No Handgun! - Who is responsible?

[loudshirt]

If you use this way of thinking you open the possibility of the government being responsible if something happens while I'm in a Federal Building...

You also have the right to seek another job and find a company that will allow you to carry on site...

There is no clear answer on this.. People want protection.. But they don't want government intrusion either.. And they want their property rights respected as well...

I know if the government to me I had to allow concealed citizens in my place of business or my house, I would be pissed...

This is one of the best answers/arguments. So many people complain about not being able to carry/be safe at work but so few will take the financial hit to got to a job that allows them to carry all the time.


It is insane to say that a company is responsible for every act committed by every person that enters their building. Even reasonable security does not stop everything. Banks have security guards and still get robbed.

 

[Glocktogo]

This is one of the best answers/arguments. So many people complain about not being able to carry/be safe at work but so few will take the financial hit to got to a job that allows them to carry all the time.

It is insane to say that a company is responsible for every act committed by every person that enters their building. Even reasonable security does not stop everything. Banks have security guards and still get robbed.

Once again, the company isn't responsible for the acts committed by an individual. They're responsible for taking adequate measures to deter or prevent said acts. The definition of "adequate measures" is up to a jury.

 

[jarhead983]

I agree totally that an individual or company has a right to restrict who they want or to limit what you bring in, i.e. weapon. Now I don't have to go into those places if I disagree, but they should have the right. I just hope they don't express that right in the manner of limiting mine.

That being said, there has never been an occasion where a business was held liable for the actions of others. No injury or death caused by a robbery has cost a business a dime in liability to the injured/dead customer. Of course this is based on a belief system that every inidividual has a right to protect themselves. Unfortunately, that idea seems to be falling to the wayside. I think that at some point, given a well defined set of circumstances, that this will change. The gun buster sign will cause an individual who holds a CCL to be injured, and that person will be like those of us here who have an understanding of being denied our right to personal protection. He will then push the issue and get the right lawyer and right jury. You will then start seeing buster signs lining the trash cans. At least, I hope.

 

[rawhide]

Once again, the company isn't responsible for the acts committed by an individual. They're responsible for taking adequate measures to deter or prevent said acts while also preventing an employee or customer from protecting him/herself from such acts. The definition of "adequate measures" is up to a jury.

Dave Kopel wrote a lengthy research article (published in CT Law Review last year) that addresses much of this discussion. His paper focuses on schools rather than businesses but is a read I recommend.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1369783

 

[cinman14]

My comments in blue.

Those are some interesting arguments you make.. Thanks for the insight...

My thoughts are, until we purge the uneducated and down right ignorant potential jurors from future jury pools, your arguments will always trump common sense...

I have known since I was around 9 or 10 years of age that smoking cigarettes caused cancer... I can't remember seeing a package that didn't have the warning (and yes, my parents were chain smokers) label on the package..

Yet jurors across the nation have sided with these idiots who chose to smoke and awarded millions for their ignorance..

I guess I come from a different planet.. But I do not believe Business' should be liable when someone comes through the front door shooting...

Wet floors, maybe.. Preventing a gunman from entering a store with a concealed weapon, no...

Of course I don't feel I should be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt, either... [Broken External Image]

 

[Glocktogo]

Those are some interesting arguments you make.. Thanks for the insight...

My thoughts are, until we purge the uneducated and down right ignorant potential jurors from future jury pools, your arguments will always trump common sense...

I have known since I was around 9 or 10 years of age that smoking cigarettes caused cancer... I can't remember seeing a package that didn't have the warning (and yes, my parents were chain smokers) label on the package..

Yet jurors across the nation have sided with these idiots who chose to smoke and awarded millions for their ignorance..

I guess I come from a different planet.. But I do not believe Business' should be liable when someone comes through the front door shooting...

Wet floors, maybe.. Preventing a gunman from entering a store with a concealed weapon, no...

Of course I don't feel I should be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt, either... [Broken External Image]

My argument is the epitome of common sense. How many times do I have to state and restate over and over again, that I am in no way expecting the company to be held liable for a shooter killing someone? They have no control over that and there's no feasible method for them to keep it from happening.

They do however have control over whether they permit people on their premises to carry a means to defend themselves. If they refuse that means, then they are by default, assuming responsibility for your defense. They're saying "don't worry about your security while you're here, our policies and procedures are in place to protect you". If their policies and procedures fail to deter, prevent or adequately respond to mitigate a lethal threat, they they could conceivably be held liable for that failure of their policies and procedures.

One of the requirements where I work is for armed LEO's to do patrols. There are signs stating that persons entering the facility are subject to search. On the face of it, that seems to be enough to deter, prevent or mitigate the harm an armed individual could cause. However, they are still in violation of a federal regulation requiring these measures, if they do not create a reasonable expectation that you may be searched upon entering the facility. They actually have to conduct random searches, not just say they might do it. They are also required to respond to any alarm or emergency call within a specified time frame. That response time is tested on a routine basis. If they fail to respond in time, they are in violation of another federal reg.

