It’s time to turn the table on these (*&_(*(

[Barth]

As I look at gun free shooting galleries and other absurd laws.
I‘ve come to the conclusion that we need to turn this thing around with legal action of our own.

If folks are raped, killed or otherwise attacked where concealed carry is not allowed.
Then parties responsible for these rules need to be held accountable for that lack of safety.
If parties take away law abiding citizens ability to protect themselves?
Then their protection should be guaranteed by those parties.
And when harm comes their way?
Those parties should be held responsible for that failure (Financially).

If these people have no respect for human life?
Maybe a hit in the pocketbook will get their attention.

One multi-million dollar civil award against a theater, mall or school might turn the tide.

[downtownv]

That applies to those businesses that in normal environs you COULD carry what about where the state (s) don't allow it regardless ie NY NJ RI MD etc.? shouldn't the States be the defendant?

[Longitude Zero]

States mostly have immunity from lawsuits of this type. As to private businesses sure you could sue if you want to but it is YOU who has to front the costs to the attorney filing the suit.

Most attornies do not want lawsuites against private business like that for several reasons, complicated allowances for immunity, very little return, many judgements can be discharged by bankruptcy. Now if you are talking about a major chain then maybe. Also lawsuits of this type have a timeline measured in years and years. Big chains and the insurance companies that insure the risk can wait us out.

Another caveat is that many chains have each location independently licensed and incorporated meaning that if you get a judgement from company A's location in your home town you cannot go after the deep pockets of the corporation since it is independently incorporated.

It is a hopeful thought but in the harsh reality of the legal system it rarely will be beneficial to do this.

[Glock23]

That applies to those businesses that in normal environs you COULD carry what about where the state (s) don't allow it regardless ie NY NJ RI MD etc.? shouldn't the States be the defendant?

In my opinion, the ONLY businesses that should be designated as "gun free zones" are those willing to provide well-trained armed guards, as well as metal detectors at ALL entrances to ensure that everyone is unarmed, not just the law-abiding citizens.

There should be ZERO gun free zones, indoors or out, where my safety is not guaranteed against violence from someone else with a firearm. Period.

--Bionic - Tapatalk 2--

[knkali]

great question for business in sates that allow ccw but post gun free. The legal question is what is standard and reasonable. In general, as of yet, it is not reasonable or standard practice to have armed guards or metal detectors in most business situations so while the business askes that you do not protect yourself, the business is not held to do anything different than what is normal or reasonable. Finally, since most business is not run by the gov(yet) and privately owned, they can refuse the right to serve you for "almost" any reason--no shirt no shoes no service kind of thing. Finally, some would argue that ccw holders does not make a situation safer. While most here would not accept that, many would ask for statistical proff of the contrary and then manipulate the data to serve their agenda. In short, I would like to see courts hear these types of cases just to raise public awareness but the reality is that they never would make it that far.

[Armybrat]

Businesses are always afraid of being sued if a patron or employee uses a gun to defend themselves against a criminal in or on their premises.

But apparently they are not afraid of being sued by a patron or employee who are shot/stabbed/assaulted on said premises by a criminal because there is no security.

Somebody needs to shake sense into those clueless business owners.

[knkali]

Businesses are always afraid of being sued if a patron or employee uses a gun to defend themselves against a criminal in or on their premises.

But apparently they are not afraid of being sued by a patron or employee who are shot/stabbed/assaulted on said premises by a criminal because there is no security.

Somebody needs to shake sense into those clueless business owners.

Well if you pose the options as you did, then the business owner will never allow guns. Think about it like this:
If the owner says no guns and there is a problem and a ccw kills/hurts innocents, he is covered(?). If he is not under any obligation to change security after banning guns from his establishment then it is a no brainer. He has all to lose from active ccw holders in his business. What has to happen to motivate a business that banns guns is that thery are held to a higher degree of security than if they did not ban guns. Clearly, this will never happen.

[knkali]

In my opinion, the ONLY businesses that should be designated as "gun free zones" are those willing to provide well-trained armed guards, as well as metal detectors at ALL entrances to ensure that everyone is unarmed, not just the law-abiding citizens.

There should be ZERO gun free zones, indoors or out, where my safety is not guaranteed against violence from someone else with a firearm. Period.

--Bionic - Tapatalk 2--
the small business is under enough pressure in this country. You want them to absorb the costs of security if they ban guns and they ban guns to limit their liability from being sued. In short, he cant win. I think what you want is a change in the legal climate that doesnt put the buisness owner in the middle. IOWs if you carry and shoot someone at a place of business, you alone are responsible for everything and the business owner is exempt from liability unless directly or indirectly contributes to the shooting. I think this really is the defacto law already but the owner has to pay to defend himself through increased liability policy premiums or $ outright. I do believe that from a $ angle, a business owner puts up a sign because he has all to gain and nothing to lose doing so. Yes, patrons finding another place that is gun friendly to do business is a loss but I dont think it is severe enough of a loss to thrawt these "no guns" signs .

[Bawanna]

Anyone but me seeing a common denominator here?



Lawyers..............

[knkali]

Anyone but me seeing a common denominator here?



Lawyers..............

No judges that are willing to hear BS and an insurance industry that funds this circus and is looking to be made whole by anybody so no loss is realized.. WHile everyone hates lawyers, they sure like em when they need em. The problem is with a system that allows a dragnet that pulls everyone, no matter how remote, to be sued.

[Bawanna]

You had to be a lawyer to become a judge. Vicious circle.

No common sense and greed. Bad combination.

[downtownv]

This lil potatoe is getting to hot to handle...

[muggsy]

If a business wants to post a gun free zone sign they are free to do so, as long as they understand that I am free not do business with them for doing so. I see that as a fair trade off. No lawyers necessary.

[Captain Crunch]

Muggsy- good post. We are free to walk, let our $$ talk

[mr surveyor]

In Texas, only about 2 to 2-1/2% of the population has concealed handgun license. Not hardly enough to "damage" the business of the anti-gun crowd. But... we're working on those numbers :)

[jlottmc]

Just had a class that was Chris Kyle's baby, with the Chief of Dalworthington Gardens' PD. The official count that I just saw was 745. All free for teachers and staff.