User Panel
Posted: 8/28/2014 7:39:47 PM EDT
The Illinois Legislature failed to address what a businesses or organisation's liability is with the concealed carry law. There are four scenarios possible during a lawsuit after an "incident": signs or no signs, and CCW holder or criminal. If a ccw holder goofs, sign or no sign, I think the business would have a pretty good argument that it was not their fault. If a ccw holder breaks the law, and saves the day as happened recently out east when a doctor carried his gun against the rules for concealed carry and shot a perp the business might escape without too big a liability. But, if a company puts up the signs, fails to protect its customer or members, and a criminal shoots up the place, or even robs somebody, the courts will decide the level of the company's liability. In Colorado right now, the theater in the Colorado theater shooting argued it could not have foreseen this outcome. The judge disagreed and let the plaintiffs continue with their suit against the theater for not protecting its customers. (No, I don't know if the judge laughed or not.)
To me, if a business or civic organization in Illinois puts up the signs and fails to protect its customers/members.... Well good luck with that. Maybe Illinois Legislature will get its act together and correct this oversight. I am not holding my breathe until an incident occurs and the courts decide for these business/organizations. |
|
[#1]
I doubt their is any additional exposure to civil liability by posting No CCW signs. A business could argue that not knowing the experience level and training of a CCW holder inside their business when a robbery occurs and not knowing how they are going to react exposes them to greater liability.
There may not be any civil liability, but there is the issue of loss of profit if I see the sign. I passed through Litchfield Illinois the other day and saw a No CCW sign on the gas station door. There is no way I am going to buy anything from them. I picked up some business cards that say No CCW = No Money and will drop one off when I pass through there today, |
|
[#2]
Quoted:
I doubt their is any additional exposure to civil liability by posting No CCW signs. A business could argue that not knowing the experience level and training of a CCW holder inside their business when a robbery occurs and not knowing how they are going to react exposes them to greater liability. There may not be any civil liability, but there is the issue of loss of profit if I see the sign. I passed through Litchfield Illinois the other day and saw a No CCW sign on the gas station door. There is no way I am going to buy anything from them. I picked up some business cards that say No CCW = No Money and will drop one off when I pass through there today, View Quote My point is that other states addressed this issue in their concealed carry laws, but Illinois did not, so Illinois businesses are on their own. Like you I do not do business with companies that post, IF I CAN. Nursing homes and medical facilities are all signed, and I have to go there often due to my elderly parents. What the signed businesses are saying is that they are more afraid of legal cc holders who have had training than your average criminal. They are entitled to their opinion, but are acting in ignorance. Interestingly, my church's insurance company has understood what I am saying and is studying the matter. Hopefully, they and other businesses will lobby for an amendment to the law. Right now, their only defense is "We did not foresee this event." |
|
[#3]
Quoted:
I doubt their is any additional exposure to civil liability by posting No CCW signs. A business could argue that not knowing the experience level and training of a CCW holder inside their business when a robbery occurs and not knowing how they are going to react exposes them to greater liability, View Quote Except the training standards in Illinois are very well known. The real issue will arise when a CCL holder is injured or killed and the family sues because their relative's compliance with the voluntary posting of the property owner resulted in their being unable to defend themselves and the property owner refused to provide any protection. As much as you can argue the intent of someone who has passed 5 background checks, paid $150 and undergone 16 hours of training it's a lot easier to guess the intent of someone who enters a business with the intent of committing robbery and murder. |
|
[#4]
Quoted:
Except the training standards in Illinois are very well known. The real issue will arise when a CCL holder is injured or killed and the family sues because their relative's compliance with the voluntary posting of the property owner resulted in their being unable to defend themselves and the property owner refused to provide any protection. As much as you can argue the intent of someone who has passed 5 background checks, paid $150 and undergone 16 hours of training it's a lot easier to guess the intent of someone who enters a business with the intent of committing robbery and murder. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I doubt their is any additional exposure to civil liability by posting No CCW signs. A business could argue that not knowing the experience level and training of a CCW holder inside their business when a robbery occurs and not knowing how they are going to react exposes them to greater liability, Except the training standards in Illinois are very well known. The real issue will arise when a CCL holder is injured or killed and the family sues because their relative's compliance with the voluntary posting of the property owner resulted in their being unable to defend themselves and the property owner refused to provide any protection. As much as you can argue the intent of someone who has passed 5 background checks, paid $150 and undergone 16 hours of training it's a lot easier to guess the intent of someone who enters a business with the intent of committing robbery and murder. The business owner could argue the CCW holder had the option of taking his business somewhere else. |
