NO-GUN's sign = Corporate liability ?

[ClarenceBoddicker]

Not every anti-gun corporation advertises that they are actively supporting the gun grabbers in the US.

What is so hypocritical is how so many gun owners on here happily give anti-gun corporations their own hard earned money. Hollywood is a prime example. They are fully anti-gun, yet use guns to sell their trash & so many gun owners lap it up. How many gun owners on here are actively boycotting Hollywood? I have not supported Hollywood since the early 1990's. I have not stepped foot in a theater, bought a movie from a retail store, paid to download, paid for cable or satellite or rented a movie since then. My money is not going to support SAG & all that Hollywood trash.

When I have the choice I will buy from a company that supports the 2A, even if it costs me more. I try to buy used or tax free as much as possible to not fund governments.

I for one don't understand why so many people in here are in love with large corporations, most of whom are anti-gun. Even the ones are are not actively anti-gun still push PC crap which is anti-gun in itself. Most large corporations are also anti-American as they ship US jobs overseas. They bribe politicians to give them trade & tax advantages so they can profit at the expense of working class Americans. Do the millions corporations spend on ads really brainwash people that well?

[Fundamentals]

Do the millions corporations spend on ads really brainwash people that well?

Osmosis. You know how a commercial or radio ad comes on, and when you hear it enough, you know it, even though you never paid attention to it? That.

People tend to raise their intelligence when they skip such dribble and use that passive brainpower for something good, like listening to gun shots enough to determine what each individual one sounds like.

[DonFerrando]

Not so.

Wisconsin's fairly recent concealed carry laws have a clause that states that business owners may not be held liable for damages resulting from an attack if they allow firearms on their premises. If on the other hand they refuse to allow concealed firearms they may be held liable for disarming victims at their location.

Why don't politicians here think that far? Frustrating...

[ja308]

Why don't politicians here think that far? Frustrating...

Check out which party controlls the entire Cali state govt

BTW it took republican governor Scott walker election to get the CCW.
Former democratic governor Diamond Jim Doyle vetoed and twisted arms NOT to sign CCW

[Scott Connors]

It would seems to me that if a merchant denies a patron the right to defend them-self then there is an implication that the merchant is taking over that responsibility. Then if the patron is injured in the establishment during a crime, he might sue saying that since he was denied the ability to self defense the merchant is responsible.

I am not a lawyer but the reasoning makes sense to me.

IIRC, there was a law journal article discussing the potential liability that businesses incurred when they posted "No Weapons, even legal ones" signs. The argument was that, by denying their customers the ability to defend themselves from attack, the business was assuming the responsibility to protect them, and the accompanying liability.

Does this ring a bell with any of our Solons? Also, are there are decisions that state explicitly that declaring your business a gun-free zone (ie, safe work environment for scumbags) does not incur such liability?

[GettoPhilosopher]

Recently I visted a tavern in wisconsin that had previously had a No weapons sign on the door .
I asked the bartender if the criminal's were not deterred by the sign and if that's why it was no longer displayed ?

He replied that if any one was victimsed with the no weapons sign on the door , he would be personally liable for any consequences.

Anyone else know anything about this doctrine?

It has to do with Wisconsin's laws specifically.

http://gazettextra.com/news/2011/nov/03/businesses-liability-issue-when-considering-whethe/

[thebronze]

No, if it's their property, they reserve the right to refuse firearms, and they would not be "liable". Still a stupid thing, so keep the sign down.

Oh really? How do you figure?



Answer: OF COURSE they'd be liable.

[choprzrul]

No guns allowed signs = Enter at your own risk.

No guns allowed signs = Store assuming responsibility for your personal security.

.

[dantodd]

I have always been of the opinion that stores, malls, restaurants etc. are not really "private property" for the purpose of the exercise of civil rights. They are really considered "public places" for many purposes. For example you cannot smoke in any public building in CA regardless of how the owner of the building feels about it. Also no such business could refuse to serve patrons because of their race. These types of places are obviously different from someone's home and should not have the option of banning the lawful carry of firearms.

I think the term you are looking for is "public accommodation." There is certainly the argument that someone exercising their 2A right by lawfully carrying a gun can no more be denied service than someone exercising their 1A right by wearing a Rosary. Or someone exercising their 1A rights by carrying a book in their backpack.

