Gun Free Zone Liability

[corneileous]

You guys are having different conversations with each other.

I mean you're in the same ballpark, but one of you is playing football and one of you is playing baseball, and you're arguing about the rules.

Well, I don’t know. Maybe we are, maybe we aren’t depending on who ya ask or what one’s own opinion might be but even though I am all for people’s rights, I just don’t like that gun free zones are not at all that tgun free when bad guys go in those places all the time and take advantage of them being the only one who is armed in there which lets them do their evil thing so much easier because good people follow laws, and bad people don’t.

But I do now in kind of a strange way don’t necessarily think it’s right to penalize a store or any other establishment for having a no gun sign being that there’s other reasons for why they’re doing it whether it be the only one of those “exceptions” would be the ones where their insurance company is mandating their rate, or even insurance coverage at all.

But instead of questioning/judging and splitting hairs about mine and his methods of argument/discussion, how about taking the time and answering that last part where I asked the other guy about well, OK, if not penalizing the establishments who do this just simply because they hate guns, or they don’t want us legal gun carriers scaring their customers off, what do you think we should do or what would you suggest we do for all the blatant ignoring of those signs when bad guys take advantage of them? How do you propose we make those gun free zone signs respected so that number one, NO GOOD GUY feels it necessary to carry concealed past it for their own protection and number two, so that all the ignorant libbies can truly feel safe that that sign is protecting them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tanis143]

the balance you speak of is your ability to choose not to frequent a place that bans guns.

Not really. Let me paint a picture: "Sorry honey, we can no longer go to the movies because I can not carry in a movie theater" "Sorry honey, we can't go to the asian market because they don't allow firearms (did I mention my wife is half Japanese? Funny thing, her other half is Hispanic and I've yet to see a Mexican store have a no firearms sign, yet most Asian ones do). You get my drift yet? Simply saying "Well just don't go there" is easy to say, but not realistic. And again, I'm not advocating that stores be forced to allow firearms on their property, I'm simply advocating that if they want to remove my ability to protect myself then they should assume that responsibility.

Dont argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience in idiocy

Go to bed, the adults are talking here.

 

[corneileous]

Not really. Let me paint a picture: "Sorry honey, we can no longer go to the movies because I can not carry in a movie theater" "Sorry honey, we can't go to the asian market because they don't allow firearms (did I mention my wife is half Japanese? Funny thing, her other half is Hispanic and I've yet to see a Mexican store have a no firearms sign, yet most Asian ones do). You get my drift yet? Simply saying "Well just don't go there" is easy to say, but not realistic. And again, I'm not advocating that stores be forced to allow firearms on their property, I'm simply advocating that if they want to remove my ability to protect myself then they should assume that responsibility.



Go to bed, the adults are talking here.

Private property rights is one thing but when it’s a public place that anybody can just simply walk into, there needs to be something done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[donner]

Not really. Let me paint a picture: "Sorry honey, we can no longer go to the movies because I can not carry in a movie theater" "Sorry honey, we can't go to the asian market because they don't allow firearms (did I mention my wife is half Japanese? Funny thing, her other half is Hispanic and I've yet to see a Mexican store have a no firearms sign, yet most Asian ones do). You get my drift yet? Simply saying "Well just don't go there" is easy to say, but not realistic. And again, I'm not advocating that stores be forced to allow firearms on their property, I'm simply advocating that if they want to remove my ability to protect myself then they should assume that responsibility.

Again, you don't have a right to go to that movie, or that market, etc. If you aren't being legally forced to be there then it remains fully your choice, regardless of how inconvenient any alternative is for you. If they want to ban guns, and you choose to go there, that is on you.

Just because it makes things harder that you want to do doesn't change the fact that you still have the choice about going to those places or not. But don't put more regulation on them for making a choice that inconveniences you.

You keep saying 'remove my ability' but they aren't doing anything of the sort. You retain the ability to protect yourself by not going in. Just as you retain the ability to CC and ignore their request.

 

[donner]

I guess I could see your point on that but I guess I’m just also looking too much at it like, of how they expect a no gun sign to keep the bad person out. And yes, I know that places like federal buildings and airports for example are held to different standards, but most of those places don’t rely on just a sign to keep guns out. They either have, or have a combination of armed security with pat-downs and metal detectors.

But I don’t know… Whatever the reason for expecting just a sign to protect an establishment from bad people who intend to do harm, they’re still a bad idea, and they still get people killed. Most everybody wants to end “gun” violence but expecting these aptly named robbers welcome or bad guys welcome signs to fob the job, doesn’t make anybody safer. Yeah, they may keep out the bozo whom which you described who stuffs a pistol in the waistband of a pair of sweatpants, but the bad guy who wishes to take advantage of all the would-be hero’s who’s abiding by the law and disarming, what are we all left to do to end the reason why anyone of us good guys would wanna carry in there armed in the first place? Sure, we can all just shop elsewhere but realistically, you’re not gonna get everybody to do that which means that no gun signs are still going to continue to get people killed. Even though in my humble little opinion, the majority of people gonna be at risk is all the liberals and the gun haters who think they’re safe by shopping in a no guns zone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think there has be be an assumption that the sign protects you, though. I can't think of a single place you go where they fully assume responsibility for protecting you, whether you can be armed or not. And even with security in place i bet most places still don't guarantee your safety.

Your responsibility to defend yourself continues to rest squarely on you. Just because they choose to limit carry does not relieve you of that responsibility and if you feel being armed is the best way to do it then it's on you to make the choice. Go unarmed, go armed or go somewhere else. But that is a choice that happens before you enter a place and if you choose the first option then any danger you face is because of the choice you made as much as it is a choice they made in many respects.