|
[#5]
Quoted:
The business owner could argue the CCW holder had the option of taking his business somewhere else. View Quote Agreed, but that argument starts to delve into the absurd. The owner of the business could have closed 30 minutes prior to the event. The shooter could have been stopped for a traffic infraction by a police officer and his intent discovered. The victim could have gone on vacation. Such an argument is pure speculation. The property owner is operating a business open to the public. The property owner has an obligation to comply with business ordinances, health regulations and fire codes* relating to customer and employee safety. We can all agree that the property owner generally has no control over violent armed felons and madmen, but there are other factors, especially after several cases of note: The property owner cannot rightfully claim the burden of protection lies with the government... South v Maryland et seq addresses than quite adequately. Thus the obligation would seem to fall on two other entities - the property owner and/or the victim. Quinn's "post to carry" veto failed, thus the property owner cannot claim he "did nothing" and thus lacks any culpability when it takes the positive actions of obtaining a GFZ sign and then posting it in order to prevent law abiding citizens from bearing arms for self defense, which in this case resulted in death or injury. The ISP GFZ sign does not carry the force of law against everybody from entering with a gun, only FCCL holders. The same property owner felt scared enough of law-abiding citizens who had paid exorbitant fees, undergone the lengthiest training, the most invasive background checks and vaguest "objection" criteria in the entire country to take the time to post his property, but wasn't scared enough of the criminals to provide an armed guard or metal detectors to prevent or otherwise inhibit the entry of the aforementioned criminals and madmen? It seems pretty obvious that the property owner would be less liable if he had simply failed to post and something happened. His posting may not be the primary cause of injury, but it certainly contributed to the problem. *Whenever I get new guys who are more interested in fighting fires and breaking stuff (smash) than doing inspections, I remind them that building and life safety codes are written in three kinds of ink: the dust of collapsed buildings, the soot of burned-down buildings and the blood of the victims. |
|
[#6]
The strongest part of my background is criminal law. My civil experience is limited to testifying in court.
I will have to run your post by a civil defense attorney and ask her opinion Tango7. |
|
[#8]
Quoted:
The strongest part of my background is criminal law. My civil experience is limited to testifying in court. I will have to run your post by a civil defense attorney and ask her opinion Tango7. View Quote Good! Church Mutual is looking into it too. My guess is that a business with no cc signs may have to hire a police officer to guard the premises. Remember trained employees are not allowed. A business what chooses to put up the signs in a not friendly to law abiding gun owners, regardless of what they say. When I pointed this out to my pastor, he said that my concerns were "rediculous." But the most influencial trustees says the head of the NRA should be shot, and that nobody but police should have guns. I guess the armed forces don't get any. |
|
[#9]
I had an in depth conversation with a civil defense attorney who had the strong opinion that a business would not assume any additional liability by posting No CCW signs. She stated that the judge in the case in Colorado could rule there was enough to send the case before a jury, but that does not necessarily mean the plaintiffs will win or even get the theater to settle. She rattled off several points a plaintiff would have to prove and given the list she gave me, she made a very strong case supporting her opinion.
The attorney is licensed to practice law in the states of Missouri and Illinois, she has been practicing for over 25 years and I respect her opinion. Having the No CCW signs does not mean your business won't get sued, but the likelihood of a plaintiff winning is not enough to pressure a business to remove the signs. No CCW = No $$$$ from me. |
|
[#10]
This is crazy stuff. Three years ago, the company I work at got sued, lost, and paid settlement, because someone slipped and fell outside the campus after a snow fall. Our facilities dept had shoveled and salted 95% of the outside perimeter, but a pedestrian slipped and "injured" themselves anyway. It had been claimed that since the company had attempted to provide safety for access, but failed, we were negligent. Go figure.
