Gun Free Zone Liability

[Tanis143]

let's see, create a bill that allows lawsuits if a place chooses to exercise a right that has previous existed. Yeah, comply and allow firearms or have an increased risk of getting sued.

And we have businesses claiming religious grounds already, why would it be hard to believe that there are ones out there that would want to prohibit firearms because of their faith? Pharmacists don't want to give out Plan B, catholic schools don't want to cover birth control, etc.

If these signs create unsafe situations then the simpler solution is to go somewhere else. Changing the law so that they can more easily be sued doesn't change the situation these signs create by itself. They are clearly meant to pressure the business into changing its stance. It's legislative virtue signaling.

I look at it like this: Businesses have the right to restrict firearms from their premises, but they must also accept the responsibility of the safety for those disarmed citizens. And this is more than just choice of where to pick up my bread. I am typing this at Integris SW, a gun free zone, while visiting my brother. Do I uave a choice? How about those that dont have much choice?

With every right comes responsibility. Businesses ownership is no different.

 

[donner]

I look at it like this: Businesses have the right to restrict firearms from their premises, but they must also accept the responsibility of the safety for those disarmed citizens. And this is more than just choice of where to pick up my bread. I am typing this at Integris SW, a gun free zone, while visiting my brother. Do I uave a choice? How about those that dont have much choice?

With every right comes responsibility. Businesses ownership is no different.

they don't have to accept anything like it because they aren't doing anything more to be responsible for yours safety when they allow guns. They could be fine with them and no one in there would be carrying so people are still SOL. A bank can an armed guard and they still aren't guaranteeing your safety (even if you can carry, too).

And lets talk enforcement. Do you need one securing guard to be 'protected', or does it need to be a cop? Are metal detectors enough? If a place bans guns, gives granny at the door a wand, have they fulfilled the obligation to watch for bad guys?

And i'm guessing you can wait/work somewhere else unless you are somehow compelled to be there by some legal force. Or is it just the easiest place to wait?

 

[donner]

I get where you’re coming from, I really do but I guess it’s just all the premise of said business creating an unsafe environment. Sure, we don’t have to go in there but still, if these places want to ban guns, then at least put up metal detectors or armed security to make sure sign doesn’t go ignored. At least if anything, hopefully it would keep these ignorant gun grabber/haters from having more and more reason to conjure up more silly gun laws from every other recorded time some thug, bad guy ignores that sign and shoots up a nightclub- holds up a convenience/liquor store or anything else for that matter where the owner has barred ALL guns from his/her establishment.

But hey, as I said- even though open carry does have its share of advantages, conceal that pistol and don’t worry about it. Or inconvenience yourself and shop elsewhere.

But lemmie ask ya this- and yes I know, they give in here, and they’ll be expected to give in to something else- I get it but, what if some gun-hatin’ liberal decides to sue some store owner for not enforcing his own sign when it gets walked right passed by a bad guy? Then what? I wish there was a way to only focus on the real reason why anyone would put that sign up in the first place, which is because they hate guns, they hate the sight of guns and they think of you and me as the potential bad guy which is just so how the typical gun hating patron feels as well, rather than anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's the owners choice. If you see a sign banning them go elsewhere. Or don't, but that is your choice knowing full well you might be at more risk.

Don't erode the rights of private businesses because you fear what gun grabbers 'may' do or because you feel inconvenienced by their business choice.

And i can't debate your last paragraph because i don't believe it's truth. I know people who'd ban guns but it's not because they hate the sight of them nor do they consider gun owns potential bad guys. They'd do so because their religious faith pushes them to. But YMMV.

 

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

Just keep your gun concealed and don’t worry about it.

 

[tRidiot]

Not going anywhere.

 

[Tanis143]

they don't have to accept anything like it because they aren't doing anything more to be responsible for yours safety when they allow guns. They could be fine with them and no one in there would be carrying so people are still SOL. A bank can an armed guard and they still aren't guaranteeing your safety (even if you can carry, too).

