Florida’s Gun-Free Businesses May Soon Be Held Liable for Violence on Their Premises

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
What are your thoughts on this? I'm torn. I know that I want to carry everywhere and don't want to ever go somewhere where I can't carry to protect myself and my family, but I also know that always avoiding those places isn't realistic.

I also am for business owner rights though too. I'd want to run my business the way I wanted to without the government telling me what I have to do.


What do you think?





http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444594/gun-free-businesses-liable-violent-crime-florida-law




Florida’s Gun-Free Businesses May Soon Be Held Liable for Violence on Their Premises

by ANDREW F. BRANCA February 3, 2017 2:49 PM @LAWSELFDEFENSE


A new proposal would hold store owners responsible for the mayhem that results when they decide to ban guns on their premises. Can an unarmed customer who is violently injured in a business designated a “gun-free zone,” and who is otherwise licensed to be armed, hold that business liable on the basis of its “no gun” policy? Traditionally , the answer has been no, but a Florida bill is seeking to change that. The fact that “gun-free zone” businesses cannot be held liable under such circumstances seems counterintuitive to many of us who lawfully carry guns for personal protection. After all, we could have defended ourselves from acts of criminal violence in that store were it not for the store’s no-guns policy.

It is certainly true that a customer who disarms in compliance with a store’s ban on guns does so voluntarily: The store is not compelling them to shop there, and they are free to shop at alternative stores without such a policy. Further, the very fact that someone voluntarily disarmed in order to shop in a “gun-free zone” strongly suggests that they themselves did not believe they would face any meaningful threat there. It naturally follows that if they had no reasonable expectation of an attack, the store couldn’t have had one, either. Under traditional legal principles, if harm is not reasonably foreseeable it carries no liability.
Click to expand...
 
In a perfect world I'd like to see extremely low amounts of regulation on what businesses and property owners do.

But in this imperfect world, I'll support a law that attempts to put pressure on entities operating in the public sphere to behave in more pro self defense ways.

So I don't like that this is necessary (or possibly useful, at least) but I like the direction in which it's pushing.
 
If a business owner's negligence causes harm, he should be held liable. However, his decision to not allow guns on his property may not constitute negligence. I would think Florida would have a tough time with this.
 
The issue is moot, the proposed legislation is unnecessary and without merit.

Florida doesn’t allow open carry (and likely never will).

Otherwise, a business owner has no idea one is carrying concealed.

I’ve carried a concealed firearm in all manner of venues that ‘prohibit’ firearms – such a business owner doesn't know I’m carrying a firearm because it’s concealed.
 
There's interesting meet to chew on in this.
Under traditional legal principles, if harm is not reasonably foreseeable it carries no liability.
Click to expand...

Some businesses get robbed frequently. We're such a business to post that guns are not allowed, the argument could be made that thats akin to a business located under a cliff from which rocks fall frequently posting a sigh disallowing anyone from wearing a hardhat.

The risk is real. The danger not uncommon. Reasonable and legal protective measures are available to our patrons but we disallow them.
 
I'm OK with it, seeing how it is very narrow. A person has to have a permit, be harmed, then sue the business for putting up the no carry sign. It doesn't open them up to any victim suing, just the ones who they said can't carry who otherwise lawfully could have.
 
And I agree that the fact that FL law doesn't give private gunbuster signs the weight of law could be a serious weak point here. You are not compelled to follow such a sign. Now, can a business be sued if they post a sign that directs people to do something that endangers them, even though they're under no obligation to follow the sign's orders? I'd imagine yes in many cases but I don't know about this one.
 
Not in my view. First, foremost, and always, individual liberty must trump collectivism in legislation. Therefore, the right of the business owner to make a bad decision on his/her own premises, provided that bad decision is posted to let potential patrons know, must predominate.
 
For states like Florida, where ignoring signs isn't a legal offense, it makes no sense. In fact, one could argue it places the burden on the patron who willingly disarms, knowing it is unnecessary.

More generally, I look at self-defense on the same level as every other civil right. A business owner can use trespassing laws against anyone acting uncivil in any manner while also respecting the right to self-defense.

Signs are likely motivated by insurance policies. Business owners have more than enough regulations imposed on them. It's past the point where the lower rungs of the ladder to success are covered with red tape.
 
