Previous Page
Page:  / 2
Author
Message
Bama-Shooter
You do your thing. I'll do mine.
Instructor
Online
Posts: 76620
Feedback: 100% (63)
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:37:28 AM EST
Property owners, businesses, and employers may prohibit concealed weapons by posting proper signage. Those prohibiting concealed weapons will not enjoy immunity from liability that arises from that decision under the new law.

http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=103720
American by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

Constitutional carry is a right not a privilege.

Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
bullyforyou
Member
Offline
Posts: 13697
Feedback: 100% (10)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:48:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 3:52:07 AM EST by bullyforyou]
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Property owners, businesses, and employers may prohibit concealed weapons by posting proper signage. Those prohibiting concealed weapons will not enjoy immunity from liability that arises from that decision under the new law.

http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=103720


i've wondered about this for YEARS, even to the extent of folks suing anti-gun municipalities after things like mall shootings and whatnot.

interesting.

ETA: should have read the article first. this deals specifically with WI and their new CC, which in turn may also provide somewhat of an answer to my question: "depends on your state's law".

Rhude
Offline
Posts: 214
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:50:12 AM EST
Sounds good to me. If, under the new law, businesses choose to create victims on the premises, then they should be held liable when someone ignores the sign and goes on a spree. Those "no guns allowed" signs are going to be invitations to the nuts, not to mention a popular target of thieves.
Aptrgangr
Offline
Posts: 851
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:51:23 AM EST
When the TX CHL law was passed there was some speculation about that.
Will
Member
Offline
Posts: 7065
Feedback: 100% (43)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:52:21 AM EST
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.
" Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God"- From the personal seal of Thomas Jefferson
Aimless
Staff: AR15 forums and Equipment Exchange
Offline
Posts: 98137
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:52:30 AM EST
I haven't read the statute but generally I don't buy that barring people from carrying pistols creates any liability without some other factors (much as I would like it to be otherwise), however from the wording of the statute it would be safer from a legal standpoint from the employer to not bar firearms and be able to take advantage of the immnunity conferred by statute rather than risk being a test case.
Kuraki
Pavlov's deaf dog
Online
Posts: 14346
Feedback: 100% (131)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:55:51 AM EST
The was the lever I was using at my place of employment in hopes of removing the "no weapons" policy.
fwocka-fwocka-fwocka is the new pew-pew-pew
LaRue customer for life!
Aimless
Staff: AR15 forums and Equipment Exchange
Offline
Posts: 98138
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:57:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.
bullyforyou
Member
Offline
Posts: 13699
Feedback: 100% (10)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:19:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.


i suppose the counter-argument would be that, while he CHOSE to enter the establishment, the proprietor CHOSE to ban guns. each will have to deal with the consequences of their choice. the patron may have to deal with whatever arises from being shot or stabbed because of his choice to enter the "bucket of blood", and the owner will have to deal with whatever arises from depriving the patron of the means to defend himself. (not that i necessarily agree with either this argument or yours. just playing devil's advocate for a minute because this topic interests me.)


kelone
Offline
Posts: 1323
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:22:32 AM EST
Property rights, right? You are not compelled to work at an anti-gun business.
SmilingBandit
Damn these electric sex pants!
Military
Online
Posts: 17553
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:24:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.


The idea that because it was your option to enter an establishment doesn't seem reduce liability for other safety choices a company makes.
"Upon further review, we have determined that the string itself is not a machinegun" -BATFE
Commander_Keen
Offline
Posts: 284
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:27:22 AM EST
Grr.. Almost got in before the "you don't have to work there/ their property, their rules" crowd.
FunYun1983
Member
Offline
Posts: 5624
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:30:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By kelone:
Property rights, right? You are not compelled to work at an anti-gun business.

No, but you are compelled to provide a safe work environment.
Commander_Keen
Offline
Posts: 285
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:31:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.


If you remove a persons lawful ability to defend himself against such attacks without taking proper steps to prevent the attack and make sure everyone follows the policy you should be liable. Just the way I see it.
runcible
Never Knows Best
Offline
Posts: 19268
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:32:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 4:34:05 AM EST by runcible]
Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there.
If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

And if I could compel you to be on my property, perhaps you'd have a point.

However, I can't, therefore you don't.
The only thing that you can guess about a broken down old man... is that he is a survivor.
"Circumfrench"? Is that the distance around France? - Old_Painless
kelone
Offline
Posts: 1325
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:33:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:

Originally Posted By kelone:
Property rights, right? You are not compelled to work at an anti-gun business.

