ARCHIVED
 SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005  WA, USA
 
 Posts: 17823 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:50:00 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination. 
But there is no discrimination when they say no guns allowed. You're free to enter the business, just without a gun. This business invokes it's property rights and is not ADA compliant. If you are a disabled person, you are free to patronize our business, but please leave your oxygen masks, crutches and wheelchairs in your car. Thank you –– the Management. Your point? I happen to think a business should be able to do that if they wish. A right doesn't cease being a right becuase one decides to be an asshole. I am with you to an extent, but I think that business should not be open to the public at large, and should require a membership with a signed waiver, etc. If you want to treat a business as truly private, you need to make that bitch PRIVATE. I am also fine with states passing liability laws like AZ is attempting to here...10th amendment and all that jazz. I think we can all agree that the best course of action for businesses that don't like the laws would be for them to leave for other "free states." |
|
|
Digital_Damage
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2011 FL, USA
Posts: 338 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:54:38 PM
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment.
|
|
|
|
GunnyG
... you can't take the sky from me...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2001 WA, USA
Posts: 9655 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:05:00 PM
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn: Originally Posted By hhsmiley: Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. OR....they can choose not to operate the business if this law (if passed) conflicts with their sensibilities. I am all for personal property right and the rights for people to run businesses as they choose, so long as their policies are not infringing on people's basic rights. Carrying a weapon concealed is not a basic right. But, carrying a weapon is a basic right. Read Blackstone's commentaries: Bearing the arms needed for your self-defense is a natural right. It existed before laws were written to recognize it. Requiring a permit to carry a weapon, and mandating that it be concealed, is an encroachment of that basic right. What good is having a right of self-defense, if you can be denied the tools that you need? All over the US, and even in NY's Sullivan Law, there wasn't Open or Concealed carry until 1968, it was just carry. Particularly, concealed carry permits became the law in WA and CA, because of the racial tension of the late 60s. |
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12921 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:05:16 PM
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
But there is no discrimination when they say no guns allowed. You're free to enter the business, just without a gun. This business invokes it's property rights and is not ADA compliant. If you are a disabled person, you are free to patronize our business, but please leave your oxygen masks, crutches and wheelchairs in your car. Thank you –– the Management. Your point? I happen to think a business should be able to do that if they wish. A right doesn't cease being a right becuase one decides to be an asshole. I am with you to an extent, but I think that business should not be open to the public at large, and should require a membership with a signed waiver, etc. If you want to treat a business as truly private, you need to make that bitch PRIVATE. I am also fine with states passing liability laws like AZ is attempting to here...10th amendment and all that jazz. I think we can all agree that the best course of action for businesses that don't like the laws would be for them to leave for other "free states." If you do that, you're opening up to all kinds of nonsense.... required no smoking just the most obvious of them. |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12922 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:06:52 PM
Originally Posted By GunnyG:
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By hhsmiley:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. OR....they can choose not to operate the business if this law (if passed) conflicts with their sensibilities. I am all for personal property right and the rights for people to run businesses as they choose, so long as their policies are not infringing on people's basic rights. Carrying a weapon concealed is not a basic right. But, carrying a weapon is a basic right. Read Blackstone's commentaries: Bearing the arms needed for your self-defense is a natural right. It existed before laws were written to recognize it. Requiring a permit to carry a weapon, and mandating that it be concealed, is an encroachment of that basic right. What good is having a right of self-defense, if you can be denied the tools that you need? All over the US, and even in NY's Sullivan Law, there wasn't Open or Concealed carry until 1968, it was just carry. Particularly, concealed carry permits became the law in WA and CA, because of the racial tension of the late 60s. Doesn't matter. That right only extends to you own property and public areas. It does not extend to other peoples' property. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:07:11 PM
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. If I slip, fall, and break my neck on your property, you are liable. Even if you post a sign that says wet floors, you are required by law to take every reasonable precaution to make sure nobody slips and falls on your property. These businesses are taking NO precautions at all to ensure my safety. This is just fixing that issue and making the business liable in case harm comes to me or mine... |
|
|
|
Digital_Damage
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2011 FL, USA
Posts: 339 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:11:21 PM
Originally Posted By NickOfTime:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. If I slip, fall, and break my neck on your property, you are liable. Even if you post a sign that says wet floors, you are required by law to take every reasonable precaution to make sure nobody slips and falls on your property. These businesses are taking NO precautions at all to ensure my safety. This is just fixing that issue and making the business liable in case harm comes to me or mine... Stupid thought. Who is forcing you to walk into that business? |
|
|
|
Dunkelzahn
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2011 AZ, USA
Posts: 1489 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:12:11 PM
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn: Originally Posted By 45FMJoe: Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination. But there is no discrimination when they say no guns allowed. You're free to enter the business, just without a gun. This business invokes it's property rights and is not ADA compliant. If you are a disabled person, you are free to patronize our business, but please leave your oxygen masks, crutches and wheelchairs in your car. Thank you –– the Management. A) Personally I believe a business should be able to do what you are saying. B) Persuming we agree on the ADA, a disabled person is unable to go into a business without that stuff, a gun owner is free to enter (without the gun of course) |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17824 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:12:49 PM
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. |
|
|
Dunkelzahn
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2011 AZ, USA
Posts: 1490 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:14:00 PM
Originally Posted By NickOfTime: Only in ARFCOM fantasy land.....Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. If I slip, fall, and break my neck on your property, you are liable. Even if you post a sign that says wet floors, you are required by law to take every reasonable precaution to make sure nobody slips and falls on your property. These businesses are taking NO precautions at all to ensure my safety. This is just fixing that issue and making the business liable in case harm comes to me or mine... |
|
|
|
vm1970
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2009 CT, USA
Posts: 1551 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:17:07 PM
Originally Posted By Smashy:
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=5448 In this light, Korwin has proposed a Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act in Arizona, where any business that establishes a gun-free zone would be fully liable for the harm it causes.
