III% 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
storm6490 2,768 Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 No habla Julio Englashyass. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 I am not a lawyer. HB of CJ (old coot) Nope. But you did a fairly good job of reasoning like one. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.