Lawsuit Possibility?

[GEM]

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.

 

[glummer]

Aiding and abetting?

Perhaps the best approach would be not "duty to protect", but instead, specific harm intentionallly inflicted on legal gun owners. Since a prohibition, without airport-style security, has NO effect on criminals, it serves ONLY to increase danger to the rule-abiding. The claim that prohibitions are reasonble safety measures is nonsense, if the only enforcement mechanism is voluntary obedience. If a property owner engages in activity that can ONLY endanger the innocent, he should be liable.

 

[TooTaxed]

If I was preparing such a case, on the one hand I'd list the massacres in "gun-free" places, and on the other I'd list the cases where someone with a gun cut short massacres. I haven't made a search on this, but I can remember one university shooting and a church shooting where such was the case.

 

[Fremmer]

If you were preparing such a case, you would quickly learn about a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failing to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted.

Not trying to be snarky (is that a word, lol), but the only people who are going to be able to sue will be the victims, and the only proper party defendant will be the nutball who did the shooting. Good luck collecting your judgment from him.

 

[Averageman]

To me it is the same as placing a gag and hobble on someone and taking away freedom to yell fire or escape if the building goes ablaze.
Now in this case, if the place catches fire who's fault is it that no one was warned or escaped? To me obviously the person requiring gags and hobbles to be worn...
If you take away my right to bear arms, even after I have a CC licence then you are obligating yourself to provide the means to secure my safety.
Its just my opinion, but I think we have the right to be secure and to protect ourselves. I think these things are the natural rights God gave us, if you wish to remove them and play God then be responcible for what happens when you do.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The Tyler shooting was in a courthouse. Gun free by law. Didn't the Tacoma Mall post "no guns" signs?

The Tyler shooting was NOT in a courthouse, but happened on the square outside. Shots hit the courthouse and officers who fired on the shooter fired from the courthouse. The shooter never entered the courthouse. Video from inside the courthouse shows the shooter outside of the building, not inside. The shooter was not in a gun-free zone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting

If you don't like Wiki, then you can go to Lott's site...
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005/03/video-on-tyler-texas-shooting.html

Even if Tacoma Mall was posted at the time, it has no legal basis, hence why Dan McCown carried there.

 

[Nicodemus38]

is any else remembering that the non college school shootings all involved a kid who stole a relatives weapon or paid someone to conduct a straw purchase for them?

the college shooters have all seemed to have gone through legal backgfround checks to get handguns. in Yoes case, someone in the state government never put his medical file into the government database of no gun purchase.