God I miss my home state. |
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17825 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:21:28 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
But there is no discrimination when they say no guns allowed. You're free to enter the business, just without a gun. This business invokes it's property rights and is not ADA compliant. If you are a disabled person, you are free to patronize our business, but please leave your oxygen masks, crutches and wheelchairs in your car. Thank you –– the Management. Your point? I happen to think a business should be able to do that if they wish. A right doesn't cease being a right becuase one decides to be an asshole. I am with you to an extent, but I think that business should not be open to the public at large, and should require a membership with a signed waiver, etc. If you want to treat a business as truly private, you need to make that bitch PRIVATE. I am also fine with states passing liability laws like AZ is attempting to here...10th amendment and all that jazz. I think we can all agree that the best course of action for businesses that don't like the laws would be for them to leave for other "free states." If you do that, you're opening up to all kinds of nonsense.... required no smoking just the most obvious of them. That ship has sailed in this state, and banning smoking in public*** is within the powers of the Washington State if you buy into the whole concept of federalism and state's rights. If not, that's a whole 'nother debate. ***Not sure how it is in other states, but here even a private business is considered a public place unless it is a club with membership requirements for entry. I remember going to bars in CA that were like this and they permitted smoking. They were PACKED. |
|
|
Digital_Damage
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2011 FL, USA
Posts: 340 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:29:27 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 1:30:21 PM by Digital_Damage]
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17827 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:30:00 PM
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
But there is no discrimination when they say no guns allowed. You're free to enter the business, just without a gun. This business invokes it's property rights and is not ADA compliant. If you are a disabled person, you are free to patronize our business, but please leave your oxygen masks, crutches and wheelchairs in your car. Thank you –– the Management. A) Personally I believe a business should be able to do what you are saying. B) Persuming we agree on the ADA, a disabled person is unable to go into a business without that stuff, a gun owner is free to enter (without the gun of course) Mehh Someone can carry their crippled ass, and that doesn't matter, because they have no right to even be there. |
|
|
CasualObserver
It was long ago, and it was far away...
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2005 TX, USA
Posts: 6304 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:31:50 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By 03fxsti:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Apples and anvils. Second hand smoke may or may not cause harm, bullets on the other hand..........
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? Ah, but in being armed, you may or may not be able to stop an active shooter. So long as voluntarily enter an establishment unarmed, YOU take the responsbility. Until this law is passed, then it's on the proprietor.  Hooray for more government!!! Big Government is GOOD as long as it's doing what I want it to!!!  Yeah, I know. I just don't give a shit today. I feel like bending someone to my will. |
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17828 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:39:29 PM
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? The shooter would be liable in both cases you mentioned. An ND is the negligence of the one handling the gun, and if someone shot a baby in a shopping cart on the street, they would be liable. How would that change if they walk 5 feet inside a business? BTW, the business don't have to encourage carry, they just can't explicitly ban it without taking some steps to ensure it's a gun-free zone or incurring some sort of liability. As for the part in bold...I guess you have shown your true colors. My wife carries. She's not even sort of a redneck, and she doesn't have any hero mentality. That's kinda low to make that statement about your fellow gun-owners, don't you think? |
|
|
Orbital-Burn
The Darkest Orbit
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2006 ID, USA
Posts: 6750 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:41:20 PM
Anytime I want to remind myself of why I don't vote Libertarian, I come into a public access, private property thread.