|
|
[#11]
|
|
[#12]
Quoted:
I had an in depth conversation with a civil defense attorney who had the strong opinion that a business would not assume any additional liability by posting No CCW signs. She stated that the judge in the case in Colorado could rule there was enough to send the case before a jury, but that does not necessarily mean the plaintiffs will win or even get the theater to settle. She rattled off several points a plaintiff would have to prove and given the list she gave me, she made a very strong case supporting her opinion. The attorney is licensed to practice law in the states of Missouri and Illinois, she has been practicing for over 25 years and I respect her opinion. Having the No CCW signs does not mean your business won't get sued, but the likelihood of a plaintiff winning is not enough to pressure a business to remove the signs. No CCW = No $$$$ from me. View Quote Which would she rather have, that argument to be used in a court which will set the precedent, or to have liability all spelled out by the legislature? Other states saw fit to address this, Illinois did not. |
|
[#13]
Quoted:
Which would she rather have, that argument to be used in a court which will set the precedent, or to have liability all spelled out by the legislature? Other states saw fit to address this, Illinois did not. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I had an in depth conversation with a civil defense attorney who had the strong opinion that a business would not assume any additional liability by posting No CCW signs. She stated that the judge in the case in Colorado could rule there was enough to send the case before a jury, but that does not necessarily mean the plaintiffs will win or even get the theater to settle. She rattled off several points a plaintiff would have to prove and given the list she gave me, she made a very strong case supporting her opinion. The attorney is licensed to practice law in the states of Missouri and Illinois, she has been practicing for over 25 years and I respect her opinion. Having the No CCW signs does not mean your business won't get sued, but the likelihood of a plaintiff winning is not enough to pressure a business to remove the signs. No CCW = No $$$$ from me. Which would she rather have, that argument to be used in a court which will set the precedent, or to have liability all spelled out by the legislature? Other states saw fit to address this, Illinois did not. She is pro 2nd Amendment. What she would rather have versus her professional opinion that pertains to No CCW signs is different. Please give me a link to civil/criminal code in one or two states that specifically states a business that posts a No CCW sign is liable. I'll take the information to her and ask for an opinion. A question that I forgot to ask at our meeting was "if a business owner does not display a No CCW sign, a CCW Holder engages a robbery suspect with their firearm and someone gets injured, what would the business liability be then?" |
|
[#14]
That is a good question too. While researching this, I discovered that a business cannot decide whether it's building puts up the signs, the owner decides. If the business owns the building, no problem. Wisconsin put a provision in it's law, but it is unclear how it will be interpreted. The truth is, we do not know how these things will go in court. Here are two articles that discuss this issue.
http://www.boardmanclark.com/reading-room/concealed-carry-and-businesses-operational-considerations/ http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130813/business/708139716/ |
|
[#15]
Quoted:
That is a good question too. While researching this, I discovered that a business cannot decide whether it's building puts up the signs, the owner decides. If the business owns the building, no problem. Wisconsin put a provision in it's law, but it is unclear how it will be interpreted. The truth is, we do not know how these things will go in court. Here are two articles that discuss this issue. http://www.boardmanclark.com/reading-room/concealed-carry-and-businesses-operational-considerations/ http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130813/business/708139716/ View Quote The above reference to business and owners applies to Illinois. Every body wants the safest policy, we just have not figured out what that policy is. One article suggests some businesses in Illinois are being pressured to put up the no concealed carry signs for political reasons. I wonder how that will go if something happens. If a CC holder goofs, he/she will be sued or charged, or if something goes wrong, the business will be sued. The person least likely to be sued is the criminal. He may be arrested or worse, but unlikely to have to worry about being sued. Maybe we should require criminals to carry liability insurance? |
|
[#16]
I don't see why the criminal act of a third party would bring added liability to the owner of a business
I guess we just want to stick it to those who don't agree with us? |
|
[#17]
Quoted:
I don't see why the criminal act of a third party would bring added liability to the owner of a business I guess we just want to stick it to those who don't agree with us? View Quote No, it because they made a decision (bar guns) and then took action (put up signage) that made their property inherently less safe. If, as in the Colorado theater case, there's some evidence that the shooter chose the location particularly because it WAS a GFZ, their decision contributed to the risk, and resultant injury, you suffered. You're not suing them because there was a crime; you're suing them because they may have increased the risk of the crime by putting up the sign, and precluded your human right of self-defense by disarming you at their door. Larry |
|
[#18]
Quoted:
