Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:50 PM Sep 2012

Should businesses that forbid the carrying of guns have any responsibility to protect patrons?

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:23 PM - Edit history (2)

Businesses that forbid people carrying arms to protect themselves typically take no additional efforts to protect their patrons. This is because the policy is not actually intended to protect the patrons, but the business. Apparently businesses have thought that if they didn't forbid guns, they could be sued by victims of gun violence or accidents, but if they put up a "no guns" sign that would protect the true object of their concern--themselves.

That legal assumption is about to be tested, and it's about time.

Two lawsuits were filed Friday in U.S. District Court on behalf of Denise Traynom, Brandon Axelrod and Joshua Nowlan. Their attorney, former Denver judge Christina Habas, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Cinemark USA Inc. had no immediate comment.

James Holmes, 24, is accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 others during a special midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises."

Prosecutors allege the former University of Colorado, Denver, graduate student left the theater through a back exit, propped open the exit door and re-entered the theater to begin the shooting. The lawsuits claim Holmes was able to move his car into position after he left the theater through the back exit.

In addition to failing to have alarmed exit doors, the lawsuits claim Cinemark was negligent in failing to hire extra security for the midnight showing or generally protect patrons who were sitting in a darkened theater. They also say Cinemark failed to help evacuate the theater even after the shooting ended. The lights were either off or very low even after the gunfire stopped, according to the lawsuit.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/22/aurora-shooting-theater-set-to-reopen-in-2013/?test=latestnews


What do you think? Should a "no guns allowed" sign absolve a business of all responsibility, or should it make the business responsible to protect its unarmed patrons?

Edited to add: a business having responsibility for patrons it has required to be disarmed does not necessarily imply that the business must hire armed guards. There are many other measures that could also be taken. For instance, in this case the victims are complaining that simple precautions could have prevented this crime:

Prosecutors allege the former University of Colorado, Denver, graduate student left the theater through a back exit, propped open the exit door and re-entered the theater to begin the shooting. The lawsuits claim Holmes was able to move his car into position after he left the theater through the back exit.

In addition to failing to have alarmed exit doors, the lawsuits claim Cinemark was negligent in failing to hire extra security {note that there is no hint of a requirement that this extra security be armed--TPaine7} for the midnight showing or generally protect patrons who were sitting in a darkened theater. They also say Cinemark failed to help evacuate the theater even after the shooting ended. The lights were either off or very low even after the gunfire stopped, according to the lawsuit.