And as you said, bad guys will do whatever bad guys want to do. Allowing people to be armed hasn't changed stores getting shot up.

 

[donner]

But instead of questioning/judging and splitting hairs about mine and his methods of argument/discussion, how about taking the time and answering that last part where I asked the other guy about well, OK, if not penalizing the establishments who do this just simply because they hate guns, or they don’t want us legal gun carriers scaring their customers off, what do you think we should do or what would you suggest we do for all the blatant ignoring of those signs when bad guys take advantage of them? How do you propose we make those gun free zone signs respected so that number one, NO GOOD GUY feels it necessary to carry concealed past it for their own protection and number two, so that all the ignorant libbies can truly feel safe that that sign is protecting them?

There again, i don't think you should penalize them for hating guns, having religious objections or anything else. It's their right to choose.

Choosing to carry past a sign, by either a good guy or bad guy, will always be the choice of that person and wont change based on how much liability we assign to the business.

 

[corneileous]

I don't think there has be be an assumption that the sign protects you, though. I can't think of a single place you go where they fully assume responsibility for protecting you, whether you can be armed or not. And even with security in place i bet most places still don't guarantee your safety.

Your responsibility to defend yourself continues to rest squarely on you. Just because they choose to limit carry does not relieve you of that responsibility and if you feel being armed is the best way to do it then it's on you to make the choice. Go unarmed, go armed or go somewhere else. But that is a choice that happens before you enter a place and if you choose the first option then any danger you face is because of the choice you made as much as it is a choice they made in many respects.

And as you said, bad guys will do whatever bad guys want to do. Allowing people to be armed hasn't changed stores getting shot up.

I never really implied that it was the business owners responsibility to keep their patrons safe. I’m responsible for my safety- that’s why I carry.

And yeah, I’m pretty certain that even businesses who don’t ban guns from their property are completely immune from thugs thinkin’ they can rob from them but if there so happens to be a good guy or two in there at the same time who isn’t afraid to take action when said thug thinks he can hold the place up at gun point that, there’s a good chance the typical outcome would be much different if they weren’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

There again, i don't think you should penalize them for hating guns, having religious objections or anything else. It's their right to choose.

Choosing to carry past a sign, by either a good guy or bad guy, will always be the choice of that person and wont change based on how much liability we assign to the business.

Then fine, don’t penalize them. But for whatever their reason is for preventing the general public from carrying on their property for defensive purposes, the fact still remains that they are still creating dangerous places.

Like I said, I know rights are rights and unfortunately, their private property rights trump our second amendment rights but instead of continually repeating is not fair to penalize these people, how about answering my question about how to let them ban our guns but not have bad guys take advantage of their sign??

I’m grateful there’s states like mine that does not give these people the weight of the law on their sign. Voting that crap out of the other states that do would be a great start, I think. Or make some kind of a law that reflects the good Samaritan law to where if a law-abiding carrier does happen to be in one of these places and somebody comes in trying to rob the place, and they pull out their concealed pistol and neutralize the problem, make it to where that store owner or anybody else can’t sue them for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MacFromOK]

A business that is open to the public does not make that business public property (like a park, town square, or whatever).

You are allowed into that business strictly at the pleasure of the owner, just like you can choose who is allowed into your home.

The owner can dictate the days and hours he's open, and can dictate policy for customers that wish to shop there (e.g. "No shoes, no shirt, no service." - "No smoking." - etc.).

He can also ask you to leave, and if you refuse, you can be charged with trespassing, just as you can in someone's home.

While I don't think "no guns allowed" is smart for the owner or anyone else, it's simply another policy that is entirely up to the business owner, as it rightly should be.

If I still had a business, I wouldn't want someone else making my policy decisions either.

Just my 2¢ ...

 

[corneileous]

A business that is open to the public does not make that business public property (like a park, town square, or whatever).

I know this is all just your two cents but nobody is saying that just because a business is open to the public that it’s automatically all the sudden public property so therefore that part’s a moot point.

You are allowed into that business strictly at the pleasure of the owner, just like you can choose who is allowed into your home.

And yes, you are allowed to walk in that business at the owners pleasure but because that same business owner’s house is not open to the public, pretty much what you just said about your private home, is not totally the same thing and has no business being compared to side by side, nor can it be looked at from the same perspective. Yes, both places are private property but not everyone is just going to be allowed to walk into that business owners house just like they are in his his store.

The owner can dictate the days and hours he's open, and can dictate policy for customers that wish to shop there (e.g. "No shoes, no shirt, no service." - "No smoking." - etc.).

Yes, but what does this have to do with the discussion of deciding whether or not it’s fair to make these business owners liable from keeping patrons from being able to carry their guns in the store?

Yeah, I know, you’re trying to lump it all into the same pile of the amount of stuff the store owner can dictate in his property, but nobody in this discussion cares about store hours, allowed and not allowed clothing, yadda, yadda, yadda, it’s about gun free zones and how they create unsafe places for people.

He can also ask you to leave, and if you refuse, you can be charged with trespassing, just as you can in someone’s home.

Yes. This is all stuff that most of us know.

While I don’t think “no guns allowed” is smart for the owner or anyone else, it's simply another policy that is entirely up to the business owner, as it rightly should be.

For the sake of private property rights – I agree but, that right that private property owners have who open up a place of business that’s welcome to the public and hangs a sign also gets people killed, just sayin.

If I still had a business, I wouldn’t want someone else making my policy decisions either.

Just my 2¢ ...

Again, I know that’s just your two cents and maybe this is just my opinion but in my opinion, you still need to separate and not just focus on the part where your private property property rights allow you to do whatever you want..... including casting a blind eye to the fact that you’re right to hang that no guns sign invites more violence.

Just my two cents I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk