A law I'd like to see

[Deleted member 66305]

I was at the YMCA last night. Ever since I took my CHL class, I've been paying attention to where the 30.06 signs are. There is one, with the full proper language, as required, at the entrance to my YMCA. There is no security on the premises.

I would like to see the provision that allows private businesses to ban CCW on their premises modified to assert that they may be sued for damages if people deprived of their CCW rights are injured or traumatised as a result of any criminal activity on site, if they do not provide sufficient* armed security. Private businesses that allow CCW on their premises may not be held liable for the actions of non-employees with guns. These provisions would not apply to private residences.

*"sufficient" would be defined in terms of minimum training, and number of guards per capita and per area.

 

[JesseL]

Have you been reading Fark?

 

[ilbob]

why would you want to hold a business liable for the actions of a criminal?

 

[Cosmoline]

vthat allows private businesses to ban CCW on their premises modified to assert that they may be sued for damages if people deprived of their CCW rights are injured or traumatised as a result of any criminal activity on site, if they do not provide sufficient* armed security

Unless the law specifically protects them, owners CAN be sued for this. It simply hasn't been explored very much in the courts. As far as I can tell the theory fits soundly within existing causes of action. The only difficulty might be in showing that by banning firearms the owners undertake a duty to safeguard the invitees from third party criminals.

It's something I've been hankering to do a law review article on. But I have to finish my current one first.

why would you want to hold a business liable for the actions of a criminal?

That much has already been done many times since the 60's. The classic example is liability for failing to provide any lighting for customers in dark parking lots. Why do you think parking lots are so obsessively lit? It's not because of traffic issues in the middle of the night. But in this case it's not just a matter of negligence by omission. The owner has done something, not just failed to do something. He has forced people to disarm. That would seem to establish a positive duty to protect them.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

ilbob, the issue is stripping law-abiding people of their ability for self-defense, while simultaneously failing to provide adequate security for them.

I'd like the law to make EXPLICIT that businesses may be sued for that, and equally explicit that businesses allowing CCW may NOT be sued, either for negligent acts by CHL holders, or actions of criminals.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

The owner has done something, not just failed to do something. He has forced people to disarm. That would seem to establish a positive duty to protect them.

Precisely.

Off topic, Cosmoline, you wouldn't, by any chance, be a Firefly fan, would you?

 

[kevindsingleton]

But, do you not have a choice about whether to disarm? The decision is yours: go somewhere else.

Instead of creating a whole new universe of liability, why not create a firearms-friendly workout facility?

 

[Cosmoline]

That might apply to a purely private household, but with a business open to the public for personal gain, the law has imposed higher obligations for ages. The whole concept of an "invitee" arises from this relationship. You can't strip shoes and socks off the customers then turn off the heat in the middle of winter without liability for frostbite.

 

[bdickens]

Better to just change the law so that CHLs can go armed anywhere an LEO can. That would be too simple.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I would think you could file suit under common law for damages in such a situation unless it's specifically prohibited by law.

In Oklahoma, there is law that prohibits suits to be filed against employers if an employee goes nuts with a firearm that's supposed to remain locked in his or her auto while at work.

Woody

P.S. I'm a Firefly fan.

 

[XD_fan]

My brother works in a bank that promptly posted a no firearms sign when Missouri became a CCW state. This was based on the consensus of a state banking association that guns and money are not a good mix when it comes to banks.

I carry into the bank anyway as the signs as posted are not in accordance with state law, not to mention the fact that if discovered I can only be asked to leave. Refusal would of course be grounds for a trespassing charge.

My brother knows I carry and has expressed some displeasure of my carrying in "his" bank. He somehow equates this with me being disrespectful of him personally.

To make a long story short a discussion took place in the back offices of the bank one day about guns and banks. The owner was present and in the course of the discussion point blank asked if I was carrying. Instead of answering I asked him a simple question. I said, "If you intend to force people to disarm, who have been fully vetted by a law enforcement background investigation, are you also going to take responsibility for their safety when they are on the premises, and assume liability for injuries or even death should that occur do to their inability to defend themselves through your forced disarming?"

Dead silence and some long faces followed. The topic was quickly changed and I never did get or give an answer. I stayed probably another half hour and left. Two days later the sign was gone. It has not reappeared.

When I asked my brother about this he said the banks lawyer had stated that such a lawsuit would be dismissed for having no merit. But he recommended removing the sign anyway "because you never know what will or will not be accepted in a court of law as having merit."

Its just a matter of time before this get litigated.

 

[Cosmoline]

Banks are particularly outrageous, since they are a nexus of robbery and involve customers with large amounts of cash coming or going. I try to avoid doing any business with them but these days that's tough.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Isn't the YMCA technically a church/religious organization, "Young Men's Christian Association"?

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I'd like to see it too. BTW, best.....username....ever.

 

[akodo]

why would you want to hold a business liable for the actions of a criminal?

if it is a retail business, they are in effect 'luring' you in, hence if they interfere with your ability to keep yourself alive and in good health, they are at fault.

Try this example, if the store disobeyed fire codes, and had their emergency fire exit chained shut, and an arsonist came in and lit the front door on fire, wouldn't BOTH the store and the criminal be legally held liable for any deaths inside?

 

[langenc]

YES, I would hope.