I'm a bit torn here as well. What I've done is either a) carry anyways (I only conceal carry), or b) don't patronize the business.

Where it gets more tricky to me is if it's your workplace. I'm assuming this isn't in the scope of the bill (I admit I didn't read it), but the people there deserve the ability to defend themselves as much as the patrons. This puts the business owner between a rock and a hard place. If he allows his workers to carry and someone gets shot, he gets sued. If he doesn't allow anyone to carry and a robber shoots someone, he gets sued.

I guess the bottom line is, to the business owner, it doesn't really matter because he's gonna get sued anyway.
 
I think the idea as currently framed is impractical and unreasonable, reflective of shallow thinking, and unlikely to survive the tests of the legal system.
 
I'm OK with it. Just like individuals, businesses are free to make any decision they want to, but they are not immune from the consequences of those decisions.
 
This sort of legislation is proposed in bad faith, it has no intent to ‘protect’ the rights of gun owners, and wrongfully seeks to intimidate private business owners.

And if a Florida resident, as a consequence of his ignorance of the law, who incorrectly believes that there is a ‘law’ making it a 'crime' to carry a firearm into a business that designates itself to be ‘gun free,’ should refrain from carrying a firearm into that business, and an event should occur where the resident is injured, the fault lies with the resident, not the business owner.

Last, it’s remarkable the hypocrisy of those who support the proposed measure, who claim to be advocates of private property rights, and opposed to unwarranted government regulation.
 
At this point, I believe the lack of cases of people who have disarmed in compliance with a property owner's directive, and have been subsequently injured, and have been able to make the argument that their injury(ies) would have been preventable had they not disarmed makes this a non-issue. I have long been an opponent of government involvement in situations in which the need for such involvement has not yet arisen.

For the record, I am a Florida resident.
 
In addition to my sentiment above, I do not follow the logic that, should a person "voluntarily" disarm in accordance with such a posting, they would themselves be the only ones liable for any injuries sustained that could have been prevented had they flouted the rule or directive.

Certainly, an amusement-park ride operator who directs riders not to use the safety restraints would be opening himself (and the ride's owners) to a significant liability, one that would not be borne only by the rider for "voluntarily" following his instruction.
 
MedWheeler said:
I do not follow the logic that, should a person "voluntarily" disarm in accordance with such a posting, they would themselves be the only ones liable for any injuries sustained that could have been prevented had they flouted the rule or directive.
Click to expand...
Well put.

Along that line, "absolute custodial responsibility " is not defined, but if it intended to mean what I think it is, it is unreasonable in the extreme. Proprietors and non-profit entities and others in the "not limited to" category might as ell shut down and move out of state. I would.

Should this be codified as written, it will not last long.
 
My thoughts are that the law is unfair and isn't well thought out.

First of all, if you're going to penalize entities for prohibiting carry on their properties then it's only fair to also give them some relief from liability resulting from carry on their properties. This law doesn't do that. And don't bother asking: "What liability?" The other day I was talking to a guy down the street who has been present for 8 negligent discharges at gunshows--and I think we're all aware of incidents involving negligent discharge stories by concealed carriers.

The other problem is that having a carry permit doesn't imply that a person would normally be carrying or, that if they were, they would be able to effectively defend themselves.

1. The law assumes that the business has disarmed a person based only on the fact that the person has a permit and could have been carrying otherwise.

a. What about people who only carry rarely--or never? I know many permit holders who virtually never carry. Why should they be entitled to claim damages if there's no reasonable expectation that they would have been carrying without the prohibition?

b. What about a situation where the person wasn't carrying based on their own voluntary decision--e.g. too hot to wear a cover garment, too much trouble to get a gun out of the safe, don't feel like it, have to go to another place that's legally prohibited and decided to kill 2 birds with one stone. Let's say they end up at a prohibited business and are injured in an attack. Why should they be entitled to claim damages if it was their own choice not to carry on that particular occasion?​

2. What about people who can't hit paper with their gunhand inside a paper bag? How does it make sense to penalize a business for denying a person the ability to carry a gun that they had no chance of using effectively in the first place?

