Pass a law please.....

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

caojyn

Sharpshooter
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
8,186
Reaction score
1,496
Location
Edmond
No. Business owners should think before assuming liability. Business owners should utilize reasonable and available safety precautions or allow their patrons to do so. That's i. No more, no less. :)

I guess it comes down to what your definition of "reasonable" is. About 70% of the US think it's reasonable"to rely on the police for their safety (as misguided as that is). If you and the business owner are in disagreement about something being unreasonable (gun policy, safety, prices, bathroom cleanliness, selection of cat food, or whatever) it's probably reasonable to find a business owner that agrees with you.
Intentionally patronizing unsafe places is just reckless.
 

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,299
Reaction score
4,219
Location
OKC area
So a sign denying service to Muslims, gays, trannys, etc. is fine? Really need to get rid of the "we don't take kindly to your kind around here" mindset.

No, it's not fine. Those are protected groups under U.S. laws...SDA permit holders are not a "protected group".

No. Business owners should think before assuming liability. Business owners should utilize reasonable and available safety precautions or allow their patrons to do so. That's i. No more, no less. :)

I agree in part...my point is where does the patron's responsibility begin and end in a free-will environment? If you approach an establishment and see a "no guns" sign and then choose to go back to your vehicle, disarm, and enter the establishment anyway, why should the business owner be liable for a situation that they didn't create (the criminal act) but you willingly exposed yourself to?

While the business owner may have limited your options to respond to a threat (limited, not removed entirely), the business owner did not create the situation that resulted in the criminal act taking place...unless you have some statistics that prove crime is more likely to happen in a business that prohibits concealed carry (real statistics, not anecdotes).

We need less laws and regulation of business. Not more.
 

Dukester

Sharpshooter
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
1,505
Reaction score
1
Location
Sapulpa
No, it's not fine. Those are protected groups under U.S. laws...SDA permit holders are not a "protected group".



I agree in part...my point is where does the patron's responsibility begin and end in a free-will environment? If you approach an establishment and see a "no guns" sign and then choose to go back to your vehicle, disarm, and enter the establishment anyway, why should the business owner be liable for a situation that you willingly put yourself into?

While the business owner may have limited your options to respond to a threat (limited, not removed entirely), the business owner did not create the situation that resulted in the criminal act taking place...unless you have some statistics that prove crime is more likely to happen in a business that prohibits concealed carry (real statistics, not anecdotes).

We need less laws and regulation of business. Not more.

It seems that permit holders (all gun owners) would be protected by the 2nd Ammendment if other groups are protected by laws. Can't have it both ways, either a business owner gets to decide who comes in their business or not.
 

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,299
Reaction score
4,219
Location
OKC area
It seems that permit holders (all gun owners) would be protected by the 2nd Ammendment if other groups are protected by laws. Can't have it both ways, either a business owner gets to decide who comes in their business or not.

Apples and oranges. You can put shoes/shirt on, put out a cigarette, or take a gun off to come into a store...a black man can't change the color of his skin or a Muslim can't change his religion at the door.

But I see your point...drop it all. Let the market sort it out. I'd love to see just how successful a business would be in this day and age if they were free to discriminate based on sex, race, religion etc...they would go down faster than a store that hung a No Guns sign.

Face it, gun owners are a small group. Concealed permit holders who actively carry are even smaller. We don't even pop up on the scale when it comes to driving business decisions....asking the government to force those decisions for us is antithetical to liberty and free-will.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,424
Reaction score
15,659
Location
Collinsville
I guess it comes down to what your definition of "reasonable" is. About 70% of the US think it's reasonable"to rely on the police for their safety (as misguided as that is). If you and the business owner are in disagreement about something being unreasonable (gun policy, safety, prices, bathroom cleanliness, selection of cat food, or whatever) it's probably reasonable to find a business owner that agrees with you.
Intentionally patronizing unsafe places is just reckless.