|
|
|
joedirt1977
Member
Team Member
Joined: May 2010 KY, USA
Posts: 3054 Feedback: 100% (4) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:44:26 PM
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. Agreed. Their property their rules. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. |
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17829 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:49:14 PM
Originally Posted By joedirt1977:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. Agreed. Their property their rules. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. That's neat...too bad it seems to only apply to guns these days. I want to buy a bar and make it a smoking establishment in Washington State. Unfortunately, the answer I would get here when I open for business is: "too bad, so sad...smoking is banned in all businesses open to the public. Don't like it––leave the state." I don't see why a law like this in AZ is so wrong. If you don't like it, leave for a "free state." |
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15396 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:51:07 PM
Originally Posted By beararms:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By beararms:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By beararms:
How does the private property business owner enforce "no shirt no shoes no service?" By observation and trespass warrant. Most everyone agrees, Nothing wrong with. The flash mob crowd and homicidal maniac crowd don't open carry into a lib "gun free zone" fiction, right? If the property owner allows even one citizen concealed firearms by not strictly enforcing their own "no gun zone rule" they cannot deny the rule abiding citizen to a fundamental right of lawfully bearing arms and self defense from the criminal mob crowd. Stop. A property owner is not denying anyone the fundamental right of self-defense. The property owner is refusing service and access to the property. Any disarmament is voluntary to the disarmed. That's right. lawfully concealed means lawfully concealed. The property owner has as much power to refuse service to the unlawful mexican carry flash mob crowd and homicidal maniacs as they do to the lawful armed citizen. No law is broken except in gov enforced no gun zones. You are the crowd advocating gov enforced no gun zone statism. You said ...quote: The BoR protects people from the government, not people from other people. Nope. The government is enforcing trespassing laws; not gun laws. Enforcing trespass laws is a legitimate function of government, and not restricted by the Constitution. Then 30.06 signs or whatever you call them in Or are just a figment of imagination? Fl enforces private property rights with trespassing law. How do private property owners in Fl enforce their "no gun zone" business models without silly gov enforced "no gun signs" and the lib utopian no gun zone fallacy you defend? btw we absolutely do have private property owner non gov enforced no gun signs here in Fl and they actively enforce it equally against the flash mob crowd and the lawfully armed citizen. As free citizens, we all walk on equal ground. No secret honest injun no guns promise pass for the homicidal maniac, the flash mobs or the lawfully armed citizen. It's weird like that down here. Come on down. spend money. fishing is good. we love tourists and guns. Signs do not have legal standing in my state. You should check your facts before you start spouting off non-sense. Signs shouldn't having legal standing, either. Property owners (or their agents) should be able to refuse service and ask people to leave for any reason. If a person refuses, flash mob or law abiding citizen, the police can enforce trespass laws. It's not about guns or a lib utopian fallacy. I've been asked to leave a store for carrying before. I didn't get charged with trespass, but if I had refused I would have been. No big deal, I left and I haven't given them another cent; I went somewhere else that didn't care that I carried. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:55:37 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 1:58:15 PM by POLYTHENEPAM]
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
I think liability should be decided on a case by case basis. So you want the courts to do it. Now let's examine reality. 1. "Liability" is fancy lawyer talk for Who Pays?. 2. Harry Holdup Man and Mikey Mass Murderer rarely have sufficient assets to make their victims whole. 3. As a result in reality your case-by-case, after-the-fact approach results in the victims bearing the cost. In other words, THE VICTIMS LOSE. 
4. OTOH the legislature's choice would place the cost on the business if the business chooses to deny the customers the opportunity to have the means of self-defense. In turn, the business would pass it on to the customer. The customers will go down the street to the competing business which doesn't have the policy (which is someone's favorite response in this thread) and the extra cost. The owner will soon see the error of his ways, reverse the policy and shed the burden of assuming the liability. He's no longer potentially liable and the customers have the responsibility and the opportunity to have the means of defending themselves. EVERYONE WINS! |
|
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15397 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:55:40 PM
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By joedirt1977:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. Agreed. Their property their rules. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. That's neat...too bad it seems to only apply to guns these days. I want to buy a bar and make it a smoking establishment in Washington State. Unfortunately, the answer I would get here when I open for business is: "too bad, so sad...smoking is banned in all businesses open to the public. Don't like it––leave the state." I don't see why a law like this in AZ is so wrong. If you don't like it, leave for a "free state." Forcing bars to prohibit smoking is just as wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right; it sets a precedence for wrong being common. |
|
|
|
RR_Broccoli
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2008 WI, USA
Posts: 4283 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:56:24 PM
Originally Posted By Orbital-Burn: Anytime I want to remind myself of why I don't vote Libertarian, I come into a public access, private property thread. Lol. The simple-mindedness is astounding. It makes me wonder if there's a bunch of F's on the civics class report cards of a whole generation of people. Rights, and property rights are a philosophical concept some people just don't seem to grasp.
The stupid part, some of the same posters yammering about violation of preperty rights were in the Zimmerman / Martin shooting thread saying Zimmerman started the confrontation and therefore the shooting was not justified. Property rights of one's own body apparently don't count in THAT case, but oooohhh tell them they can't dump toxic waste in their used car lot and they get all uppity.