No, it because they made a decision (bar guns) and then took action (put up signage) that made their property inherently less safe. If, as in the Colorado theater case, there's some evidence that the shooter chose the location particularly because it WAS a GFZ, their decision contributed to the risk, and resultant injury, you suffered. You're not suing them because there was a crime; you're suing them because they may have increased the risk of the crime by putting up the sign, and precluded your human right of self-defense by disarming you at their door. Larry View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see why the criminal act of a third party would bring added liability to the owner of a business I guess we just want to stick it to those who don't agree with us? No, it because they made a decision (bar guns) and then took action (put up signage) that made their property inherently less safe. If, as in the Colorado theater case, there's some evidence that the shooter chose the location particularly because it WAS a GFZ, their decision contributed to the risk, and resultant injury, you suffered. You're not suing them because there was a crime; you're suing them because they may have increased the risk of the crime by putting up the sign, and precluded your human right of self-defense by disarming you at their door. Larry You have actual facts to back up that statement? When you get to court your emotional responses to things don't really matter much. You are not going to get much in court claiming that you are safer if you are allowed a gun than not, if you cannot produce evidence to support that contention. In any case, private property owners have had the right to allow people to carry firearms on their property since well before the FCCA. I don't recall any cases in IL where anyone was sued because they did not put up a sign explicitly allowing forearms carry on their property. |
|
[#19]
Quoted:
You have actual facts to back up that statement? When you get to court your emotional responses to things don't really matter much. You are not going to get much in court claiming that you are safer if you are allowed a gun than not, if you cannot produce evidence to support that contention. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see why the criminal act of a third party would bring added liability to the owner of a business I guess we just want to stick it to those who don't agree with us? No, it because they made a decision (bar guns) and then took action (put up signage) that made their property inherently less safe. If, as in the Colorado theater case, there's some evidence that the shooter chose the location particularly because it WAS a GFZ, their decision contributed to the risk, and resultant injury, you suffered. You're not suing them because there was a crime; you're suing them because they may have increased the risk of the crime by putting up the sign, and precluded your human right of self-defense by disarming you at their door. Larry You have actual facts to back up that statement? When you get to court your emotional responses to things don't really matter much. You are not going to get much in court claiming that you are safer if you are allowed a gun than not, if you cannot produce evidence to support that contention. The only people who will be able to make such a claim will be FCCL holders who disarmed to comply with a posting and suffered injury or death from a criminal who disregarded the sign as a result. Otherwise, you're arguing for less than 2% of the population at best. However, if such a client was to materialize, the poster's counsel could argue that their having a gun may not have made a difference in the face of a determined criminal. A rebuttal to that could be as close as the latest issue of American Rifleman's column The Armed Citizen, where enough evidence could be supplied that the presentation of a gun - without even firing it - has often served as a deterrent to armed violence even in mid-commission. Reaching farther would require presenting the Cook and Ludwig Study Department of Justice study or the Kleck/Gertz study published in Northwestern University's Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Their being denied their possibility of any kind of self defense or response-in-kind to an armed threat by a unilateral action of the property owner absolutely guaranteed that the results would be the same. In any case, private property owners have had the right to allow people to carry firearms on their property since well before the FCCA. I don't recall any cases in IL where anyone was sued because they did not put up a sign explicitly allowing forearms carry on their property. A valid point, but one that doesn't apply after (D)a legislature was forced to acknowledge our right to self defense under Moore v Madigan. Before 12/12, carry of an operable firearm in public was prohibited except for law enforcement, thus the select audience able to comply without burden was not only rather limited, but exempt from prohibition due to their position. Since the carry of an operable firearm on public property, highways, streets, and in one's vehicle was prohibited by statute, carrying on someone else's property required you to bring the unloaded gun from your house enclosed in a case into your vehicle, then into the store, unlock the case, load the firearm, and then reverse the process before leaving the premises. The entire state outside one's own property was "posted" for practical purposes. |
|
[#20]
Well, I hope that I am never that person, but my situation could result in such a scenario. My church posted the No CCW signs a while back. In the past, I carried the money from the collection to the bank fairly often. At least three times in the last two months. If I am robbed and beat up like Mary Shepherd, I will be in the same position she was, prohibited from protecting myself. I suppose I could park off site and have my gun locked in my car during the service, hoping I am not ambushed on the way to the car. I took the easy way out and will not carry the money to the bank any more. I pray the crooks know it is mostly checks anyway.