No, but you are compelled to provide a safe work environment.


Which is the reasoning behind smoking bans in bars. Got to provide a safe work environment for the staff.
VBC
Iddy Biddy Biddy Commidy
Online
Posts: 12151
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:33:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 4:33:49 AM EST by VBC]
Originally Posted By kelone:
Property rights, right? You are not compelled to work at an anti-gun business.


On the other hand, workplaces are compelled to provide for the safety of their employees and customers.

ETA –– Late as ever.
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
Offline
Posts: 35244
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:36:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By bullyforyou:
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.


i suppose the counter-argument would be that, while he CHOSE to enter the establishment, the proprietor CHOSE to ban guns. each will have to deal with the consequences of their choice. the patron may have to deal with whatever arises from being shot or stabbed because of his choice to enter the "bucket of blood", and the owner will have to deal with whatever arises from depriving the patron of the means to defend himself. (not that i necessarily agree with either this argument or yours. just playing devil's advocate for a minute because this topic interests me.)




Because when rights collide, the default stance of "the guy who owns the land you are standing on wins" should prevail, however plenty here will say they should be able to do any damned thing they want on someone else's property.

If you don't like the fact that someone doesn't want you to bring a gun to their property, don't fucking go. It REALLY is that simple.
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
BatchelorGroda
Offline
Posts: 1898
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:37:12 AM EST
The only liability suffered would be if the person who ALWAYS carries when not at work (and can prove it) dies at work because he was not armed.

In most cases, this would be a totally isolated incident.

I would tend to think, that if you were a victim of workplace violence, but never carried or wanted to carry a gun, you could not sue the company because they would not let someone else carry their gun.

Too many variables....they would never win unless they had a proven record of that "safety" gun being there when it counts.
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
Offline
Posts: 35245
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:38:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:

Originally Posted By kelone:
Property rights, right? You are not compelled to work at an anti-gun business.

No, but you are compelled to provide a safe work environment.


So you having a gun is the property owner providing a "safe work environment"?
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
FunYun1983
Member
Offline
Posts: 5625
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:39:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.

No one has the expectation of being assaulted for entering a property that is open to the public.

Thats like operating a roller coaster when you know its not safe, your going to get in the ass civily, and probably criminally.
Lacoochee
Deo Vindice
Offline
Posts: 1029
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:42:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 4:45:02 AM EST by Lacoochee]
Originally Posted By bullyforyou:
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.


i suppose the counter-argument would be that, while he CHOSE to enter the establishment, the proprietor CHOSE to ban guns. each will have to deal with the consequences of their choice. the patron may have to deal with whatever arises from being shot or stabbed because of his choice to enter the "bucket of blood", and the owner will have to deal with whatever arises from depriving the patron of the means to defend himself. (not that i necessarily agree with either this argument or yours. just playing devil's advocate for a minute because this topic interests me.)




This, plus a business owner does have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for their patrons.

For example, if Disney chose not to perform maintenance on some rides because there was only a very small chance someone could be injured due to that lack of maintenance they are incurring a liability even if it even only happens to one in a million visitors (so it happens three times a month ;-) ).

Would Disney be absolved of all responsibility if they posted a sign at the entrance saying that you enter at your own risk? If not, would not a sign informing all passing criminals that they can enter and rob (or more) at minimal risk to themselves be establishing the property owners responsibility to preclude or at least minimize the chance of that occurring?

You can't have it both ways, you either leave it to your patrons to protect themselves as they see fit or you provide that protection especially when you have gone out of your way to remove it and advertise it.

In Florida we get around that by saying that these signs have no legal meaning and that barring a direct request from the owner to leave, that a business that opens their doors to the general public do not have the right to preclude you from carrying. Employees fall into a different category all together and they always have the right to carry concealed or openly on their employers property, they are however not protected from being fired if they do so. The only exception to this is guns in cars, we have a right to keep a gun in our cars while parked in an employee parking lot or otherwise (there are some exceptions to this rule).
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
Offline
Posts: 35246
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:42:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:


No one has the expectation of being assaulted for entering a property that is open to the public.



Then why would anyone need a gun outside their home?

ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
Offline
Posts: 35247
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:44:26 AM EST
Originally Posted By Lacoochee:


This, plus a business owner does have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for their patrons.