[snowdog650]

No, if it's their property, they reserve the right to refuse firearms, and they would not be "liable". Still a stupid thing, so keep the sign down.

No. You are wrong. I am from Wisconsin originally, and my CCW-carrying brother still lives there.

Wisconsin state law says that if a business prohibits weapons ... and there is an incident in which a CCW licencee is not permitted to carry and they are injured/killed in that business ... and it can be articulated that licencee would have had a better chance to go uninjured or not get killed had they been able to carry ... then the business is laible for the damages to the said CCW licencee.

The way it should be.

[snowdog650]

Not so.

Wisconsin's fairly recent concealed carry laws have a clause that states that business owners may not be held liable for damages resulting from an attack if they allow firearms on their premises. If on the other hand they refuse to allow concealed firearms they may be held liable for disarming victims at their location.

Or ... ^^^^ ... what he said.

[Connor P Price]

It'll be interesting to see if the Aurora, CO theater massacre will become a test case for this. I believe the theater had no firearms signs posted.

As it stands, not having alarms on or someone monitoring the back doors could be a big liability issue for them.

Colorado doesn't have a statute like Wisconsin's that would create liability for the business. I imagine any lawsuit would have to allege negligence, which is unlikely in this case I'd think. I don't know of any theaters that actively monitor their theaters rear emergency exit doors.

Why don't politicians here think that far? Frustrating...

Not just here. To my knowledge Wisconsin is the only state with a law like this one, its possible that there are others that I'm unaware of but I'd wager that their numbers are quite small if so.

[vincewarde]

No, if it's their property, they reserve the right to refuse firearms, and they would not be "liable". Still a stupid thing, so keep the sign down.

This is an open question that to my knowledge has never been litigated. I believe that it's something we need to fight for.

The reason is simple: If the antis succeed in convincing large number of businesses that a "no guns allowed" sign is the safe way to go - then shall issue or even may issue CCW becomes meaningless. If you can't drive into a parking lot, if you can't enter a store, if you can't stop for gas while carrying - then your CCW isn't worth much.

I believe in private property rights. If I don't want you carrying in my house or yard that's clearly my right - and you can choose not to visit me. Although I would never do so, if I wanted to I could also ban people of a particular race.

If I open a business on my property, things change. For instance I can't ban people in protected groups.

Let me suggest an example: In a small town, the only grocery store and gas station decides to put up a "no guns allowed" sign. There are no other stores for a great distance. A single mother lives in the community and basically has no choice but to patronize this business, at least some of the time of gas and milk for her kids. Her ex has threatened her and she has a restraining order against him, and on advice of law enforcement, she has obtained a CCW. She carries whenever she can, but before going to this store for milk or gas, she disarms. One day her ex confronts her there, the police are called but before they arrive he overpowers and kills her and kidnaps her child. Still think they are on solid ground?

Not only do they have a PR problem, this kind of incident would certainly make a good test case.

[BigDogatPlay]

This is an open question that to my knowledge has never been litigated. I believe that it's something we need to fight for.

We might want to, but in most locales I still believe that private property rights will trump.

The Wisconsin statute is, as I understand it, somewhat unique in attaching the potential of liability to a business / property owner who refuses to allow carry on their premise in the event of injury to an LTC patron barred by the property owner's policy. I absolutely expect that to be litigated at some point down the road, should an incident happen that falls in the criteria defined by the statute. I fear that portion of the statute might not stand.

As a business owner you have a right to refuse service in your store, office, etc. A "place of public accommodation" is a somewhat different story, although (as I understand it) the refusal of service in such a place just may not be based on race, gender, orientation, religion, etc. Service can still be refused in some instances.

LTC is, in the majority of states, a licensed activity, not a true right in the narrowest definition. A business / property owner who excludes licensed carry is not (IMO) interfering with a right under the law as it currently exists.

[kcbrown]

We live in litigious times.A business with a "no guns" sign can tell the tort lawyers 'hey,we banned guns on the premesis,so that business with Jim Criminal shooting the place up ain't our bad.Go sue him.'

He can. And the tort lawyers can retort by saying that in placing the sign, the business advertised its customers' defenselessness, and thereby exposed their customers to increased risk of attack from any predator looking for easy prey..