A business that forbids its patrons to be armed on its premises can take reasonable precautions short of armed security; it will be up to the courts to decide what level of effort will get them off the legal hook.
71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should businesses that forbid the carrying of guns have any responsibility to protect patrons? (Original Post) TPaine7 Sep 2012 OP
No. tk2kewl Sep 2012 #1
Right. Thanks, tk2kewl. elleng Sep 2012 #3
Actually, if you read the claim, the problem being cited is that they failed to alarm the door, TPaine7 Sep 2012 #5
And the police were there to prevent this... right? PavePusher Sep 2012 #25
No. Foolish premise. elleng Sep 2012 #2
The real foolish premise is that TPaine7 Sep 2012 #7
The Police are under no obligation to protect you and can't Missycim Sep 2012 #16
While LEOs may TRY to "protect the public," it is not their legal charge... Eleanors38 Sep 2012 #20
One more time: It is not the police's responsibility to protect you DonP Sep 2012 #24
"It is the responsibility of law enforcement to protect the public." PavePusher Sep 2012 #26
actually the opposite should be true bowens43 Sep 2012 #4
This is a clownishly silly argument. Anyone who is fooled by it deserves to be. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #10
You forgot the sarcasm tag, right? PavePusher Sep 2012 #28
I carry a concelled weapon Berserker Sep 2012 #34
Open bigotry and accusation of criminal intent. Stay classy, O.K.? n/t PavePusher Sep 2012 #65
We have this public service called "the police" that we pay taxes for that provides this service Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #6
What service is that, exactly? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #8
Then by your logic, everyone who isn't armed is legally responsible for not protecting everyone else MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #11
?????! TPaine7 Sep 2012 #14
I would not rely on that logic in a court of law. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #23
12 year olds w/ guns? Cool straw man, bro. nt rDigital Sep 2012 #37
In a world full of armed adults, a child would be caught in the cross-fire all too often. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #54
What was called into question was 12 yos with guns; that's the strawman. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #64
Sovereign immunity might be an issue. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #38
exactly!! ~nt 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #31
You people really won't stop until EVERYONE is FORCED to be armed, will you? MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #9
You simply shoehorn your pre-existing beliefs into whatever you read that isn't anti-gun, don't you? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #15
"You people..." Eleanors38 Sep 2012 #21
Citation to your Strawman(tm), please? n/t PavePusher Sep 2012 #32
Not true. We don't want criminals, the young, the mentally unstable or "you people" to be armed DonP Sep 2012 #40
you will not stop until you diss every group on du. good little.... seabeyond Sep 2012 #51
It's all about making lawyers happy... ileus Sep 2012 #12
absolutely not.... mike_c Sep 2012 #13
I don't walk in constant fear Berserker Sep 2012 #36
therefore all gun owners should be repsonsible for all gun crime then nt msongs Sep 2012 #17
you're funny discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #53
Not at all. It's the business owner's freedom, and the customers' choice. Glaug-Eldare Sep 2012 #18
Ok, I respect most of that view. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #19
Fair enough, that was a bit hyperbolic Glaug-Eldare Sep 2012 #22
Should the gun manufacturer be liable? Arctic Dave Sep 2012 #27
I think that's why we have Police and Security Guards, no? ~nt 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #29
And they did a wonderful job in this case, no? No one was hurt. Oh, wait... n/t TPaine7 Sep 2012 #39
Where does it say that the Cinemark theater in question had a sign? 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #50
It didn't that I noticed. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #57
So the "problem" is merely an imaginary one. 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #61
No it is clearly the policy of Cinemark to forbid concealed guns (or any guns) at their theaters. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #62
Snipers posted at the football stadium? JohnnyRingo Sep 2012 #30
The people bringing suit in the OPs case had a few simple issues. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #42
Forbidding guns IS protecting their patrons! I will never let a gun into my business. robinlynne Sep 2012 #33
Really? So the suing people weren't actually hurt and no one was killed? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #41
no diea what you are talking about. the question is: Should guns be allowed in businesses. If not, robinlynne Sep 2012 #43
... TPaine7 Sep 2012 #44
the problme in thsat case was a LACK OF GUN CONTROL in this country! That is why people were killed robinlynne Sep 2012 #49
But,... but... they had the protective sign! Aren't signs a form of gun control? n/t TPaine7 Sep 2012 #59
Yes I do Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #35
People who don't disarm the NRA should all be blamed for any gun killing graham4anything Sep 2012 #45
Which Constitutional right is that, now? n/t Glaug-Eldare Sep 2012 #46
Perhaps you would like to cite that right? glacierbay Sep 2012 #55
No quakerboy Sep 2012 #47
Does the same apply in the reverse case--in an establishment that does not forbid carry? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #48
Probably quakerboy Sep 2012 #63
Reverse brush Sep 2012 #52
Why would they worry? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #58
Exactamondo brush Sep 2012 #66
I say "No" in both directions - a private property owner should be able to bar petronius Sep 2012 #56
Good points, especially Starbucks. Thanks. n/t TPaine7 Sep 2012 #60
If you're not required to be there rrneck Sep 2012 #67
It is not the business owner's responsibility to protect patrons from crazies. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #68
Well Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #70
Not sure what you mean by disarm. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #71
NO!!! None At All. DWC Sep 2012 #69
 

tk2kewl

(18,133 posts)
1. No.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:52 PM
Sep 2012

We have police for that purpose.

And by prohibiting guns they are doing more to protect their customers than by allowing them IMHO.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
5. Actually, if you read the claim, the problem being cited is that they failed to alarm the door,
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:59 PM
Sep 2012

not that they failed to engage the shooter in a firefight:

Prosecutors allege the former University of Colorado, Denver, graduate student left the theater through a back exit, propped open the exit door and re-entered the theater to begin the shooting. The lawsuits claim Holmes was able to move his car into position after he left the theater through the back exit.


Police do not install alarms, install metal detectors, install bulletproof glass or take many other defensive, non-law enforcement measures. Those should fall on the business if they fall on anyone. Only the business owner has the right to take those measures.
 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
25. And the police were there to prevent this... right?
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:20 PM
Sep 2012

Oh, wait... no, they weren't.