So I will ask you. You having a gun is a business owner providing a "safe environment for their patrons"

ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
BatchelorGroda
Offline
Posts: 1899
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:44:29 AM EST
Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:


No one has the expectation of being assaulted for entering a property that is open to the public.



Then why would anyone need a gun outside their home?




Because those people are always wrong and have no prejudice about anything,
FunYun1983
Member
Offline
Posts: 5626
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:44:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:

Originally Posted By kelone:
Property rights, right? You are not compelled to work at an anti-gun business.

No, but you are compelled to provide a safe work environment.


So you having a gun is the property owner providing a "safe work environment"?

Ahh, no?

The owner of the business is required to operated it in a safe manner, which may require that you provide certain safety procedures or items. Like, an armed guard.

Say you work in a machine shop. You want to wear your own safety glasses because they are prescription, but the boss only lets you use some shitty cheapo glasses.

When you cut your finger off and blame it on the fact that you couldn't see, the boss will get in the ass.

dragongoddess
WestTexasGranny
Offline
Posts: 7828
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:48:50 AM EST
Always wondered if one carrying concealed is obligated to defend others being threatened with their gun and if the conceal carry person does not do they incur liability for not involving themselves. I know it sounds crazy but we all have seen sillier stuff.
Granny got Game.

Granny got Gun. Big one at that.

Don't mess with a Texas Granny.
Cavalry99
Lost in space
Offline
Posts: 4649
Feedback: 100% (56)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:49:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.


So much fail here.........
You cannot even help yourself because yourself sucks.
FunYun1983
Member
Offline
Posts: 5627
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:49:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:


No one has the expectation of being assaulted for entering a property that is open to the public.



Then why would anyone need a gun outside their home?


LoL, if I expected to get in a car accident, or mugged, or abducted by aliens, I would not leave my home.

The point is that their is an expectation of safety in areas that are open to the public. They have to meet things like building codes, fire safety, bla bla bla.
VBC
Iddy Biddy Biddy Commidy
Online
Posts: 12153
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:50:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By BatchelorGroda:
The only liability suffered would be if the person who ALWAYS carries when not at work (and can prove it) dies at work because he was not armed.

In most cases, this would be a totally isolated incident.

I would tend to think, that if you were a victim of workplace violence, but never carried or wanted to carry a gun, you could not sue the company because they would not let someone else carry their gun.

Too many variables....they would never win unless they had a proven record of that "safety" gun being there when it counts.


A good attorney can argue anything.

It could be said that Joe noticed Willy was disappointed about losing a promotion, causing him act out of character and talk of violence. Joe informed their boss, Mack, but Mack just shrugged it off, saying Willy will get over it. Joe didn't agree and was fearful for his life, but wasn't allowed to bring his Desert Eagle with laser beam to work because of company policy. Willy showed up one day with a Raven Arms .25 and proceed to shoot the unarmed men. If Joe could have brought his Deagle with Da Beamz to work with him, he could have stopped Willy and prevented injury to himself and Mack.
Angelshare1
Offline
Posts: 8882
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:55:14 AM EST
You are supposed to provide reasonable safety for your patrons of your business. I don't think providing protection against someone running in and shooting people falls under reasonable since it's completely out of the owners hands. The owner can control holes in the floor, electrical wires in dangerous places, enough fire exits, ect. Armed robbery is up in the air, a million things could happen.

Also fixing a broken floor board to prevent someone from breaking a leg is exact, quantifiable and foreseeable. Arming 1 out of 1,000 of your citizens with a carry license in the hopes that it will protect against robbery and shooting spree wackadoos isn't something you could hang your hat on. CCW will lower robberies and the shooting spree wackadoos have less of a chance to take as many victims but it's still just too far out of the owners control to access them with liability.

...and I support every business owners rights to be stupid and hang those signs up.
FunYun1983
Member
Offline
Posts: 5628
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:00:08 AM EST
To clear something up, your property is your property, until you open it to the public.

Ever noticed that to open a business you need a licenses? Ever notice that to obtain those licenses you need to comply with lots of safety regulations? This is the community setting standards for places that are open to the public. The idea is that no one has the time, or even the ability or knowledge of how to do everything. We simplify this by creating regulations that you must follow to do certain things.

Its only natural progression that if I have the right to protect myself, and you don't want me to, that you take on that responsibility.

Basically, you better have a solution to a problem that you create.



