Liability for Discriminating Against CCW?

[standby]

From time to time I see a business with the "NO CONCEALED WEAPONS" signs posted on the front door. I know that not every person who posts one of these signs is decidedly "anti-gun", some are just trying to look out for their business by limiting liability and culpability in the event of any mishap or accident involving firearms (misguided as that attempt may be).

My question is this: I am a CCW holder, as such if I leave my CCW in the vehicle in order to obey this property owner's rights and the law and am injured in an armed robbery in this establishment, would the business owner be liable for my injuries/loss due to the fact that they denied me my right to protect myself?

The reason I ask this is if the answer is "yes, the business owner would be liable", this would be a good point to discuss with business owners who post these signs. I can assure you from conversations I have had with small business owners that this an aspect of CCW most people haven't considered.

I know this is a hard question to answer on a national forum due the the disparity in property/business owners rights from city to city, state to state.
What is the consensus on this issue? Excuse me if this has been discussed previously on this board, I could find no references when doing a search on existing posts.

 

[BerettaNut92]

I doubt it, it's private property; no one is making you go in there. But I slept through my law classes

 

[armoredman]

It's an iffy thing - in AZ it's being debated, sort of. There was a bill proposed that would make it clear, but it was,(of course), defeated.

 

[WT]

A merchant is responsible for the safety of his customers.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I know that Ohio's state law sought to implicitly state in the concealed carry law that private property owners would not be liable if they prohibited concealed carry - so at least one group of state legislators considered the possibility.

I don't know if that made it to the final version of that law though.

There may be a secondary liability issue concerning CCW though:

If you post that concealed weapons are prohibited but take no steps to actually make sure that happens, you are opening yourself to a lawsuit if something does go down. It can be shown that you recognized the danger by your "no concealed weapons" policy but failed to take any reasonable steps to implement the policy.

Once you start looking at the costs of metal detectors, off-duty police, etc. then prohibiting concealed carry starts to look expensive... I think at least one corporation (Cinemark theaters) has changed its policy because of the above reason. (standard IANAL disclaimer applies)

 

[dischord]

No. The law gives them this option for refusing service (bad law, but it is there.) Further, since the prohibited act involves optional use of an inanimate object, the courts probably would look at such signs as akin to No shirts, No shoes, No service signs rather than the old No Negros, Irish or Jews signs.

I'm not advocating that the courts take such a position -- I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm no lawyers, so YMMV.

 

[mec]

If it ever comes up it might be based on depriving the citizen of an available public remedy and failing to replace the remedy with an effective substitute.
The matter of posting private property was clarified in texas. The exact wording of any sign that creates a violation is prescribed by law- you can ignore all the others. Any business that goes to the trouble of posting the legal sign is decidedly anti-gun or the owner is such a neurological disaster that he doesn't need to be running a business anyway. The usual response here is to refuse to do business with such in hopes they will fall victim to natural selection.

 

[mercedesrules]

My question is this: I am a CCW holder, as such if I leave my CCW in the vehicle in order to obey this property owner's rights and the law and am injured in an armed robbery in this establishment, would the business owner be liable for my injuries/loss due to the fact that they denied me my right to protect myself?

I sincerely hope not.

 

[mercedesrules]

(dischord) No. The law gives them this option for refusing service (bad law, but it is there.)

What's bad about it? The law is upholding their property rights.

Further, since the prohibited act involves optional use of an inanimate object, the courts probably would look at such signs as akin to No shirts, No shoes, No service signs rather than the old No Negros, Irish or Jews signs.

There's the bad law; there is no principled difference between "No shirts...etc" and "No Jews" signs. A property owner should have the right to exclude anyone he wants. If he is not able to exercise that right presently, he is oppressed.

MR

 

[dischord]

Actually, mercedesrules, you've got a point.

 

[mercedesrules]

(dischord) Actually, mercedesrules, you've got a point.

And I want to state publically how much I appreciate honest concession...especially on a message board.

MR

 

[Bruce H]

I understand the private property part but have a question. I can see saying a business if private property. What about them depending on the public for business? If a business is open to the public don't they fall under the laws of segrigation and discrimination? Now if they were strictly reservation only business they are different. Looks like legalized picking and choosing of various rules to me.

 

[dischord]

If a business is open to the public don't they fall under the laws of segrigation and discrimination?

Legally, yes (MR's valid point notwithstanding)

Looks like legalized picking and choosing of various rules to me.

That's why I said the courts would see it as more akin to a "no shirts" sign than to a "no blacks" sign.