How does that work again?

elleng

(130,126 posts)
2. No. Foolish premise.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:54 PM
Sep 2012

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Conversely, should a business that allows guns be responsible if a gun-carrying patron injures/kills someone, when either purposely or erroneously the gun goes off?

It is the responsibility of law enforcement to protect the public.

EDIT: ONE example- 'This employee is responsible for protection of the life and property of the citizens of the city.'

http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/Knowledgebase.nsf/0/3EACCCF37750469C85256C40004FB755

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
7. The real foolish premise is that
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:04 PM
Sep 2012

it is the responsibility of law enforcement to protect the public.

Ask yourself a question. If you fail in your responsibilities, are there not consequences? What are the consequences for law enforcement who so obviously failed to protect the public in this case? Do you believe in responsibility with no consequences for failure?

Conversely, should a business that allows guns be responsible if a gun-carrying patron injures/kills someone, when either purposely or erroneously the gun goes off?


That assumption is already built in to the businesses' strategy to protect themselves; that is part of the existing reality.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
20. While LEOs may TRY to "protect the public," it is not their legal charge...
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:05 PM
Sep 2012

Police are charged with investigating crimes, apprehending suspects and holding them, and presenting their findings before a state's attorney/grand jury. They cannot be held liable for "protecting the public."

The hard fact many controller/prohibitionists refuse to recognize is LEOs can do very little to protect the public crimes, though some success can be had by thwarting crime with more patrols, neighborhood watches, keeping tabs of known repeat-offenders, etc. But once the crime goes down, you are on your own in nearly every instance, despite the police's best efforts.

I do lean toward not holding a business responsible for banning concealed-carry in their business until I see more argument.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
24. One more time: It is not the police's responsibility to protect you
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:19 PM
Sep 2012

There's a shitload of case law including Castle Rock v. Gonzalez et. al., up to and including several SCOTUS decisions over the last 20+ years affirming that, unless you are in police custody, they have no legal responsibility to protect you and are in no way responsible for your safety.

That's your job, handle it as you will, since you are obviously so much smarter than the rest of us.

Moral obligation for the cops, maybe? But you can't sue them for not protecting you. That's why when some irate ex ignores a restraining order and kills his ex, the cops only investigate and arrest, after the fact.

But you go on and keep thinking they'll be there when you need them.

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
26. "It is the responsibility of law enforcement to protect the public."
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:23 PM
Sep 2012

So, how should they be held responsible when they fail to do so? What penalties should they suffer? Fines? Demotion? Flogging? Hanging? Firing?




 

bowens43

(16,064 posts)
4. actually the opposite should be true
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:56 PM
Sep 2012

if a business owner is stupid enough to allow customers to carry weapons he should be required to have armed guards to protect the decent citizens who are not armed. Anyone who is carrying a concealed weapon does it for reason and one reason only , he intends to kill someone.

If you allow potential murderers into your establishment you shoud be required to provide protection for everyone else.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
10. This is a clownishly silly argument. Anyone who is fooled by it deserves to be.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:09 PM
Sep 2012

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)

...Anyone who is carrying a concealed weapon does it for reason and one reason only , he intends to kill someone.

If you allow potential murderers into your establishment you shoud be required to provide protection for everyone else.
 

Berserker

(3,419 posts)
34. I carry a concelled weapon
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:52 PM
Sep 2012

and I can assure you your post is the pinnacle of stupidity. You should get an award for it.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
6. We have this public service called "the police" that we pay taxes for that provides this service
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:59 PM
Sep 2012

to the public at large.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
8. What service is that, exactly?
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:07 PM
Sep 2012

It is certainly not the service of protecting those moviegoers.

The service they usually provide in the world I live in is investigation of crimes after the fact and attempting to apprehend offenders. If you rely on police to stop someone from hurting on killing you, I wish you good luck.

 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
11. Then by your logic, everyone who isn't armed is legally responsible for not protecting everyone else
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:09 PM
Sep 2012
 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
14. ?????!
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:14 PM
Sep 2012

I don't see how that is remotely related to my logic.