The_Emu
Offline
Posts: 2519
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:02:45 AM EST
Suppose there is one one grocery store in your one horse town. Are you "compelled" to shop there? What if the next nearest big town was an hour flight in a 737 or a 24 hour boat ride away, and no roads leaving town. (Which is true of where I live in Alaska.) Am I "compelled" to shop at that one grocery store?


If I'm compelled to use a business because there is no viable competition, and that store post a no guns sign are they then compelled to provide a safe envirenment for customers?

Bethel Alaska does have 2 grocery stores, but just for argument sake. Most of the surounding smaller villages do, in fact, have just one store.
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
Offline
Posts: 35248
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:04:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
To clear something up, your property is your property, until you open it to the public.

Ever noticed that to open a business you need a licenses? Ever notice that to obtain those licenses you need to comply with lots of safety regulations? This is the community setting standards for places that are open to the public. The idea is that no one has the time, or even the ability or knowledge of how to do everything. We simplify this by creating regulations that you must follow to do certain things.

Its only natural progression that if I have the right to protect myself, and you don't want me to, that you take on that responsibility.

Basically, you better have a solution to a problem that you create.





So again, it is your position that you having a gun is providing a safe place?

What if you get killed anyway? What if 12 armed guys lay siege to the place and they kill everyone including you even if you were armed with a SAW? Sounds a little ridiculous when it progresses to the "natural progression" of what "could" happen.
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
Offline
Posts: 35249
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:05:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Emu:
Suppose there is one one grocery store in your one horse town. Are you "compelled" to shop there? What if the next nearest big town was an hour flight in a 737 or a 24 hour boat ride away, and no roads leaving town. (Which is true of where I live in Alaska.) Am I "compelled" to shop at that one grocery store?


If I'm compelled to use a business because there is no viable competition, and that store post a no guns sign are they then compelled to provide a safe envirenment for customers?

Bethel Alaska does have 2 grocery stores, but just for argument sake. Most of the surounding smaller villages do, in fact, have just one store.


So how many people are killed annually shopping in those store?

ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
Will
Member
Offline
Posts: 7066
Feedback: 100% (43)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:09:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By runcible:
Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there.
If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

And if I could compel you to be on my property, perhaps you'd have a point.

However, I can't, therefore you don't.


But you of course would gladly take whatever money I spent there? Typical...I want all the benefits but NONE of the responsibility. Welfare capitalists, you gotta love them. The plain fact is that in the common law which has existed as long as the "free market Libtardatarian property is everything idea" an owner of property has a duty to those he invites in, requires to be there or who might reasonably be expected to be there. Where rights conflict- property vs. HUMAN LIFE- HUMAN LIFE WINS. If you can't defend yourself, the ONLY property that any person really owns- their own life then there is NO property rights of any kind. Sorry. Don't like it? Go to Goobers Gulch and create your ideal society that has never and will never exist. Until then you live under the same system of laws the rest of us do, get used to the idea.
" Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God"- From the personal seal of Thomas Jefferson
The_Emu
Offline
Posts: 2520
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:10:37 AM EST
Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By The_Emu:
Suppose there is one one grocery store in your one horse town. Are you "compelled" to shop there? What if the next nearest big town was an hour flight in a 737 or a 24 hour boat ride away, and no roads leaving town. (Which is true of where I live in Alaska.) Am I "compelled" to shop at that one grocery store?


If I'm compelled to use a business because there is no viable competition, and that store post a no guns sign are they then compelled to provide a safe envirenment for customers?

Bethel Alaska does have 2 grocery stores, but just for argument sake. Most of the surounding smaller villages do, in fact, have just one store.


So how many people are killed annually shopping in those store?



None that I'm aware of, however someone did get murdered in the parking lot a couple years ago.
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
Offline
Posts: 35251
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:11:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Emu:
Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By The_Emu:
Suppose there is one one grocery store in your one horse town. Are you "compelled" to shop there? What if the next nearest big town was an hour flight in a 737 or a 24 hour boat ride away, and no roads leaving town. (Which is true of where I live in Alaska.) Am I "compelled" to shop at that one grocery store?


If I'm compelled to use a business because there is no viable competition, and that store post a no guns sign are they then compelled to provide a safe envirenment for customers?

Bethel Alaska does have 2 grocery stores, but just for argument sake. Most of the surounding smaller villages do, in fact, have just one store.


So how many people are killed annually shopping in those store?



