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="aestus" data-source="post: 1237988" data-attributes="member: 2989"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aestus, post: 1237988, member: 2989"] 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. [/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