Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:37:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 4:48:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 4:52:07 AM EDT 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".

Link Posted: 7/6/2011 4:50:12 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 4:51:23 AM EDT
When the TX CHL law was passed there was some speculation about that.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 4:52:21 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 4:52:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 4:55:51 AM EDT
The was the lever I was using at my place of employment in hopes of removing the "no weapons" policy.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 4:57:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:19:10 AM EDT
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.)


Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:22:32 AM EDT
Property rights, right? You are not compelled to work at an anti-gun business.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:24:14 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:27:22 AM EDT
Grr.. Almost got in before the "you don't have to work there/ their property, their rules" crowd.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:30:19 AM EDT

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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:31:05 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:32:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 5:34:05 AM EDT 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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:33:01 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:33:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 5:33:49 AM EDT 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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:36:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:37:12 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:38:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:39:02 AM EDT

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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:42:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 5:45:02 AM EDT 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).
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:42:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:44:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:44:29 AM EDT
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,
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:44:35 AM EDT

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.

Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:48:50 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:49:49 AM EDT

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.........
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:49:57 AM EDT

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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:50:02 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 5:55:14 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:00:08 AM EDT
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.



Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:02:45 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:04:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:05:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:09:50 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:10:37 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:11:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:12:32 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:24:13 AM EDT

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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:27:22 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:28:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 6:31:39 AM EDT 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?
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:30:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2011 6:31:31 AM EDT 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".


Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:33:10 AM EDT
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......
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:50:44 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 6:54:39 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 7:10:11 AM EDT
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.

Link Posted: 7/6/2011 7:15:20 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 7:21:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 7:25:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2011 7:27:58 AM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top