If a business requires you to be disarmed, it seems reasonable that it should accept some responsibility for your safety. The fact that it requires you to be disarmed is central. If it does not require you to be disarmed, your defense is your own affair.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
23. I would not rely on that logic in a court of law.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:48 PM
Sep 2012

Do you think that 12-year-olds should carry guns into movie theaters just in case they need to defend themselves? What about very elderly people? What about people who cannot shoot guns due to a physical disability? That interpretation of liability could not work.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
54. In a world full of armed adults, a child would be caught in the cross-fire all too often.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:47 PM
Sep 2012

It happens all the time in war zones.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
64. What was called into question was 12 yos with guns; that's the strawman.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:16 PM
Sep 2012

No one disputes that children can be hurt by adults with guns.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
38. Sovereign immunity might be an issue.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:15 PM
Sep 2012

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:25 PM - Edit history (1)

You see, it's not the theater that requires that the 12 year old be disarmed, but the government. They shouldn't be able to sue the theater because of a law the theater can't control. The same applies to other legally disqualified persons, like the mentally incompetent and felons, for instance.

Nice straw man.

 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
9. You people really won't stop until EVERYONE is FORCED to be armed, will you?
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:08 PM
Sep 2012

Good little NRA echoes that you are.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
15. You simply shoehorn your pre-existing beliefs into whatever you read that isn't anti-gun, don't you?
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:18 PM
Sep 2012

A more accurate assessment would be that you are a little Brady/VPC echo, complete with the misrepresentations.

There is nothing in the OP about "EVERYONE" being armed, or even about theaters having armed guards. There is nothing in the OP about anyone being "FORCED" to be armed.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
21. "You people..."
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:13 PM
Sep 2012

Actually, the NICS test was supported by the NRA (of which I am not a member), and is designed to keep convicted felons and adjudicated mental incompetents from purchasing firearms from FFL dealers. So, no, "[We] people" don't support EVERYONE owning a firearm, nor do we wish to FORCE anyone to be armed.

And we are not "little" in the sense I'm sure you meant.

For your edification, you may experience soon a sign posted at your local business, saying: "NOTICE. Legally-armed patrons and personnel may be on the premises." That would clear up a lot of confusion about responsibility and liability.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
40. Not true. We don't want criminals, the young, the mentally unstable or "you people" to be armed
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:20 PM
Sep 2012

Frankly, IMHO, you just don't seem stable or logical enough to safely carry a concealed weapon.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
12. It's all about making lawyers happy...
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:11 PM
Sep 2012

Most all gun control is an attempt to make people feel better.

Removing rights isn't a very progressive policy.

mike_c

(36,213 posts)
13. absolutely not....
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:14 PM
Sep 2012

I don't walk in constant fear of "criminals", "home invaders," and whatnot. I have no need for protection in the businesses I patronize.

 

Berserker

(3,419 posts)
36. I don't walk in constant fear
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:00 PM
Sep 2012

of "criminals", "home invaders," and whatnot. I have no need for fear I have a CCW.

Glaug-Eldare

(1,089 posts)
18. Not at all. It's the business owner's freedom, and the customers' choice.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:44 PM
Sep 2012

I'm in favor of carry rights, but my carry rights end where property rights begin. Constitutional rights apply where the government is concerned, not private entities. If I start handing out political literature in a coffee shop, they can stop my speech and boot me out. If I refuse to consent to a search of my person and things, a football stadium can refuse me entry. If I'm carrying a gun, a bookstore can turn me away.

As for the argument that "it's their fault if you can't defend yourself and get hurt" I don't believe that for a second. If a criminal attacks the store, it is the criminal's fault. Period. If somebody's that frightened of not being able to shoot their way out of Bennigan's or something, they probably shouldn't go there.

To that end, I would apply that argument to government buildings. If I'm disarmed at a courthouse or police station, I should be trading my right to bear arms for protection and liability.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
19. Ok, I respect most of that view.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:03 PM
Sep 2012

I strongly disagree with the idea that CCW in a store has anything to do with being "frightened":

If somebody's that frightened of not being able to shoot their way out of Bennigan's or something, they probably shouldn't go there.


If a CCW permittee leaves the weapon behind because of a "no gun sign", she is obviously NOT too frightened to do so. But if an injured patron could sue if the store failed to put up the sign, why shouldn't an injured patron be able to sue because she was unarmed when they did put up the sign?

