We need to go beyond the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine law

[Paladin]

(This is something I've been thinking about for awhile and today's FOXNews report made me want to get it off of my chest.)

We discussed the most recent state, WI, the 30th to adopt the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine law at:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=508713

IIRC, a recent state that adopted the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine law put an extra twist in theirs, something re. if a business requires patrons to disarm, the business will be held legally liable for their protection. (Not sure if that state was WI or not.)

This "twist" is important because many/most businesses have policies AGAINST employees having weapons at work AND AGAINST employees even intervening against robbers, armed or not.

Here's an example of an employee who got fired because he defended himself against 3 robbers, 1 of whom threatened him w/a handgun:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-friends/index.html#/v/1361293810001/store-clerk-fired-for-defending-himself/?playlist_id=86912?test=faces

So, businesses can bar their employees from protecting you and can also bar you from carrying on their premises to protect yourself -- thus making you TOTALLY and completely vulnerable, without protection if anything bad happens -- and legally get off scott free if anything bad does happen???

I don't recall if that "twist" was added at the NRA's behest, or if it was added because of some pro-RKBA state legislator. But either way, I think it needs to be a part of all new expanded Castle Doctrine legal reforms and, hopefully, will be added to the other 29 states that have the NRA's expanded Model Castle Doctrine law, but don't, I think, have this "twist."

Rant off

[donw]

one thing that never ceases to amaze me, is the fact that 99% of people will respond to a bid for "Self defense" laws will say "Call the police".

they never stop to consider:

can the police be here in time?

and IF, you lived in a rural environment, as i do, "How long will it take for the cops to get here?"

do they know that the courts have ruled: "The police have no duty to protect the individual, the police are for the protection of the masses."

[Left Coast Conservative]

Yes, I believe it was Wisconsin that you are referring to, but it is unclear if business gets off without liability or not. Take this article which is representative of some I have seen:

It is unclear to me the justification of that statement. I have not yet seen or read anything official that confirms that there is a liability risk for those businesses that prohibit concealed weapons. In fact, this is from a Wisconsin criminal legal firm:

Caller: Conversely, if I prohibit concealed carry and someone ends up using the weapon, can i be sued for the use of a weapon?

So long as you as the store owner does nothing negligent, careless, reckless or just plain wrong, she or he couldn't be held liable for the improper actions of gun-toting customers who, unbeknownst to the store owner, carry in & use a concealed handgun to injure or harm others.

So, I just don't know for sure. Does anyone from Wisconsin care to enlighten us?

[monk]

one thing that never ceases to amaze me, is the fact that 99% of people will respond to a bid for "Self defense" laws will say "Call the police".

70% of all statistics are made up on the spot.