No one except LEO's are allowed to be armed in this facility, but they have taken reasonable measures to ensure the safety of those present within it's boundaries. To do otherwise would be unethical, and in this case, a violation of federal regs.

That's what I'm trying to say here. Companies have a right to refuse CCW. If they do, they should enact policies and procedures that have a reasonable chance to deter, prevent or mitigate armed threats. Gunbuster signs don't do that. Is this concept too difficult to grasp?

 

[cinman14]

That's what I'm trying to say here. Companies have a right to refuse CCW. If they do, they should enact policies and procedures that have a reasonable chance to deter, prevent or mitigate armed threats. Gunbuster signs don't do that. Is this concept too difficult to grasp?

I guess so.. What happens when a company allows conceal carry and a employee or customer that is legally allowed to carry opens fire? Would the company be safe from fraudulent suits because they allowed people to carry on their property?

I guess I believe too much in a business owner being allowed to restrict firearms without the fear of a lawsuit because they did so...

Good Day....

 

[kriket1911]

I guess so.. What happens when a company allows conceal carry and a employee or customer that is legally allowed to carry opens fire? Would the company be safe from fraudulent suits because they allowed people to carry on their property?

I guess I believe too much in a business owner being allowed to restrict firearms without the fear of a lawsuit because they did so...

Good Day....

It would be vary easy to stop fraudulent lawsuits. All they would have to do is make all employees sign a release form saying the company is not to be held liable for any actions of said employees or patrons. And to those that say (go find a job that allows u to carry ) I'd bet you would hard pressed to find anywhere that allows concealed carry. Except for gun shops pawn shops and and maybe a few other small business's. But I really don't care because I carry at work anyway. If I get fired o well I'll find somewhere else to work. And I completely agree with glocktogo. It is no hard to comprehend

 

[aestus]

I am part owner and founder of a coworking facility that houses freelancers and companies who rent office space form us.

Obviously, I support the 2nd amendment and have a conceal carry. However, we do not allow conceal carry on our property because of 2 things.

1) There is nothing in Oklahoma law that protects us if ANY individual (carry permit or not) is let in the premises willingly with a firearm (including lack of gun buster sign) that is a tenant, member or a coworker and causes harm to others with a firearm. The law indirectly protects us from litigation if the offender with the firearm discharges the firearm as part of criminal activity or "criminal intent" and also would most likely result in any lawsuits against us to not be successful if we have a gun buster sign.

However, in the case of harm due to accidental discharge, ect. from a coworker or tenant that we allow on the premises with a firearm, the law does not protect us from getting sued with the offender if another coworker or tenant is harmed in the process. Due to the lack of verbiage, it actually makes us very liable along with the offender because by allowing tenants with firearms on our property is directly making us responsible for the actions of the said tenant or coworker in the case of any harm or damages with the firearm.

Even if we forced the coworker or tenant conceal carrying into a contract that states we are not liable for any harm they may cause with the their firearm accidental or otherwise, we would still be liable and would most likely lose any lawsuits against us due to the tenants actions with the firearms.

We consulted multiple lawyers regarding our situation and all have agreed that we are not protected. One of our tenants is a very staunch conceal carry holder and initially pushed for allowing concealed carry on our property. When we explained the situation, he studied the laws and came to the same conclusion himself that we would not be except from any lawsuits and we were right (he's a patent law consultant / attorney.) After his own research, he readily agreed to not carry within our premises, as well.

2) We run the risk of losing business from current coworkers and tenants and would be coworkers and tenants by allowing concealed carry on the premises.

 

[aestus]

It would be vary easy to stop fraudulent lawsuits. All they would have to do is make all employees sign a release form saying the company is not to be held liable for any actions of said employees or patrons. And to those that say (go find a job that allows u to carry ) I'd bet you would hard pressed to find anywhere that allows concealed carry. Except for gun shops pawn shops and and maybe a few other small business's. But I really don't care because I carry at work anyway. If I get fired o well I'll find somewhere else to work. And I completely agree with glocktogo. It is no hard to comprehend

Saw your post after I posted my message. This doesn't fly in Oklahoma. We've done our research and have consulted attorneys on the matter. We're more liable for any harm caused by concealed carry we willingly allow on our property versus having gun buster signs and someone (employee or otherwise) busting in and shooting up the place. Having employees, tenants, coworkers, ect sign contracts or non-liability agreements doesn't hold any water. One of our own tenants was pushing for us to allow him to carry concealed and even offered to sign a non-liability agreement. After he did his own research on the matter, he came to the same conclusion that our lawyers did and dropped the matter. Us allowing him to carry would make us liable for him with his firearm with or without a non-liability agreement.

If anything, the non-liability agreement would make you even more directly liable for any damages because, in effect, it serves as you sponsoring that particular individual to carry when no one else can't if you have gun buster signs up. You're better off just removing the gun buster signs and letting everyone carry in that case.