I think the reason businesses put up those signs, especially huge corporate entities like theaters, is that they fear lawsuits. Why is it less legitimate to sue in one case than the other?

What do you think? If a business fails to put up a no guns sign and a patron gets shot, should the business be liable?

Glaug-Eldare

(1,089 posts)
22. Fair enough, that was a bit hyperbolic
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:21 PM
Sep 2012

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:25 PM - Edit history (2)

Whether to go to a gun-free business is a choice that each customer must make for themselves, and you're right, it's hardly fear of being attacked that makes that decision. As for getting hurt in a gun-permissive business, I've got to take the same tack. In either case, the store should not be liable for the actions of a criminal. Their responsibility is to avoid creating an unsafe situation. If the presence of armed citizens were an unsafe condition, per se, it'd make no sense for the government to issue carry permits in the first place.

 

Arctic Dave

(13,812 posts)
27. Should the gun manufacturer be liable?
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:23 PM
Sep 2012

How about the seller of the gun?

How about the bullet manufacturer?

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
50. Where does it say that the Cinemark theater in question had a sign?
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:25 PM
Sep 2012

saying "No Guns Allowed"?

I didn't see that in the write-up.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
57. It didn't that I noticed.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:26 PM
Sep 2012

But the issue we were discussing was the fine job the police did protecting those people:

99th_Monkey (5,411 posts)
29. I think that's why we have Police and Security Guards, no? ~nt


TPaine7 (3,810 posts)
39. And they did a wonderful job in this case, no? No one was hurt. Oh, wait... n/t

99th_Monkey (5,411 posts)
50. Where does it say that the Cinemark theater in question had a sign?

View profile
saying "No Guns Allowed"?

I didn't see that in the write-up.


One of those posts is not like the others, subject wise.




Hint: it's the third one--unless, of course, you were saying that "we have Police and Security Guards" for the signs.
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
61. So the "problem" is merely an imaginary one.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:39 PM
Sep 2012

Unless you got a link to a real situation like the one you imagine, actually happening.
From your OP it seemed you were positing a situation where there WAS such a sign.

So I think this incident WAS indeed a wake up call for movie theaters everywhere, to
beef up security a bit, and take several new preventative precautions.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
62. No it is clearly the policy of Cinemark to forbid concealed guns (or any guns) at their theaters.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:56 PM
Sep 2012

Now I can't prove to you that the policy was enforced by a sign at that particular theater on that particular night, but there are defiinitely pictures from some of their other theaters online (google "Cinemark gun sign" and look for images).

(It might have been hard to get a picture of the sign from that particular theater in the days after the shooting, as it was a crime scene.)

And the subject we were discussing was still the fine job the police did protecting the victims; no, I haven't forgotten.

JohnnyRingo

(18,580 posts)
30. Snipers posted at the football stadium?
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:27 PM
Sep 2012

How far would this policy of "protection" go? Would WalMart need armed SWAT teams roving the aisles with required pat-downs at the door by the greeter?

I don't want to live in a country that has to do that just because a few paranoid people think they need to carry a hand cannon to go to McDonalds.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
42. The people bringing suit in the OPs case had a few simple issues.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:32 PM
Sep 2012

As to how far the issue can be pushed, that is the up to lawyers, legislators and other lower life forms—I have no clue.

However, I do think that if you can sue because a business didn't forbid legal weapons and you got hurt, you should be able to sue if they forbad them and you got hurt. If we allow one lawsuit, we should allow the other.

robinlynne

(15,481 posts)
33. Forbidding guns IS protecting their patrons! I will never let a gun into my business.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:31 PM
Sep 2012

Once a model came in with a gun. I asked him to go place it in his car while he worked with us.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
41. Really? So the suing people weren't actually hurt and no one was killed?
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:23 PM
Sep 2012

This whole case should be thrown out, then, and the people bringing it should be fined for contempt of court. Isn't bringing suit for a fictitious event a crime?

robinlynne

(15,481 posts)
43. no diea what you are talking about. the question is: Should guns be allowed in businesses. If not,
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:43 PM
Sep 2012

what liability has the owner? my response is NO guns. no liability.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
44. ...
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:48 PM
Sep 2012
Forbidding guns IS protecting their patrons!