None that I'm aware of, however someone did get murdered in the parking lot a couple years ago.


Does that store allow guns?
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
zulthor
Offline
Posts: 469
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:12:32 AM EST
You can sue anyone for anything... doesn't mean you'll win. I do not believe most employers would be held accountable if sued... Maybe in Texas with a jury full of ccw holders but anything short of that seems very unlikely.
TheBigRuss
Handicapper General
Offline
Posts: 2713
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:24:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
To clear something up, your property is your property, until you open it to the public.

Ever noticed that to open a business you need a licenses? Ever notice that to obtain those licenses you need to comply with lots of safety regulations? This is the community setting standards for places that are open to the public. The idea is that no one has the time, or even the ability or knowledge of how to do everything. We simplify this by creating regulations that you must follow to do certain things.

Its only natural progression that if I have the right to protect myself, and you don't want me to, that you take on that responsibility.

Basically, you better have a solution to a problem that you create.





So again, it is your position that you having a gun is providing a safe place?

What if you get killed anyway? What if 12 armed guys lay siege to the place and they kill everyone including you even if you were armed with a SAW? Sounds a little ridiculous when it progresses to the "natural progression" of what "could" happen.

You're still missing the point. Advertising a work place as a "gun-free" zone without providing metal detectors and/or armed guards is an open invitation to nut jobs that want to go postal. He isn't saying he has to personally have a gun on him, per se, just that the possibility of him having one (or there being armed security) is a well documented deterrent. Hanging signs declaring gun-free zones without providing a reasonable method of enforcing the policy is simply reckless.
With Capitalism, man exploits man. With Communism, it's the other way around.
The_Emu
Offline
Posts: 2521
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:27:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By The_Emu:
Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By The_Emu:
Suppose there is one one grocery store in your one horse town. Are you "compelled" to shop there? What if the next nearest big town was an hour flight in a 737 or a 24 hour boat ride away, and no roads leaving town. (Which is true of where I live in Alaska.) Am I "compelled" to shop at that one grocery store?


If I'm compelled to use a business because there is no viable competition, and that store post a no guns sign are they then compelled to provide a safe envirenment for customers?

Bethel Alaska does have 2 grocery stores, but just for argument sake. Most of the surounding smaller villages do, in fact, have just one store.


So how many people are killed annually shopping in those store?



None that I'm aware of, however someone did get murdered in the parking lot a couple years ago.


Does that store allow guns?


They have a 8.5 x 11 inch sign by the front door saying no guns allowed. I ignore it.
RDak
Member
Offline
Posts: 12546
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:28:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 5:31:39 AM EST by RDak]
Heck yes it should lead to liability if the anti-gun douche bag owner of a place open to the public doesn't provide adequate protection and someone gets killed.

Now that I am done dreaming about how it should be.............the libtards judges would probably say, "well you didn't have to go in".

I wonder if that would apply to not having fire control adequately set up?
bullyforyou
Member
Offline
Posts: 13702
Feedback: 100% (10)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:30:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 5:31:31 AM EST by bullyforyou]
Originally Posted By krpind:
*snip*

So I will ask you. You having a gun is a business owner providing a "safe environment for their patrons"



i think getting gravely injured or killed in a place that deprived you of your right to defend yourself, and where no guards were present, could be argued as the opposite - the business owner NOT providing a "safe environment for their patrons".


Rotty
Recon by fire
Online
Posts: 892
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:33:10 AM EST
I agree with this, if you post no weapons, or enforce a no weapons policy at your workplace, then you should be providing reasonable protection since you are in effect taking the ability to defend oneself away from them.
IMOHO

I agree to work at a business that by law has to provide a safe workplace for me, by posting a no weapons policy they should in my opinion protect me from foreseeable harm then...but they don't
and there are some odd folks around here too......
good...bad...I'm the guy with the gun

Proud Industry Member of Ranstads Militia
xenophon21
Offline
Posts: 637
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:50:44 AM EST
If you ban weapons, you better have some means to provide a safe work environment. Otherwise, I see you as liable. Unarmed guards and security cameras (aka 911 witnesses) don't meet that criteria.
gunham
Offline
Posts: 5753
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:54:39 AM EST
Businesses are being sued all of the time for NOT providing a safe environment so why should a "No Firearms" policy be any different?




