Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
You do your thing. I'll do mine.
Avatar
SiteStaff
  • Joined Apr 2004
  • Posts 76620
  • Location USA USA
Offline Positive Feedback
SiteStaff
  • Joined Apr 2004
  • Posts 76620
  • Location USA USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Instructor
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:37:28 AM EST
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jun 2005
  • Posts 13697
  • Location USA ME, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jun 2005
  • Posts 13697
  • Location USA ME, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
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".

Basic
  • Joined Feb 2010
  • Posts 214
  • Location USA FL, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Feb 2010
  • Posts 214
  • Location USA FL, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
Basic
  • Joined Mar 2010
  • Posts 851
  • Location USA USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Mar 2010
  • Posts 851
  • Location USA USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:51:23 AM EST
When the TX CHL law was passed there was some speculation about that.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 7065
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 7065
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
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
Staff: AR15 forums and Equipment Exchange
Avatar
SiteStaff
  • Joined Sep 2001
  • Posts 98137
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
SiteStaff
  • Joined Sep 2001
  • Posts 98137
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:52:30 AM EST
Pavlov's deaf dog
Avatar
Gold
  • Joined May 2007
  • Posts 14346
  • Location USA WI, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Gold
  • Joined May 2007
  • Posts 14346
  • Location USA WI, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
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!
Staff: AR15 forums and Equipment Exchange
Avatar
SiteStaff
  • Joined Sep 2001
  • Posts 98138
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
SiteStaff
  • Joined Sep 2001
  • Posts 98138
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 3:57:06 AM EST
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jun 2005
  • Posts 13699
  • Location USA ME, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jun 2005
  • Posts 13699
  • Location USA ME, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
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.)


Basic
  • Joined Mar 2010
  • Posts 1323
  • Location USA MI, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Mar 2010
  • Posts 1323
  • Location USA MI, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:22:32 AM EST
Property rights, right? You are not compelled to work at an anti-gun business.
Damn these electric sex pants!
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2005
  • Posts 17553
  • Location USA NE, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2005
  • Posts 17553
  • Location USA NE, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Military
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
Basic
  • Joined Aug 2010
  • Posts 284
  • Location USA OK, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Aug 2010
  • Posts 284
  • Location USA OK, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 5624
  • Location USA MA, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 5624
  • Location USA MA, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
Basic
  • Joined Aug 2010
  • Posts 285
  • Location USA OK, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Aug 2010
  • Posts 285
  • Location USA OK, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
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.
Never Knows Best
Avatar
Gold
  • Joined Nov 2005
  • Posts 19268
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Gold
  • Joined Nov 2005
  • Posts 19268
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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
Basic
  • Joined Mar 2010
  • Posts 1325
  • Location USA MI, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Mar 2010
  • Posts 1325
  • Location USA MI, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Feb 2005
  • Posts 12151
  • Location USA VA, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Feb 2005
  • Posts 12151
  • Location USA VA, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
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.
ARFCOM Czar
Avatar
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35244
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35244
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:36:25 AM EST
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
Basic
  • Joined Mar 2011
  • Posts 1898
  • Location USA USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Mar 2011
  • Posts 1898
  • Location USA USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
ARFCOM Czar
Avatar
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35245
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35245
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:38:27 AM EST
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 5625
  • Location USA MA, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 5625
  • Location USA MA, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
Deo Vindice
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Nov 2006
  • Posts 1029
  • Location USA FL, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Nov 2006
  • Posts 1029
  • Location USA FL, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
ARFCOM Czar
Avatar
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35246
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35246
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:42:40 AM EST
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
ARFCOM Czar
Avatar
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35247
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35247
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 4:44:26 AM EST
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
Basic
  • Joined Mar 2011
  • Posts 1899
  • Location USA USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Mar 2011
  • Posts 1899
  • Location USA USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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,
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 5626
  • Location USA MA, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 5626
  • Location USA MA, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.

WestTexasGranny
Avatar
Gold
  • Joined Jul 2006
  • Posts 7828
  • Location USA TX, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Gold
  • Joined Jul 2006
  • Posts 7828
  • Location USA TX, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
Lost in space
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Feb 2006
  • Posts 4649
  • Location USA USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Feb 2006
  • Posts 4649
  • Location USA USA
Offline Positive Feedback
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 5627
  • Location USA MA, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 5627
  • Location USA MA, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Feb 2005
  • Posts 12153
  • Location USA VA, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Feb 2005
  • Posts 12153
  • Location USA VA, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
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.
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2006
  • Posts 8882
  • Location USA MN, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2006
  • Posts 8882
  • Location USA MN, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 5628
  • Location USA MA, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 5628
  • Location USA MA, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.



Basic
  • Joined Jul 2002
  • Posts 2519
  • Location USA AK, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2002
  • Posts 2519
  • Location USA AK, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
ARFCOM Czar
Avatar
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35248
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35248
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:04:51 AM EST
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
ARFCOM Czar
Avatar
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35249
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35249
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:05:38 AM EST
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 7066
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 7066
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
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
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2002
  • Posts 2520
  • Location USA AK, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2002
  • Posts 2520
  • Location USA AK, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
ARFCOM Czar
Avatar
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35251
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35251
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 5:11:21 AM EST
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
Basic
  • Joined Jan 2011
  • Posts 469
  • Location USA PA, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jan 2011
  • Posts 469
  • Location USA PA, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
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.
Handicapper General
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 2713
  • Location USA TN, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 2713
  • Location USA TN, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2002
  • Posts 2521
  • Location USA AK, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2002
  • Posts 2521
  • Location USA AK, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Mar 2004
  • Posts 12546
  • Location USA MI, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Mar 2004
  • Posts 12546
  • Location USA MI, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
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?
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jun 2005
  • Posts 13702
  • Location USA ME, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jun 2005
  • Posts 13702
  • Location USA ME, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
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".


Recon by fire
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2003
  • Posts 892
  • Location USA MI, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2003
  • Posts 892
  • Location USA MI, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
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
Basic
  • Joined Jun 2005
  • Posts 637
  • Location USA WI, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jun 2005
  • Posts 637
  • Location USA WI, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
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.
Basic
  • Joined Feb 2002
  • Posts 5753
  • Location USA AL, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Feb 2002
  • Posts 5753
  • Location USA AL, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Oct 2005
  • Posts 15308
  • Location USA VA, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Oct 2005
  • Posts 15308
  • Location USA VA, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
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.

Dave_A: Which makes you... A liberal...
Avatar
Platinum
  • Joined Apr 2004
  • Posts 4799
  • Location USA VA, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Platinum
  • Joined Apr 2004
  • Posts 4799
  • Location USA VA, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
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
Staff: AR15 forums and Equipment Exchange
Avatar
SiteStaff
  • Joined Sep 2001
  • Posts 98144
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
SiteStaff
  • Joined Sep 2001
  • Posts 98144
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 6:21:42 AM EST
Staff: AR15 forums and Equipment Exchange
Avatar
SiteStaff
  • Joined Sep 2001
  • Posts 98145
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
SiteStaff
  • Joined Sep 2001
  • Posts 98145
  • Location USA NY, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 6:25:02 AM EST
ARFCOM Czar
Avatar
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35252
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Lifetime Member
  • Joined May 2004
  • Posts 35252
  • Location USA TX, USA
Online Positive Feedback
Posted: 7/6/2011 6:27:58 AM EST
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

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