Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
No Handgun! - Who is responsible?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1236790" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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? <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1236790, member: 1132"] 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? :( [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
No Handgun! - Who is responsible?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom