Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Legal responsibilities with no carry signs? (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/legal-responsibilities-no-carry-signs-27584/)

MattMac27 05-26-2010 07:10 PM

Legal responsibilities with no carry signs?
 
I have always wondered if there are any legal responsibilities or obligations that a private citizen or public business takes on when they post a no concealed carry sign? It would seem to me that by honoring their wishes and not carrying a firearm for personal protection that they are assuming the role of ensuring your safety. Is this accurate? If so, do the businesses that post these signs truly have any idea the liability they are bearing for all of their customers?

dunerunner 05-26-2010 07:14 PM

It would seem that way to me, also. I also feel that any State, City or County that denies an individual the right to self defense assumes that responsibility as well. But, I'm not a lawyer......my parents were married! :D

NGIB 05-26-2010 07:22 PM

I'd say the answer is no as the Supreme Court has found (more than once) that the police are under no duty to protect you. Signs currently have no legal weight in GA, if however you are asked to leave you must - or be guilty of criminal trespass...

doctherock 05-26-2010 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGIB (Post 290737)
I'd say the answer is no as the Supreme Court has found (more than once) that the police are under no duty to protect you. Signs currently have no legal weight in GA, if however you are asked to leave you must - or be guilty of criminal trespass...

If the gun is properly concealed the business owner or restaurant should be none the wiser. I don't let people know I'm packing because its none of their business.

bkt 05-26-2010 08:13 PM

This is a really good question.

On the one hand, if you don't like the policy, don't set foot on "no weapons zone" property.

On the other hand, what if that's where you work and virtually every employer in your area has a similar policy?

That would seem to be a factor that might require employers, doctors' offices, etc. to provide security if there is no alternative for people to choose.

I guess, when in doubt, side with the rights of the property owner. If every employer and every doctor, dentist, etc. won't let you in the door carrying, then it's time for you to move. Still, it's a really interesting question.

robocop10mm 05-26-2010 08:54 PM

I know of no case where the owner/operator of an establishment was found liable for the injuries to it's customers unless there was obvious negligence on their part. Due to the current liberal undercurrent in most courts, I find it unlikely you would win a case if you were injured/killed while on someone's property when that injury was caused by a third party unassociated with the establishment.

ie; a robber comes in while you are there and you get shot by him. You could argue they contributed to the injury by not allowing you to defend yourself, but they will counter they had no way of knowing some random scum bag would come in, rob the place and start shooting. If they had recurring problems or if their employee just "went off" USPS style, you might have a case. I am sure it will be an uphill battle that most attorneys would be reluctant to undertake on a contingency basis.

dunerunner 05-26-2010 10:23 PM

But, wait! If I put in a swimming pool and a neighbor kid climbs my fence and drowns....The pool is considered to be an attractive nuisance and I as the home owner am responsible for insuring proper fencing, signage and safety equipment is available. If a kid climbs my fence while I am on vacation and is injured or drowns, I'm liable.

I contend that a gun free zone is an attractive nuisance to criminals as it represents an easy or soft target. I further contend that that business, City, County or State is therefore responsible for my safety, should they elect to deny me the right to protect myself.

I would love to argue this in court. But then I would have to go back in time and see to it that my parents never married.

c3shooter 05-27-2010 12:38 AM

Runner- IF you have your pool properly fenced, the claimant can go pound sand. Having an attractive nuisance (used to have a redhead secretary like that) increases you duty to protect- it does not remove defenses against a claim of negligence.

IANAL, but I DO work in the arena of liabilities.

Have seen one case that held a property owner liable for criminal acts on the property- It was the Lake Wright Motel in Norfolk VA, several years back. REPEATED attacks on guests, and no action taken to improve security. Have not seen a "disarmed and helpless" case tried.

bkt 05-27-2010 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robocop10mm (Post 290786)
I know of no case where the owner/operator of an establishment was found liable for the injuries to it's customers unless there was obvious negligence on their part.

Neither do I. But I also don't know of a situation where law-abiding people who carry just start shooting for no good reason.

If an office building is in a bad part of town and the owner of that property deliberately requires the people on his property to be disarmed, could that be construed as negligence? (I'm playing devil's advocate. Maybe this could work in court, maybe it couldn't.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by robocop10mm (Post 290786)
Due to the current liberal undercurrent in most courts, I find it unlikely you would win a case if you were injured/killed while on someone's property when that injury was caused by a third party unassociated with the establishment.

Agreed.

What's funny is if you get hurt on someone's property...trip over a rake on a lawn, slip on ice on the sidewalk out front, etc. people have successfully sued the private property owner. At least that's how it works here in the land of absurd litigation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robocop10mm (Post 290786)
ie; a robber comes in while you are there and you get shot by him. You could argue they contributed to the injury by not allowing you to defend yourself, but they will counter they had no way of knowing some random scum bag would come in, rob the place and start shooting. If they had recurring problems or if their employee just "went off" USPS style, you might have a case. I am sure it will be an uphill battle that most attorneys would be reluctant to undertake on a contingency basis.

Doesn't the "they had no way of knowing some random scum bag would come in" work both ways? They never know when it might happen, so what is the justification for disarming the good guys?

It's screwed up. Yes, private property owners can set any rules they want. It just bugs be when I see the "Weapons Free Zone" sign on my office door every morning because it is so illogical. It panders to people who "feel" more than "think" and actually puts people in harm's way.

(Where I work, there was a shooting a few years back where a guy (not sure if he was an employee or not) entered a credit union office. One guy died and another was injured. They never caught the criminal.)

Yunus 05-27-2010 11:18 AM

What if we flip this situation. Let's say a property owner does not have a sign restricting CC. One day an accidental discharge takes place and someone is injured. Should the property owner be liable for NOT putting a sign up restricting firearms?

Personally I think in both cases you enter private property and there is no sign, you assume a risk that someone might be carrying and there are risks involved with that, the opposite is also true, you enter private property with a sign restricting and you assume the risks involved and there are risks with that as well.

But the courts and I take a different view on many subjects. I also think that if you climb my fence to jump into my pool and get injured, you should be charged with trespassing and be forced to pay for some pool chemicals for me since you messed with the PH when you got in.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.