Outright simple myopic and muddled thinking is what it is. |
|
|
GarandM1
"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2007 UT, USA
Posts: 26981 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:00:41 PM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B: That is one of the stupidest fucking ideas for a law I have ever seen. Businesses should not liable for the actions of their customers (or non-customers). |
|
|
Dunkelzahn
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2011 AZ, USA
Posts: 1491 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:00:59 PM
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: But it happens. How many times have we read about someone accidentally getting shot at a gun show? Originally Posted By Digital_Damage: Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: Originally Posted By Digital_Damage: Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? The shooter would be liable in both cases you mentioned. An ND is the negligence of the one handling the gun, and if someone shot a baby in a shopping cart on the street, they would be liable. How would that change if they walk 5 feet inside a business? BTW, the business don't have to encourage carry, they just can't explicitly ban it without taking some steps to ensure it's a gun-free zone or incurring some sort of liability. As for the part in bold...I guess you have shown your true colors. My wife carries. She's not even sort of a redneck, and she doesn't have any hero mentality. That's kinda low to make that statement about your fellow gun-owners, don't you think? Results from google news for "Accidental shooting"
Here's a guy who shot himself at Sears in a mall:
There's a bunch more. |
|
|
|
Dunkelzahn
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2011 AZ, USA
Posts: 1492 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:03:14 PM
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: Wait, because state law prohibits smoking, you think they should force property owners to allow guns on their own property?Originally Posted By joedirt1977: Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. Agreed. Their property their rules. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. That's neat...too bad it seems to only apply to guns these days. I want to buy a bar and make it a smoking establishment in Washington State. Unfortunately, the answer I would get here when I open for business is: "too bad, so sad...smoking is banned in all businesses open to the public. Don't like it––leave the state." I don't see why a law like this in AZ is so wrong. If you don't like it, leave for a "free state." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:03:54 PM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Forcing bars to prohibit smoking is just as wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right; it sets a precedence for wrong being common. The analogy is simply incorrect. The proposed law would not prohibit a business from banning firearms or force it to do or refrain from doing anything. It does not limit the owner's property rights at all. It would assign liability for damages resulting from the no firearms policy. There is no right to avoid liability for the consequences of one's actions. |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12923 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:05:30 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 2:08:50 PM by Strongbow]
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
I think liability should be decided on a case by case basis. So you want the courts to do it. Now let's examine reality. 1. "Liability" is fancy lawyer talk for Who Pays?. 2. Harry Holdup Man and Mikey Mass Murderer rarely have sufficient assets to make their victims whole. 3. As a result in reality your case-by-case, after-the-fact approach results in the victims bearing the cost. In other words, THE VICTIMS LOSE. Let me get this straight, becuase Donny Dirbag, the guy actually responsible, doesn't have any money, it's the business owner's responsiblity? 4. OTOH the legislature's choice would place the cost on the business if the business chooses to deny the customers the opportunity to have the means of self-defense. In turn, the business would pass it on to the customer. The customers will go down the street to the competing business which doesn't have the policy (which is someone's favorite response in this thread) and the extra cost. The owner will soon see the error of his ways, reverse the policy and shed the burden of assuming the liability.
He's no longer potentially liable and the customers have the responsibility and the opportunity to have the means of defending themselves. EVERYONE WINS! No... the customer chose to voluntarily disarm themselves as a condition of service. What's so hard to understand about that? |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17830 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:07:06 PM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By joedirt1977:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. Agreed. Their property their rules. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. That's neat...too bad it seems to only apply to guns these days. I want to buy a bar and make it a smoking establishment in Washington State. Unfortunately, the answer I would get here when I open for business is: "too bad, so sad...smoking is banned in all businesses open to the public. Don't like it––leave the state." I don't see why a law like this in AZ is so wrong. If you don't like it, leave for a "free state." Forcing bars to prohibit smoking is just as wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right; it sets a precedence for wrong being common. BUT BUT BUT BUT...... it's a 10th amendment issue, right? State A can ban carry 100%, and State B can hold a business potentially culpable for damages if they explicitly ban carry. Seems pretty simple to me: if you love smoking and want to do business, Washington State is a bad place to be. If you hate guns and want to do business, Arizona may end up being a bad place to be. What's the problem? |
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12924 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:08:36 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 3:35:00 PM by Strongbow]
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Forcing bars to prohibit smoking is just as wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right; it sets a precedence for wrong being common. The analogy is simply incorrect. The proposed law would not prohibit a business from banning firearms or force it to do or refrain from doing anything. It does not limit the owner's property rights at all. It would assign liability for damages resulting from the no firearms policy. There is no right to avoid liability for the consequences of one's actions. Assigning liability based on what? On the possibility that a CCW holder would limit damage? Did that work in the Loughner case? No. Perhaps a CCW holder who doesn't use their weapon should be held liable? Perhaps someone who chooses not to CCW should be held liable? This is just another bullshit attempt to use government to acheive a desired result. |
|
|
|
GarandM1
"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2007 UT, USA
Posts: 26982 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:08:41 PM
Originally Posted By Orbital-Burn: Anytime I want to remind myself of why I don't vote didn't join the Libertarian Party, I come into a public access, private property thread. |
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15398 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:11:57 PM
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Forcing bars to prohibit smoking is just as wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right; it sets a precedence for wrong being common. The analogy is simply incorrect. The proposed law would not prohibit a business from banning firearms or force it to do or refrain from doing anything. It does not limit the owner's property rights at all. It would assign liability for damages resulting from the no firearms policy. There is no right to avoid liability for the consequences of one's actions. I wasn't making an analogy between no smoking in bars and no firearms policy liabilities. I was pointing out that they are both wrong, therefor one shouldn't be used as an excuse for the other. An example of a comparable analogy would be holding bars liable for a customer dieing from second hand smoke. The bar should have made it a no smoking bar for the safety of the customers, therefor they are liable. That's just as dumb. And yes, all analogies inherently have weaknesses. Get over it. |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17831 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:12:08 PM
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
But it happens. How many times have we read about someone accidentally getting shot at a gun show?