1) The theater forbad guns
2) Forbidding guns protects patrons
3) Therefore the patrons were protected

The logical conclusion is that the lawsuit is bring a claim based on a lie—a false claim that patrons were injured and killed by gunfire.

robinlynne

(15,481 posts)
49. the problme in thsat case was a LACK OF GUN CONTROL in this country! That is why people were killed
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:22 PM
Sep 2012
 
35. Yes I do
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:54 PM
Sep 2012

If you disarm me then you should be 100% liable for my protection, full stop. If I get shot or killed because I'm following the law and disarming myself, then you should just hand the keys to your business and home over to me or my next of kin. However the law on Ohio doesn't see it that way. A business owner has legal protection from liability under the Ohio Revised Code if they choose to allow or disallow weapons in their building.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
45. People who don't disarm the NRA should all be blamed for any gun killing
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:59 PM
Sep 2012

guns are weapons of mass destruction with no other reason for being

If I want to go see a movie, my constitutional right is violated by not having the freedom to see the movie without fear some gun nut uses his wmd in the theatre

quakerboy

(13,901 posts)
47. No
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:15 PM
Sep 2012

If you are aware that it is a no cary establishment, and you feel this impares your safety, don't o there. Choose a different business to frequent. You are aware of the situation, and by entering, you choose to accept the implicit risk.

Unless of course you are being forced in at gunpoint. Which would be terribly ironic. But even then, I think your issue is with the entity forcing you to go in, not the establishment that chooses to be a gun free zone.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
48. Does the same apply in the reverse case--in an establishment that does not forbid carry?
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:20 PM
Sep 2012

If so, I have no problem with your position.

My core problem is that it's unfair if only one side of this issue is allowed to sue.

quakerboy

(13,901 posts)
63. Probably
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:15 PM
Sep 2012

Though to fully even it out, I would want those establishments to have it specifically and explicitly posted, same as the disallowed zones. I kinda feel like if it's not, it's a bit of an open issue.

brush

(53,467 posts)
52. Reverse
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:37 PM
Sep 2012

Should that title line be reversed? Businesses that permit carrying, should they worry about mass shooting on their premises?

petronius

(26,580 posts)
56. I say "No" in both directions - a private property owner should be able to bar
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:23 PM
Sep 2012

firearms, and customers are free to accept that restriction or vote with their feet. While I do think there should be legal requirement to provide a safe environment for clients and staff (no active hazards like dangling electrical wires, for example), I don't think businesses should be given responsibility for the deliberate or negligent acts of others (whether they bar or permit firearms within the law).

As far as businesses barring firearms out of fear of lawsuits, I'm a little skeptical simply because didn't Starbucks decide not to have a ban? Just a WAG on my part, but I assume that a corporation like that would have looked closely and determined that the legal risk isn't there. Rather, I think business ban OC/CCW just because they think it's good for their image and they'll gain more clients than they lose, or because they (erroneously) believe legal CCWers are a non-trivial hazard...

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
68. It is not the business owner's responsibility to protect patrons from crazies.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:45 PM
Sep 2012

However, the trick of propping open an exit door is as old as the hills, and from a business angle alone, they should have alarmed all exit doors and have cameras on them.
The responsibility of a business owner should not extend to unpredictable violent acts by others, just because they own the premises.

 
70. Well
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 04:50 PM
Sep 2012

I agree, I'm responsible for my own protection. That is why I carry a firearm. However, if you disarm me I feel you should take responsibility for my protection. If you don't wish to accept that responsibility, then don't disarm me.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
71. Not sure what you mean by disarm.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 06:55 PM
Sep 2012

I think a business owner has the right to disallow firearms on his premises. Nobody is forcing you to enter those premises.

 

DWC

(911 posts)
69. NO!!! None At All.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:38 PM
Sep 2012

If a citizen who is authorized by State law to carry a defensive weapon wants to patronize a non-governmental facility and that facility does not allow firearms on it's premises, then the individual must either:

1. Patronize the facility at his/her own risk without a defensive firearm, or
2. Not patronize the facility until and unless it's "No Guns" policy changes

It is the individual's right and free choice to carry a defensive firearm

It is a business owner's right and free choice to establish the terms and conditions under which he/she will do business

Both are individual rights, not to be infringed. Neither bares any responsibility to the other.

the Free Market, NOT more regulation will sort it out.

Semper Fi,

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Should businesses that fo...