Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumShould 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.
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:
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.
We have police for that purpose.
And by prohibiting guns they are doing more to protect their customers than by allowing them IMHO.
elleng
(130,126 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)not that they failed to engage the shooter in a firefight:
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)Oh, wait... no, they weren't.
How does that work again?
elleng
(130,126 posts)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)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?
That assumption is already built in to the businesses' strategy to protect themselves; that is part of the existing reality.
Missycim
(950 posts)be sued if they don't.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)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)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)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)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)Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)
If you allow potential murderers into your establishment you shoud be required to provide protection for everyone else.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Berserker
(3,419 posts)and I can assure you your post is the pinnacle of stupidity. You should get an award for it.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)to the public at large.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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)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.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It happens all the time in war zones.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)No one disputes that children can be hurt by adults with guns.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Good little NRA echoes that you are.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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)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.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)Frankly, IMHO, you just don't seem stable or logical enough to safely carry a concealed weapon.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)meh. not worth a hide.
ileus
(15,396 posts)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)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)of "criminals", "home invaders," and whatnot. I have no need for fear I have a CCW.
msongs
(67,193 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)not
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)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)I strongly disagree with the idea that CCW in a store has anything to do with being "frightened":
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)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)How about the seller of the gun?
How about the bullet manufacturer?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)saying "No Guns Allowed"?
I didn't see that in the write-up.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)But the issue we were discussing was the fine job the police did protecting those people:
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
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)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)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)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)As to how far the issue can be pushed, that is the up to lawyers, legislators and other lower life formsI 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)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)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)what liability has the owner? my response is NO guns. no liability.
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 liea false claim that patrons were injured and killed by gunfire.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)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)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
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Fact is you have no constitutional right to being safe.
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)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)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)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)Should that title line be reversed? Businesses that permit carrying, should they worry about mass shooting on their premises?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Is it because of all of the documented cases of CCW mass shootings?
brush
(53,467 posts)petronius
(26,580 posts)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...
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)they shouldn't be requited to provide security.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)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.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)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)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)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,