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? The shooter would be liable in both cases you mentioned. An ND is the negligence of the one handling the gun, and if someone shot a baby in a shopping cart on the street, they would be liable. How would that change if they walk 5 feet inside a business? BTW, the business don't have to encourage carry, they just can't explicitly ban it without taking some steps to ensure it's a gun-free zone or incurring some sort of liability. As for the part in bold...I guess you have shown your true colors. My wife carries. She's not even sort of a redneck, and she doesn't have any hero mentality. That's kinda low to make that statement about your fellow gun-owners, don't you think? Results from google news for "Accidental shooting" Here's a guy who shot himself at Sears in a mall: There's a bunch more. I read all three of those posted links and didn't see the apartment or business owners being held culpable. In fact, I saw this "Charles Marice Allen faces one count each of careless discharge of a firearm and possessing a firearm while intoxicated, both misdemeanors, Lansing police said." That only reinforces my point––––––––thanks! |
|
|
Digital_Damage
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2011 FL, USA
Posts: 341 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:13:48 PM
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? The shooter would be liable in both cases you mentioned. An ND is the negligence of the one handling the gun, and if someone shot a baby in a shopping cart on the street, they would be liable. How would that change if they walk 5 feet inside a business? BTW, the business don't have to encourage carry, they just can't explicitly ban it without taking some steps to ensure it's a gun-free zone or incurring some sort of liability. As for the part in bold...I guess you have shown your true colors. My wife carries. She's not even sort of a redneck, and she doesn't have any hero mentality. That's kinda low to make that statement about your fellow gun-owners, don't you think? Well you fell into that kind of easy. So what makes those situations any different than the mad man running around shooting? Did the Business encourage either situation? What "steps" are you suggesting, the whole "membership" or "wavier" idea is monumentally stupid and an unreasonable burden. As for the bold part just because someone owns a gun does not make them "my kind of people" I have seen to many acts of general stupidity with a firearm. It is not a club; it is a personal choice and responsibility. |
|
|
|
Digital_Damage
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2011 FL, USA
Posts: 342 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:15:49 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Forcing bars to prohibit smoking is just as wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right; it sets a precedence for wrong being common. The analogy is simply incorrect. The proposed law would not prohibit a business from banning firearms or force it to do or refrain from doing anything. It does not limit the owner's property rights at all. It would assign liability for damages resulting from the no firearms policy. There is no right to avoid liability for the consequences of one's actions. Assigning liability based on what? On the possibility that a CCW holder would limit damage? Did that work in the oughner case? No. Perhaps a CCW holder who doesn;t use their weapon should be held liable? Perhaps someone who chooses not to CCW should be held liable? This is just another bullshit attempt to use government to acheive a desired result. This is a perfect, well thought out post. |
|
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15399 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:18:36 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 2:21:10 PM by Renegade13B]
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By joedirt1977:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. Agreed. Their property their rules. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. That's neat...too bad it seems to only apply to guns these days. I want to buy a bar and make it a smoking establishment in Washington State. Unfortunately, the answer I would get here when I open for business is: "too bad, so sad...smoking is banned in all businesses open to the public. Don't like it––leave the state." I don't see why a law like this in AZ is so wrong. If you don't like it, leave for a "free state." Forcing bars to prohibit smoking is just as wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right; it sets a precedence for wrong being common. BUT BUT BUT BUT...... it's a 10th amendment issue, right? State A can ban carry 100%, and State B can hold a business potentially culpable for damages if they explicitly ban carry. Seems pretty simple to me: if you love smoking and want to do business, Washington State is a bad place to be. If you hate guns and want to do business, Arizona may end up being a bad place to be. What's the problem? I never argued that the states can't make this law. Only that it is a bad law. I am of the opinion that states shouldn't be making laws that A) make it harder to do business, B) makes businesses liable for other people's actions, and C) socially engineer behavior. It you like those things, then this is a great law. By all means, support it. I will disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Dunkelzahn
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2011 AZ, USA
Posts: 1493 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:23:38 PM
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: The point....you missed it.
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn: Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: But it happens. How many times have we read about someone accidentally getting shot at a gun show? Originally Posted By Digital_Damage: Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: Originally Posted By Digital_Damage: Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? The shooter would be liable in both cases you mentioned. An ND is the negligence of the one handling the gun, and if someone shot a baby in a shopping cart on the street, they would be liable. How would that change if they walk 5 feet inside a business? BTW, the business don't have to encourage carry, they just can't explicitly ban it without taking some steps to ensure it's a gun-free zone or incurring some sort of liability. As for the part in bold...I guess you have shown your true colors. My wife carries. She's not even sort of a redneck, and she doesn't have any hero mentality. That's kinda low to make that statement about your fellow gun-owners, don't you think? Results from google news for "Accidental shooting"
Here's a guy who shot himself at Sears in a mall:
There's a bunch more. I read all three of those posted links and didn't see the apartment or business owners being held culpable. In fact, I saw this "Charles Marice Allen faces one count each of careless discharge of a firearm and possessing a firearm while intoxicated, both misdemeanors, Lansing police said." That only reinforces my point––––––––thanks! A) If you hold the business owners liable for not allowing guns in their business, wouldn't they be as liable for reckless handling of firearms as well? B) The point was gun owners can be reckless and endanger others, and the liability from them in people's business are why businesses don't allow firearms on the property.
|
|
|
|
Digital_Damage
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2011 FL, USA
Posts: 343 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:24:55 PM
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
The point....you missed it.Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
But it happens. How many times have we read about someone accidentally getting shot at a gun show?
