Might one have more luck with someone who has a specific threat against them (like the crazed husband or stalker) and was not able to protect themselves? That's not as vague.
I note that in Oregon a school teacher tried a series of suits to get the right to carry under a threat but was denied up the judicial line, IIRC.
So it seems the courts aren't sympathetic to the self-defense issue - at least there.
Stating a business is responsable for the actions of unknowns is problematic. However, how about specifics? VT was under lawsuit threat because they knew of Cho and didn't act. But they settled out of court.
But Fiddletown and others seem correct - hasn't been done cleanly yet. The private property folks block laws that want to disallow carry bans in private businesses. Given that, it would be hard to argue that they are responsible if you can't carry.
I note that in Oregon a school teacher tried a series of suits to get the right to carry under a threat but was denied up the judicial line, IIRC.
So it seems the courts aren't sympathetic to the self-defense issue - at least there.
Stating a business is responsable for the actions of unknowns is problematic. However, how about specifics? VT was under lawsuit threat because they knew of Cho and didn't act. But they settled out of court.
But Fiddletown and others seem correct - hasn't been done cleanly yet. The private property folks block laws that want to disallow carry bans in private businesses. Given that, it would be hard to argue that they are responsible if you can't carry.