 

[mercedesrules]

(Bruce H) I understand the private property part but have a question. I can see saying a business if private property. What about them depending on the public for business? If a business is open to the public don't they fall under the laws of segrigation and discrimination? Now if they were strictly reservation only business they are different. Looks like legalized picking and choosing of various rules to me.

Bruce, I usually talk in terms of theory, not legality. Of course you are right that under current law there is much picking and choosing. That's why I stated that "there is no principled difference between "No shirts...etc" and "No Jews" signs. .

The part about "depending on the public for business" needs no laws. If they don't make money, they will fail due to economic laws. When one is excluded from private property, they lose no rights they previously had.

I think that laws are most just when consistant and observant of the rule of law - same rules for everybody. In fact, if there was rule of law in the United States, this message board would be unnecessary. We would all have the same gun rights as anyone else. It's the difference between citizens' rights and those of police or soldiers that got us here in the first place.

MR

 

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

When we had our coffeehouse in operation there was a sign posted on the door...well, two, actually.

The first was the larger of the two...it said

"We appreciate your civic-mindedness in obtaining your CHL and you are always welcome to legally carry in this establishment."

The second, smaller one said "No Smoking"

Some days we'd even have 'show and tell'. Needless to say, it was a lot of fun and we never had any problems from riff-raff. (Or city officials for that matter).

Regards,
Rabbit.

 

[Dex Sinister]

I understand the private property part but have a question. I can see saying a business if private property. What about them depending on the public for business? If a business is open to the public don't they fall under the laws of segrigation and discrimination?

They do now (since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)

Prior to that, the distinction was (correctly) made between businesses that were run by the government or operated on government-owned property, and private businesses that were merely open to the whatever segment of the public they wished to serve.

In pre-CRA court decisions, it was held that, say, a state-owned parking garage or a deli that operated on the premises of that state-owned parking garage couldn't discriminate, but private businesses had the right to determine whom they wished to serve.

However, this is more of a liability question along the lines of: Does posting such a sign without taking steps to enforce it increase the danger to the public and staff by advertising it as a defense-free zone, thus enticing bad guys to go there with guns - and as so, is the owner liable/responsible for the increased risk?

It's really just a question of how plausable it is to translate such signs to:


Please Rob This Store:
Customers and Staff
are Disarmed
to Assist You!
- The Management

...and if you posted such a sign, what your liability would be.

Dex }:>=-

 

[Standing Wolf]

If a business is open to the public, it should be open to all the public, including blacks, Jews, old people, Asians, Catholics, Methodists, and those who choose to exercise our constitutionally protected civil rights.

I don ever do business with anti-Second Amendment bigots.

 

[SMLE]

I'd like to see a gun store with the guts to put up a sign like this:

"In accordance with the wishes of the N.A.A.C.P. and B'nai B'rith,this store will no longer sell firearms, ammunition or accessories to African-Amercans or Jews."

THAT should kick the feces into the rotating airfoil.

 

[Wiley]

SMLE: Already been done by an FFL in the Chicago area.

Back on topic: There is a legal term: 'Public Accommodation' that may fit.

 

[mercedesrules]

(Standing Wolf) If a business is open to the public, it should be open to all the public, including blacks, Jews, old people, Asians, Catholics, Methodists, and those who choose to exercise our constitutionally protected civil rights.

I don't ever do business with anti-Second Amendment bigots.

So, they would be barred from your restaurant?

MR

 

[Monkeyleg]

Under the CCW bill that failed to pass here in WI, a business that prohibited their employees from carrying concealed could be liable for something that happened to a permit-holding employee. The bill didn't explicity say this but, because it specifically absolved businesses that allowed carry from liability, the drafting attorneys said the opposite would also hold true.

I don't know what effect that would have on businesses that just posted signs, though.

 

[SMLE]

So, they would be barred from your restaurant?

Personally, if I were running a resturant, I'd just put up a sign that said; "Law abiding gun owners and CHL holders welcome!" and let any anti-gunners vote with their feet. Just as I have the choice of doing if I know a certain business is anti-gun.

As for NEVER doing business with anti-gunners. Who is your ISP? How many major brand name products are in your house? There are so many corporations giving money to the antis it's almost impossible not to do business with at least a few of them.

That's just my two cents, YMMV.

Wiley, do you have any more info about that gun shop in Chicago? PM me if you like. TIA.

 

[Standing Wolf]

So, they would be barred from your restaurant?

Nope. If I owned a restaurant, it would be open to one and all—and the chili-stuffed chicken would knock your socks off, too, eh? Just because I despise anti-Second Amendment bigots doesn't mean I'd stoop to their level.