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? The shooter would be liable in both cases you mentioned. An ND is the negligence of the one handling the gun, and if someone shot a baby in a shopping cart on the street, they would be liable. How would that change if they walk 5 feet inside a business? BTW, the business don't have to encourage carry, they just can't explicitly ban it without taking some steps to ensure it's a gun-free zone or incurring some sort of liability. As for the part in bold...I guess you have shown your true colors. My wife carries. She's not even sort of a redneck, and she doesn't have any hero mentality. That's kinda low to make that statement about your fellow gun-owners, don't you think? Results from google news for "Accidental shooting" Here's a guy who shot himself at Sears in a mall: There's a bunch more. I read all three of those posted links and didn't see the apartment or business owners being held culpable. In fact, I saw this "Charles Marice Allen faces one count each of careless discharge of a firearm and possessing a firearm while intoxicated, both misdemeanors, Lansing police said." That only reinforces my point––––––––thanks! A) If you hold the business owners liable for not allowing guns in their business, wouldn't they be as liable for reckless handling of firearms as well?
B) The point was gun owners can be reckless and endanger others, and the liability from them in people's business are why businesses don't allow firearms on the property. Bingo. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:29:08 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
I think liability should be decided on a case by case basis. So you want the courts to do it. Now let's examine reality. 1. "Liability" is fancy lawyer talk for Who Pays?. 2. Harry Holdup Man and Mikey Mass Murderer rarely have sufficient assets to make their victims whole. 3. As a result in reality your case-by-case, after-the-fact approach results in the victims bearing the cost. In other words, THE VICTIMS LOSE. Let me get this straight, becuase Donny Dirbag, the guy actually responsible, doesn't have any money, it's the business owner's responsiblity? No. It's the business owner's responsibility because he made a choice to deny the honest citizens the opportunity to have the means to defend themselves. 4. OTOH the legislature's choice would place the cost on the business if the business chooses to deny the customers the opportunity to have the means of self-defense. In turn, the business would pass it on to the customer. The customers will go down the street to the competing business which doesn't have the policy (which is someone's favorite response in this thread) and the extra cost. The owner will soon see the error of his ways, reverse the policy and shed the burden of assuming the liability.
He's no longer potentially liable and the customers have the responsibility and the opportunity to have the means of defending themselves. EVERYONE WINS! No... the customer chose to voluntarily disarm themselves as a condition of service. What's so hard to understand about that? First, perhaps the customers entry wasn't quite so voluntary. Perhaps he had an unexpected guest and didn't have any liquor in the house. He was faced with a terrible choice: be a poor host or enter the only liquor outlet within 20 miles unarmed. 
Second, the business owner voluntarily chose to maintain the no firearms policy knowing it could lead to potential liability he could have: 1. reversed the policy; or 2. moved his business to another state. What's so hard to understand about that? |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17832 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:30:26 PM
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? The shooter would be liable in both cases you mentioned. An ND is the negligence of the one handling the gun, and if someone shot a baby in a shopping cart on the street, they would be liable. How would that change if they walk 5 feet inside a business? BTW, the business don't have to encourage carry, they just can't explicitly ban it without taking some steps to ensure it's a gun-free zone or incurring some sort of liability. As for the part in bold...I guess you have shown your true colors. My wife carries. She's not even sort of a redneck, and she doesn't have any hero mentality. That's kinda low to make that statement about your fellow gun-owners, don't you think? Well you fell into that kind of easy. So what makes those situations any different than the mad man running around shooting? Did the Business encourage either situation? What "steps" are you suggesting, the whole "membership" or "wavier" idea is monumentally stupid and an unreasonable burden. As for the bold part just because someone owns a gun does not make them "my kind of people" I have seen to many acts of general stupidity with a firearm. It is not a club; it is a personal choice and responsibility. By having no policy on the CCW, they neither encourage or discourage carry, and thus should not be held culpable for any accidents on their property. On the other hand, advertising a place as "gun free" is advertising it as a good place for someone to shoot up with no fear of being shot back until the police arrive. As for the bolded sentence no offense intended here, but are you asking me a question or making a statement. If you ask again, I will answer, but I am not exactly sure what it is you are saying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:34:51 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Forcing bars to prohibit smoking is just as wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right; it sets a precedence for wrong being common. The analogy is simply incorrect. The proposed law would not prohibit a business from banning firearms or force it to do or refrain from doing anything. It does not limit the owner's property rights at all. It would assign liability for damages resulting from the no firearms policy. There is no right to avoid liability for the consequences of one's actions. Assigning liability based on what? On the possibility that a CCW holder would limit damage? Did that work in the oughner case? No. Perhaps a CCW holder who doesn;t use their weapon should be held liable? Perhaps someone who chooses not to CCW should be held liable? This is just another bullshit attempt to use government to acheive a desired result. Again since you don't seem to get it: Liability is assigned as a result of the business owner's choice to deny the customers the opportunity to have the means of defending themselves. The legislature makes the rule. The business owner makes the choice with full knowledge of the rule and the possible consequences. The business owner must choose wisely or face the consequences. |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17833 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:35:12 PM
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
The point....you missed it.Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
But it happens. How many times have we read about someone accidentally getting shot at a gun show?