This is a strawman argument. If they allow firearms then it comes down to ME to protect myself, which is how life really is. When they remove my ability to protect myself then I'm dependent on either the business or local LEO to defend my life.

And lets talk enforcement. Do you need one securing guard to be 'protected', or does it need to be a cop? Are metal detectors enough? If a place bans guns, gives granny at the door a wand, have they fulfilled the obligation to watch for bad guys?

Depends.

And i'm guessing you can wait/work somewhere else unless you are somehow compelled to be there by some legal force. Or is it just the easiest place to wait?

If life was that simple this wouldn't be an argument. In big cities where the choices for many businesses are many, its easy to say "Well, they won't get my business". But small towns are a different thing.

It's the owners choice. If you see a sign banning them go elsewhere. Or don't, but that is your choice knowing full well you might be at more risk.

Don't erode the rights of private businesses because you fear what gun grabbers 'may' do or because you feel inconvenienced by their business choice.

And i can't debate your last paragraph because i don't believe it's truth. I know people who'd ban guns but it's not because they hate the sight of them nor do they consider gun owns potential bad guys. They'd do so because their religious faith pushes them to. But YMMV.

No one is talking about eroding rights. Please tell me where in that bill it states businesses can not tell customers to leave their guns in the car? All it does is give customers who are injured due to an altercation in a business that does not allow firearms a pathway for compensation because said business removed their ability to protect themself. And this doesn't have to mean they have to have armed guards. They could carry supplemental insurance, have silent alarm buttons installed for faster police response, or develope other plans to prevent assailants from hurting customers.

There has to be a balance between my right to self protection and business owner's rights. To say one trumps the other is asinine. What you are saying is a business owner's right trumps my 2A right and I have no way to be compensated if I'm injured on their property because they took that right away from me.

 

[corneileous]

Don't erode the rights of private businesses because you fear what gun grabbers 'may' do or because you feel inconvenienced by their business choice.

And i can't debate your last paragraph because i don't believe it's truth. I know people who'd ban guns but it's not because they hate the sight of them nor do they consider gun owns potential bad guys. They'd do so because their religious faith pushes them to. But YMMV.

Gimmie an example of a religious faith that would make someone ban guns from their establishment.... and no, I’m not taking about a church because most churches who don’t welcome guns are those places that most any other place ban guns because they just don’t want guns at all, even those carried for defense.

I think it’s pretty safe to assume that the majority of businesses who ban guns or just open carry from their establishment, are the ones that either hate guns, or because they don’t want the open carrier “scaring” off their gun-hating customers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snattlerake]

More likely than not their corporate lawyers have told the business gun free zones are easier to defend in court if their is an incident with a gun. Insurance companies are probably the main driving force behind these gun free zones.

 

[corneileous]

More likely than not their corporate lawyers have told the business gun free zones are easier to defend in court if their is an incident with a gun. Insurance companies are probably the main driving force behind these gun free zones.

Unfortunately, that could be. It’s just pretty sad that if that’s the case, that the insurance companies are so close-minded and not seeing the big picture by not seeing[or purposely overlooking] how much safer the business would be if they didn’t restrict legal and lawful carriers. They probably wouldn’t have claims at all if they didn’t restrict guns and made it to where bad guys knew they wouldn’t have the upper hand in there but instead, it’s like they see it making more sense by expecting a criminal, bad guy or thug to follow a prohibition sign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tanis143]

Unfortunately, that could be. It’s just pretty sad that if that’s the case, that the insurance companies are so close-minded and not seeing the big picture by not seeing[or purposely overlooking] how much safer the business would be if they didn’t restrict legal and lawful carriers. They probably wouldn’t have claims at all if they didn’t restrict guns and made it to where bad guys knew they wouldn’t have the upper hand in there but instead, it’s like they see it making more sense by expecting a criminal, bad guy or thug to follow a prohibition sign.

If their insurance got hit from a customer injured during a confrontation then maybe they would change their stance.