Impeach Obama for the Good of the Shop Keepers.
DragoMuseveni
Member
Offline
Posts: 15308
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 6:10:11 AM EST
I don't think this is about liability if a employeer bans weapons and some nut job kills everyone in the office. I think it's about doing away with the preceived immunity employeers get when they ban weapons. I think currently if an employeer bans guns they are not responsible if Joe ignores that rule brings his hi-point to work, has a ND and shoot someone in the ass. This new law would still hold the employeer responsible, thus there is no real incentive to ban guns in the first place.

learath
Dave_A: Which makes you... A liberal...
Offline
Posts: 4799
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 6:15:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.


That's never worked for a store trying to get out of liability for wet floors. Why would it work for a store banning effective self defense?
Democrats like five of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. Republicans like the other five. Libertarians like all ten. - mtk
Aimless
Staff: AR15 forums and Equipment Exchange
Offline
Posts: 98144
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 6:21:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By Commander_Keen:
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.


If you remove a persons lawful ability to defend himself against such attacks without taking proper steps to prevent the attack and make sure everyone follows the policy you should be liable. Just the way I see it.

I understand and agree from a gut instinct level, but really I don't see why a property owner shouldn't be able to dictate who does or doesn't come on his property with firearms without risking a lawsuit over some third party he has no control over. I don't agree with disarming people, but if some business owner decides he doesn't want people in his muffler shop carrying guns, well it's damn muffler shop that he paid for the land and pays the payroll and everything else. If he doesn't want to serve people coffee or doesn't want anyone reading the New York Times in his waiting room or cussing or using cel phones or wearing black shoes, it's his property and he should be free to do what he wants. If you (very reasonably) decide not to do business with that guy you can easily find some other muffler shop.

It seems grossly unfair that if some woman comes in to get her muffler replaced after seeing his big "Sorry but I hate Guns, go to Midas if you don't like it" sign and her ex con ex husband shoots her through the window from a parking lot with a scoped rifle from 200 yards away should the muffler shop owner really lose everything he as to her lawsuit against him because he did not allow guns in his muffler shop?


Aimless
Staff: AR15 forums and Equipment Exchange
Offline
Posts: 98145
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 6:25:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By learath:
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.


That's never worked for a store trying to get out of liability for wet floors. Why would it work for a store banning effective self defense?

An intervening criminal act is often not something an owner is liable for. If the muffler shop owner's little brother who just got out of prison for 25 years to life for helping Charlie Manson gets hired as the cashier that's a little different than the woman being shot by her crazed ex husband and the shop owner had nothing to do with it.
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
Offline
Posts: 35252
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/6/2011 6:27:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Commander_Keen:
Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Will:
Works for me. If you don't want guns on your property then you had better protect me from people with them while I'm there. If you fail to do so, your property will be MY property. Rights AND responsibilities, that's how it's supposed to work.

Just hypothetically speaking, unless you are compelled to go somewhere, like being subpoenaed, why should the property owner incur any liability? If I put a big "No Goddamn Guns!" over the door of the Bucket of Blood Bar and Grill why is it my problem? You could have decided to not enter onto the property and avoided any potential assaults on my property.


If you remove a persons lawful ability to defend himself against such attacks without taking proper steps to prevent the attack and make sure everyone follows the policy you should be liable. Just the way I see it.

I understand and agree from a gut instinct level, but really I don't see why a property owner shouldn't be able to dictate who does or doesn't come on his property with firearms without risking a lawsuit over some third party he has no control over. I don't agree with disarming people, but if some business owner decides he doesn't want people in his muffler shop carrying guns, well it's damn muffler shop that he paid for the land and pays the payroll and everything else. If he doesn't want to serve people coffee or doesn't want anyone reading the New York Times in his waiting room or cussing or using cel phones or wearing black shoes, it's his property and he should be free to do what he wants. If you (very reasonably) decide not to do business with that guy you can easily find some other muffler shop.

It seems grossly unfair that if some woman comes in to get her muffler replaced after seeing his big "Sorry but I hate Guns, go to Midas if you don't like it" sign and her ex con ex husband shoots her through the window from a parking lot with a scoped rifle from 200 yards away should the muffler shop owner really lose everything he as to her lawsuit against him because he did not allow guns in his muffler shop?




This pretty much exactly, but it won't matter, because as always there are plenty of people willing to trample the property rights of others if it suits them. Their rights are the only thing that is important to them. Fuck everyone else
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
  Previous Page
Page:  / 2