Legal responsibilities with no carry signs?
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Legal responsibilities with no carry signs?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2010, 07:10 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1
Default 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?

__________________
MattMac27 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 05-26-2010, 07:14 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dunerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florence, Oregon
Posts: 8,481
Liked 31 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

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!

__________________

People get the government they deserve.


Last edited by dunerunner; 05-26-2010 at 10:09 PM. Reason: Sold an "e" back to the keyboard bank
dunerunner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 07:22 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,152
Liked 22 Times on 7 Posts

Default

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...

__________________
NGIB is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 07:25 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
doctherock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rainy sh!thole,Oregon
Posts: 5,148
Liked 11 Times on 10 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGIB View Post
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.
__________________

DON'T BUY DELL!!!!!

BEWARE!!! The toes you step on today may be connected to the ass you kiss tomorrow.

PM Tango about his upcoming SHARTFOO courses.

doctherock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 08:13 PM   #5
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

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.

__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 08:54 PM   #6
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 10,104
Liked 2767 Times on 1446 Posts
Likes Given: 241

Default

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.

__________________

In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball

robocop10mm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 10:23 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dunerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florence, Oregon
Posts: 8,481
Liked 31 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

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.

__________________

People get the government they deserve.

dunerunner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 12:38 AM   #8
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 16,759
Liked 8928 Times on 3868 Posts
Likes Given: 1398

Default

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.

__________________

What we have here is... failure- to communicate.

c3shooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 09:36 AM   #9
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop10mm View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.)
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 11:18 AM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,830
Liked 1123 Times on 665 Posts
Likes Given: 349

Default

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.

__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Montana Governor Signs Revolutionary New Gun Law cpttango30 Politics, Religion and Controversy 21 06-15-2009 01:18 AM
shooting road signs dragunovsks Training & Safety 30 04-30-2009 05:27 PM
Response to No Guns Allowed signs.... Jay Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 26 02-23-2009 10:47 PM
How soon after Obama signs the new ban will it go into effect Hawkeye1959 Politics, Religion and Controversy 23 01-14-2009 08:41 PM
Nutter defiantly signs five gun laws sculker The Club House 4 04-12-2008 04:41 PM



Newest Threads