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? The shooter would be liable in both cases you mentioned. An ND is the negligence of the one handling the gun, and if someone shot a baby in a shopping cart on the street, they would be liable. How would that change if they walk 5 feet inside a business? BTW, the business don't have to encourage carry, they just can't explicitly ban it without taking some steps to ensure it's a gun-free zone or incurring some sort of liability. As for the part in bold...I guess you have shown your true colors. My wife carries. She's not even sort of a redneck, and she doesn't have any hero mentality. That's kinda low to make that statement about your fellow gun-owners, don't you think? Results from google news for "Accidental shooting" Here's a guy who shot himself at Sears in a mall: There's a bunch more. I read all three of those posted links and didn't see the apartment or business owners being held culpable. In fact, I saw this "Charles Marice Allen faces one count each of careless discharge of a firearm and possessing a firearm while intoxicated, both misdemeanors, Lansing police said." That only reinforces my point––––––––thanks! A) If you hold the business owners liable for not allowing guns in their business, wouldn't they be as liable for reckless handling of firearms as well?
B) The point was gun owners can be reckless and endanger others, and the liability from them in people's business are why businesses don't allow firearms on the property. Where in those articles is it saying that the business owners were being held responsible? |
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15400 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:35:55 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 2:41:03 PM by Renegade13B]
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
First, perhaps the customers entry wasn't quite so voluntary. Perhaps he had an unexpected guest and didn't have any liquor in the house. He was faced with a terrible choice: be a poor host or enter the only liquor outlet within 20 miles unarmed.
I call that piss poor planning. Because the guy didn't plan ahead, he wants to force others to serve him. Silly. What if the guy was already drunk when the guest showed up and the local store didn't sell to intoxicated people? Should the store be forced to serve the drunk guy so he doesn't have to drive 20 miles? Should the local store be held liable if they didn't sell him booze and he drove drunk to another store and smashed into a bus full of children? 
I guess they should if the legislature says so.  |
|
|
|
Digital_Damage
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2011 FL, USA
Posts: 344 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:43:58 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 2:45:33 PM by Digital_Damage]
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? The shooter would be liable in both cases you mentioned. An ND is the negligence of the one handling the gun, and if someone shot a baby in a shopping cart on the street, they would be liable. How would that change if they walk 5 feet inside a business? BTW, the business don't have to encourage carry, they just can't explicitly ban it without taking some steps to ensure it's a gun-free zone or incurring some sort of liability. As for the part in bold...I guess you have shown your true colors. My wife carries. She's not even sort of a redneck, and she doesn't have any hero mentality. That's kinda low to make that statement about your fellow gun-owners, don't you think? Well you fell into that kind of easy. So what makes those situations any different than the mad man running around shooting? Did the Business encourage either situation? What "steps" are you suggesting, the whole "membership" or "wavier" idea is monumentally stupid and an unreasonable burden. As for the bold part just because someone owns a gun does not make them "my kind of people" I have seen to many acts of general stupidity with a firearm. It is not a club; it is a personal choice and responsibility. By having no policy on the CCW, they neither encourage or discourage carry, and thus should not be held culpable for any accidents on their property. On the other hand, advertising a place as "gun free" is advertising it as a good place for someone to shoot up with no fear of being shot back until the police arrive. As for the bolded sentence no offense intended here, but are you asking me a question or making a statement. If you ask again, I will answer, but I am not exactly sure what it is you are saying. This is an unwinnable situation with the CCW and you know that, or you are blinded by your own personal motivation you cannot see the hypocrisy that you are suggesting. What "steps" are you suggesting? Your suggestion about the whole "membership" or "wavier" idea is monumentally stupid and an unreasonable burden on the company. |
|
|
|
Digital_Damage
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2011 FL, USA
Posts: 345 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:45:14 PM
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
The point....you missed it.Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
But it happens. How many times have we read about someone accidentally getting shot at a gun show?