What bothers me about our situation, is the trustees have given no consideration to protecting the church, or the people in it, other than putting up those signs. They do have locks on the doors, but I and a few others can get in quicker using a pocket knife than a key. I have told them this before. BTW almost everybody has a key anyway. The secretary is there alone a lot and cannot see who comes in the door until they are in her office. She does not handle money on site, but the crooks don't know that. She has asked the trustees for a window or a camera, but she, like me, is ignored. |
|
[#21]
Quoted:
Well, I hope that I am never that person, but my situation could result in such a scenario. My church posted the No CCW signs a while back. In the past, I carried the money from the collection to the bank fairly often. At least three times in the last two months. If I am robbed and beat up like Mary Shepherd, I will be in the same position she was, prohibited from protecting myself. I suppose I could park off site and have my gun locked in my car during the service, hoping I am not ambushed on the way to the car. I took the easy way out and will not carry the money to the bank any more. I pray the crooks know it is mostly checks anyway. What bothers me about our situation, is the trustees have given no consideration to protecting the church, or the people in it, other than putting up those signs. They do have locks on the doors, but I and a few others can get in quicker using a pocket knife than a key. I have told them this before. BTW almost everybody has a key anyway. The secretary is there alone a lot and cannot see who comes in the door until they are in her office. She does not handle money on site, but the crooks don't know that. She has asked the trustees for a window or a camera, but she, like me, is ignored. View Quote Do they live under the naïve assumption that the sign prevents bad guys with guns from entering, or are they so self-absorbed that they believe they are somehow equal to Christ in being the lambs of salvation worthy of slaughter and refuse to defend themselves as a result? Yeah, I get pretty argumentative about the issue. No offense intended. |
|
[#22]
Quoted:
Do they live under the naïve assumption that the sign prevents bad guys with guns from entering, or are they so self-absorbed that they believe they are somehow equal to Christ in being the lambs of salvation worthy of slaughter and refuse to defend themselves as a result? Yeah, I get pretty argumentative about the issue. No offense intended. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I hope that I am never that person, but my situation could result in such a scenario. My church posted the No CCW signs a while back. In the past, I carried the money from the collection to the bank fairly often. At least three times in the last two months. If I am robbed and beat up like Mary Shepherd, I will be in the same position she was, prohibited from protecting myself. I suppose I could park off site and have my gun locked in my car during the service, hoping I am not ambushed on the way to the car. I took the easy way out and will not carry the money to the bank any more. I pray the crooks know it is mostly checks anyway. What bothers me about our situation, is the trustees have given no consideration to protecting the church, or the people in it, other than putting up those signs. They do have locks on the doors, but I and a few others can get in quicker using a pocket knife than a key. I have told them this before. BTW almost everybody has a key anyway. The secretary is there alone a lot and cannot see who comes in the door until they are in her office. She does not handle money on site, but the crooks don't know that. She has asked the trustees for a window or a camera, but she, like me, is ignored. Do they live under the naïve assumption that the sign prevents bad guys with guns from entering, or are they so self-absorbed that they believe they are somehow equal to Christ in being the lambs of salvation worthy of slaughter and refuse to defend themselves as a result? Yeah, I get pretty argumentative about the issue. No offense intended. No offense taken! I never ever want to take the life of another, and certainly do not want to harm anyone. I would give my life for another if that would save them. Where I draw the line is when the choice is between the life of a good person, and that of a bad person. If I get in that corner, I want to be able to do the right thing. I don't think everyone has thought this through. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.