In other words, the business is held responsible for prohibiting carry even if the prohibition wasn't the actual reason the person wasn't carrying and even if the prohibited person couldn't have defended themselves even if they had they been carrying. That's not fair.

What this law does is create a special category of persons who can claim damages in situations where no other category of persons would be able to do so and without having to actually prove anything other than that they have a carry permit.

I like the general idea but this isn't the way to do it.
 
Last edited:
What about the idea that a no “no gun” sign gives the bad guys the idea that this business is a soft target, making it a dangerous place for everyone?
Click to expand...
The law also includes animal attacks as one of the types of damage that the business could be liable for. Since animals don't read signs, that wouldn't make sense for that part of the law.

But ignoring that, let's say that we take that as the rationale for allowing someone to claim damages. In that case, everyone who is endangered should have recourse against the business, not just those with carry permits.
 
I don't live in FL, yet.
I like the concept, would like to see it applied to government / state "businesses".
I can't carry at work, illegal.
I can't carry when I renew my drivers license, metal detectors at court house.
I would like for them to be liable if anything happened to me in the parking lot walking into / from place where carry is prohibited.
Guards at the door doesn't prevent anything in the parking lot.
 
This wouldn't be the first time our legislature (like legislatures in every state) proposed something that they might not have thought through very well... Since I was in the enforcement end of things for many years - the moment I read this I thought "Aha, another piece of work for attorneys". All of the "no gun" postings at private businesses here in the state have their roots in liability issues (as advised by either their insurance carriers or their lawyers...) and as already noted have no force in law (with one important exception....). If you're asked to leave a business for any reason and refuse - you're on dangerous ground if you're carrying when the police are called to the scene... If, in the presence of an officer, you still refuse to leave - then you're subject to "trespass after warning"... The problem then is that armed trespass... is a felony.... Whether you're permitted to carry or not -won't have any bearing on whether you're in a felony arrest situation at that point...

For most armed citizens -being asked to leave a business because you're armed is more of a nuisance than anything else - but if you comply and leave you face no penalty - so this proposed new law isn't anything I'd support at all... Remember as well that state or federal facilities with "no gun" designations do have legal backup (and bad consequences for anyone caught in violation....). Part of the package that any concealed carry permit in Florida comes with is a listing of places where you can't carry - most don't bother to read through it. I suggest that you do....
 
The burden of proof is on the injured party that he or she would not have been hurt if armed. That is not going to happen.
 
A person has to have a permit, be harmed, then sue the business for putting up the no carry sign. It doesn't open them up to any victim suing, just the ones who they said can't carry who otherwise lawfully could have.
Click to expand...
Texas doesn't have such a law, and probably doesn't want or need one, but TSRA quietly points this out to businesses that put up legally binding PC30.06 signs, and mentions they will back the lawsuit should such an event happen.

I see very few 30.06 signs in businesses here, but I do see a fair number of non-conformant signs, perhaps a compromise so the touchy-freely folks can feel safe and we can still legally carry. The anti open carry 30.07 signs are very common, I can't say I've seen anyone open carrying while I've been out and about, although I don't get out as much as I used to :)
 
I think the theory was that if a business chooses to actively take steps to prohibit its patrons from defending themselves, then it creates an obligation to take other measures to defend them. i think that is reasonable.

A lake resort that banned kayakers and swimmers from using PFD's had darn sure better have lifeguards and other lifesaving measures, because if they deliberately assumed that responsibility and then someone drowned, you can bet they'd be sued.
 
Businesses can't legally refuse to do business with minorities, sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity because it violates their civil rights. Is not my right to keep and bear arms a civil right which is clearly stated in the constitution? Is it that my civil right to protect myself is a lesser right? What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
'Gun Free' Zone Tennessee Business Liable for Disarming Concealed Carry Holders
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
razorback2003
R
A
  • Locked
Wisconsin Appeals Court Rules Online Gun Market May Be Held Liable for Fatal Shooting Spree
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
CoalTrain49
CoalTrain49
R
  • Locked
Your gun rights vs the right of business owners...
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
147
Views
4K
hso
hso
D
  • Locked
Gun Free Zones: The Ugly Truth
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
T
  • Locked
GA: Proposed law to make owners of gun free zones liable
Replies
20
Views
580
rust collector
R
Back
Top