As I stated previously, concealed is concealed, in Oklahoma anyway. In Texas for example, their 30.06 law removes that option. What if the carries items of necessity and a person with limited options can't effectively patronize another business for the item needed? At what point does the business owner assume liability? In tort law, it's at 51%. The amount of compensation id dependent on all the elements of the case, the competency of counsel and the will of a judge or jury. As a business owner, why would you want to entrust your livelihood to such vagaries? Yes, it it your right, but right doesn't mean smart. ;)

No, it's not fine. Those are protected groups under U.S. laws...SDA permit holders are not a "protected group".

I agree in part...my point is where does the patron's responsibility begin and end in a free-will environment? If you approach an establishment and see a "no guns" sign and then choose to go back to your vehicle, disarm, and enter the establishment anyway, why should the business owner be liable for a situation that they didn't create (the criminal act) but you willingly exposed yourself to?

While the business owner may have limited your options to respond to a threat (limited, not removed entirely), the business owner did not create the situation that resulted in the criminal act taking place...unless you have some statistics that prove crime is more likely to happen in a business that prohibits concealed carry (real statistics, not anecdotes).

We need less laws and regulation of business. Not more.

Agreed on the laws. No new laws needed. The current laws will work just fine. All we really need is some good caselaw on the subject. A perfect example would be the Luby's massacre in Killeen, TX law made carry on posted property illegal. Luby's posted against carry. Hupp elected to disarm in order to have a meal with her parents there. She lost her parents despite having a permit and a gun in her car.

I have no idea what suits might have been filed after the Killeen massacre. Were I a judge or jury member in such a case, I'd sided with the plaintiff against Luby's for denying permit holders the option to carry and not taking reasonable steps to protect the patrons in their facility. I'd have limited the damages due to informed consent, but not vacated them entirely.

To me, that would be a perfectly reasonable stance. I'd place the split at about 60/40 against Luby's in the Killeen incident, absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances. If it were a remote location with no other options to get needed supplies or food, I'd up the percentage against the business. If there were another business across the street offering similar goods and services that didn't post against carry, I'd lower the percentage against the business.

We have to remember that freedom to do whatever you wish doesn't equal freedom from consequences. That goes just as much for business as it does for individuals. In this day and age, you have to assume that anny place you invite the public en masse to come and give you money, you have a viable target for violence. Take reasonable precautions or allow your valued customers to do so, if you truly value them and not just their money. :anyone:
 

BikerHT

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
41
Location
In the woods...between OKC & Tulsa
Take Chicago and Illinois for instance. I hope like hell I survive should I get shot while up in this area. There will be some kind of case law, if there's anything I can do about it. I will make every attempt to sue their anti-2A asses to the point they change the name to HT!

They're shooting folks driving down the interstates!


Sent from HT's iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

farmerbyron

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
152
Location
Tuttle
No, it's not fine. Those are protected groups under U.S. laws...SDA permit holders are not a "protected group".

Actually they are protected under the same document that protects the freedom of religion. Also, minorities and persons of a certain faith at one time were not a "protected group" either. Does not make it right.

We need less laws and regulation of business. Not more.

I agree with this. I don't know that a law needs to be passed. Like GTG says, case law could go a long ways to rectifying the situation.




Apples and oranges. You can put shoes/shirt on, put out a cigarette, or take a gun off to come into a store...a black man can't change the color of his skin or a Muslim can't change his religion at the door.

But I see your point...drop it all. Let the market sort it out. I'd love to see just how successful a business would be in this day and age if they were free to discriminate based on sex, race, religion etc...they would go down faster than a store that hung a No Guns sign.


Religion is absolutely a choice. Plus you could argue that I and many others worship at the alter of firearms. It is a form of religion that we deeply believe it. :bowdown:

Face it, gun owners are a small group. Concealed permit holders who actively carry are even smaller. We don't even pop up on the scale when it comes to driving business decisions....asking the government to force those decisions for us is antithetical to liberty and free-will.




50 million households with guns +/- isn't exactly a "small group". No CC citizens certainly are but just because you are a part of a small, ostracized group does not mean discrimination is justified.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom