Bmont2409
Member
If a business is posted for no firearms and people who have CC permits are harmed on their premises do they have any recourse against the business if they were not allowed to defend themselves?
No Guns Signs
- Thread starter Bmont2409
- Start date
- Status
Bmont2409
Member
It could be an interesting concept to see how many businesses would remove their signs if they were to be held liable for anyone killed or injured on their premises because they could not defend themselves and the store didn't either.
*I am not a lawyer*
This question comes up from time to time, and the answer is always that, no, they have no recourse.
If you disarm to enter their business you have done so of your own free will. You chose to go there.
Texan Scott
Member
This is a BAD idea. Do you really want to establish precedent that a private property owner can be legally liable for criminal acts committed by others on their property? If a business doesn't want your money because you won't give up a civil right, oblige them... by taking your money elswhere.
The short answer is no.Bmont2409 said:
In general, a business will not be held responsible for the criminal acts of a third party. The few times in which a business has been held liable, there have been some unique circumstances, e. g., a bar can have problems if it serves someone who is obviously intoxicated or who is known to be a problem; or a while ago, a Denny's had to pay as a result of a late night incident, but only because there had been prior incidents so it was on notice that its late hours presented special risks.
But without something special, a business will not be held liable.
It is written into the Wisconsin carry law that if a business DOES NOT prohibit concealed carry, they are free from liability for any actions of a legal carry holder. However, if they DO prohibit legal carry, they are liable for what happens on their property.
It hasn't been tested yet, but if something like the Colorado event happened in Wisconsin the business could be in a lot of trouble for restricting the rights of their customers to defend themselves, then not ensuring their safety.
It hasn't been tested yet, but if something like the Colorado event happened in Wisconsin the business could be in a lot of trouble for restricting the rights of their customers to defend themselves, then not ensuring their safety.
And Wisconsin is the only State with that rule.RatDrall said:
planetmobius
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 389
There is some rationale to that rule. By prohibiting guns on private property where they would otherwise be lawful, the property owner is willfully altering the equasion.
oneounceload
member
So what? it is still YOUR choice to voluntarily go there. If a business has a policy about something you do not like, you ask the to change or go elsewhere - that's the nice thing about this country - we always have lots of choices
I completely agree.
hermannr
Member
I have a very simple policy...you don't want my carry, you don't want me as a customer...I tell them so, and then never go there again. In this ecomomy, if more people did that more merchants would remove the signs.
There is a thread over on Opencarry.org, in the the OK forum...it is titled "signs go up, and signs come right back down" Go read it. It works.
There is a thread over on Opencarry.org, in the the OK forum...it is titled "signs go up, and signs come right back down" Go read it. It works.
Arkansas Paul
Member
+100
They should have every right to make whatever rules they want about what goes on while on their property. We on the other hand, have every right to go elsewhere because of them.
I think that too many times we forget that if freedom doesn't go both ways, it isn't freedom at all.
Not to split hairs here, but defending yourself is not solely dependent on the possession of a firearm.
It certainly is an efficient means of defending yourself. However as has been pointed out many times, almost anything can be used as a weapon.
Your ability and right to defend yourself does not end at the threshhold of any property. The means of defense may be restricted however.
I'll defend myself with a can of spagetti sauce if I need to.
It certainly is an efficient means of defending yourself. However as has been pointed out many times, almost anything can be used as a weapon.
Your ability and right to defend yourself does not end at the threshhold of any property. The means of defense may be restricted however.
I'll defend myself with a can of spagetti sauce if I need to.
planetmobius
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 389
"So what" all you like. Then take a look at all of the crazy lawsuits that have succeeded. Everyone knows the McDonald's coffee is hot but they paid out. We have known that smoking is bad for you forever but again they paid out. It's gotten so bad that we have a plethera of incredibly stupid warning labels on every product known to man. Sometimes walking into a situation that has potential dangers with eyes wide open doesn't mean a matching set of idiot jurors wont call you the victim. Things like this might offend our own sense of justice, but hey, this is the real world.
Check out the full story on the McDonalds coffee case before using it as an example of something ridiculous.
planetmobius
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 389
Well versed. It's still a poster child for tort reform.
- Status