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Digital_Damage:
Wow that is fucking nonsense. It is their property and their rules. They are not forcing you to be a patron of their establishment. If you don't like their rules don't go into their establishment. Mehh. No one MAKING them allow guns. They are removing the shield of liability that most businesses think a "NO GUNS" policy gives them. Let's be real here...that is the primary reason any business would take this stand. It would seem to me that all these businesses who want to keep guns off of their property would need to do is to take some sort of steps to stop active shooters, or they can require a membership for entry where you waive your rights........OR just not post signs and there won't be any issues. I am also cool with a business not having fire exits or fire suppression systems too, but I think they could be held culpable for any injuries that come as a result of their decisions. Like it or not, active shooters––just like armed robbers and arsonists––look to be a reality for the foreseeable future. It's a reality that every business is going to have to plan for just they put in fire suppression systems and safes. Membership? You are forcing the business undue burden to facilitate this. As a business owner myself, you are placing the establishment in a situation to accept responsibility for situations that do not have a preventable mesure to counter act unless you are requiring the business to install metal detectors, pat downs and security staff. And you can see how well that worked out for the NFL/airports. Allowing a bunch hero minded rednecks walk around armed is an even worse proposition from a potential legality point of view.. So say you allow people to come into your establishment armed and one of the idiots shoot themselves in the leg who is responsible? Or There is an incident and one of the armed patrons returns fire, hitting a infant in a shopping cart, who is liable? The shooter would be liable in both cases you mentioned. An ND is the negligence of the one handling the gun, and if someone shot a baby in a shopping cart on the street, they would be liable. How would that change if they walk 5 feet inside a business? BTW, the business don't have to encourage carry, they just can't explicitly ban it without taking some steps to ensure it's a gun-free zone or incurring some sort of liability. As for the part in bold...I guess you have shown your true colors. My wife carries. She's not even sort of a redneck, and she doesn't have any hero mentality. That's kinda low to make that statement about your fellow gun-owners, don't you think? Results from google news for "Accidental shooting" Here's a guy who shot himself at Sears in a mall: There's a bunch more. I read all three of those posted links and didn't see the apartment or business owners being held culpable. In fact, I saw this "Charles Marice Allen faces one count each of careless discharge of a firearm and possessing a firearm while intoxicated, both misdemeanors, Lansing police said." That only reinforces my point––––––––thanks! A) If you hold the business owners liable for not allowing guns in their business, wouldn't they be as liable for reckless handling of firearms as well?
B) The point was gun owners can be reckless and endanger others, and the liability from them in people's business are why businesses don't allow firearms on the property. Where in those articles is it saying that the business owners were being held responsible? You don't understand how civil litigation works do you? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:47:59 PM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
An example of a comparable analogy would be holding bars liable for a customer dieing from second hand smoke. The bar should have made it a no smoking bar for the safety of the customers, therefor they are liable. That's just as dumb. If the legislature made a rule in advance that a business could be held liable to those who died of second hand smoke if it allowed people to smoke in the establishment, and allowed each business the opportunity to make its own decision regarding the policy it would adopt, that would be a good analogy. the business would have advance notice of the possible consequences of permitting smoking and would have a choice as to which policy it would adopt. That is far different from banning smoking or imposing liability after the fact without prior notice of the possible consequences. The difference is choice with full prior knowledge of the possible consequences. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:48:31 PM
Originally Posted By rtech:
You "property rights" people are confusing the two points of private, open to the public, private property and private as in "my living room/bedroom" type private property and they are not the same. Every time I get into one of these threads over the last 10 years, it's always the same. I'd venture to guess that most of you have never owned a business open to the public ever in your lives. The rules change drastically when you invite the general public onto property you have. It's very different. I'm not going to point out the difference because I doubt you'll want to understand anyway. The ultimate power a property owner has is criminal trespass to remove unwanted people from the parcel. I don't like more government interference either, but this may be a good point where we go on the offensive. People need to held accountable for their decisions, no matter how stupid they are. Then again, as gun owners we can't even agree on something so simple as to help our cause. Go figure. I love my state. This. This is what I wanted to say but really didn't know how to word it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:51:12 PM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
I call that piss poor planning. Because the guy didn't plan ahead, he wants to force others to serve him. A certain poster was recently bemoaning the Indiana statute prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday because he sometimes had unexpected guests. Perhaps you should lecture him about planning.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:51:27 PM
Originally Posted By Gravity_Tester:
That's reasonable. If they're going to insist that I forgo the ability to defend myself, they are, by default accepting the responsibiltiy for my safety. And I (and I'm sure the rest of the membership of the AZCDL) will happily write and call my representatives until they pass such a bill, even if it's just to make the calls stop. You might have a point if it werent for the fact that you are not required to patronize places that ban guns. Gun free zones are bullshit and a product of ignorance. The solution to that pronlem is not more laws . The solution is less laws |
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15401 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:53:09 PM
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
An example of a comparable analogy would be holding bars liable for a customer dieing from second hand smoke. The bar should have made it a no smoking bar for the safety of the customers, therefor they are liable. That's just as dumb. If the legislature made a rule in advance that a business could be held liable to those who died of second hand smoke if it allowed people to smoke in the establishment, and allowed each business the opportunity to make its own decision regarding the policy it would adopt, that would be a good analogy. the business would have advance notice of the possible consequences of permitting smoking and would have a choice as to which policy it would adopt. That is far different from banning smoking or imposing liability after the fact without prior notice of the possible consequences. The difference is choice with full prior knowledge of the possible consequences. Like I said, all analogies have weaknesses. Your modification does make it more comparable. It doesn't make holding bars responsible for cancer any less stupid. Which it is. |
|
|
ARCHIVED
