Suing "Gun Free Zone" Entities

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Texpatriate

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
293
Location
West TN
So I've been wondering about this lately. Does anyone know of any instances where a crime was committed against a person (lets say a CCW holder) who was necessarily disarmed because they were in a "gun free zone" (or traveling to or from such a zone), and the individual or their family has sued for damages?

In our overly litigious society where businesses, schools, etc. fear liability seemingly more than anything else, many of these "gun free zones" are motivated by a fear of litigation, perhaps more so than a true anti-gun sentiment. If victims (who could have otherwise been legally armed) start holding these companies financially responsible, maybe the corporate policies might start to shift back the other direction.

For example, have any of the surviving victims or families of vicits of the Virginia Tech attempted to sue VT for not adequately protecting the students who where not permitted to be armed?

I started thinking about this because here in Saint Louis we have the Muny Theater which is in the middle of Forrest Park (lager that Central Park in NYC). Concealed carry is legal afaik in Forrest Park, but the Muny is a gun free zone. Sometimes you have to park as much as a half mile to a mile away and walk to the theater, leaving your gun in the car. Anything could happen to you and your family on the way (or at the theater for that matter). If something did happen, I would want to sue the heck out of the City of Saint Louis.
 
In order to have a case in civil court you have to prove damages. This is where it gets difficult.

In the case of the VT shootings the victims might indeed have a case. However, if you were not injured or were directly related to someone who was you would have a tough case.

A different angle might be to sue based on inadmission. I.E., openly proclaim your intent to carry a gun and then sue when you are expelled. Expulsion is the "damage" and keeping and bearing an arm the "right".
 
Does the MUNY check for guns

I haven't lived in St. Louis for 10+ years, and didn't carry while there (I didn't even own a centerfire handgun at that time). More of a curiosity question.

To keep myself safe, I'd ignore the law.

To effect a change, I'd do what Flechette recommends.

As to gun free lawsuits. The DC ruling comes to mind. Not a lawsuit, but a similar situation.
 
If the school were private property, then the property owner should have the right to determine those rules.
If the school belongs to the government (and how many aren't anymore?), then the 2nd amendment should be the only law applicable.
Unfortunately, you can't really sue the government effectively (very often, anyway), though they may offer up a sacrificial lamb (administrators, etc., who may have had nothing to do with the rulemaking) to protect themselves.
 
I think that there are two areas to this issue. You need to consider options for both private and public "zone". In the case of private businesses, I don't think anything should be done through legislation. One of the great joys of this nation is, of course, liberty. And any business owner should have the liberty to choose if he or she wants to allow a person to be able to carry a concealed firearm on their establishment. It's like those silly anti-smoking laws that were passed here in Nevada. If you don't like the smoke, don't patronize that business.

But likewise, voting with your dollar is possibly the quickest way to a business's heart. Make it known that you will no longer purchase their goods or use their services until they change their ways, and get as many people as possible to do the same.

Now if the buildings are taxpayer funded, I see it as a totally different situation. For example, the Nevada State Constitution says:

Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

My State, as well as Federal, constitutions says that I have the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense. But at the same time I cannot carry my concealed weapon into my local library. Why not? You (the government) recognized my right in the Constitution and yet you deny it to me because I want to peruse some literature? I can definitely see something legal here.
 
Civil Law

I was taught that in order to bring a legal action you must show the following:

Duty
Breach of Duty
Causation
Damages

To sue a business owner, it would appear to me (I am not a lawyer) you would need to show that the owner had a duty to protect; that by some action they breached that duty which caused you damages.

I do not know about firearms but I do know that successful legal actions have been mounted in the case of fake security cameras and in the case of real cameras that were not monitored.

Perhaps some of the civil attorneys on this forum will enlighten us as to the firearms issue?

John
Charlotte, NC
 
People bring this up repeatedly on the gun forums, but I don't know of any such successful suits.

For businesses, they basically only have to make reasonable efforts to protect their patrons. Reasonable efforts may be a simple as having lights and having staff in the store. They do not have to do anything that is above or beyond being reasonable and your carrying of a gun may not be considered reasonable to the business's staff.

If the school were private property, then the property owner should have the right to determine those rules.
Click to expand...

While this may be set in a lease, usually the rule is set by the lessee, not the property owner.
 
If you can sue a business for not letting you carry a gun onto their premises for self protection you also could sue a business for allowing the shooter onto their premises with a gun. (If they had no rule against it.)
Sounds like a lose/lose situation for the business.
 
Yes, I'm aware of that. But that's kind of my point. That someone sue the individual or entity (in this case City of Saint Louis and State of Missouri) who disarmed them, causing them to be a helpless victim while traveling to/from the gun free location, or while at said location.
 
Last edited:
I had the same discussion with my Boss (the owner) when he asked if I was carrying a concealed weapon in direct violation of the Employee Handbook. When I said yes, he informed me of our Safe Workplace Policy. I said I didn't feel safe with our policy & asked if he could ABSOLUTELY ASSURE my safety while forcing me to be unarmed on company property. He said, by law, he was responsible for my safety at work either way (with me armed or unarmed). I asked if he didn't feel more secure with at least one rational, skilled, armed individual on the property. He told me to lock my handgun in my truck & get back to work. I did.
 
Tex, can't sue the government because the law forbids carry into a place...

Sooner or later, however, someone's going to have an _optional_ place posted, such as a supermarket, and a CCW permit holder will be inside, but will have left their weapon in their vehicle, and the joint will get held up.

Sooner or later.

At that time, the permit holder should sue - PTSD at the very least. Make it for some serious money. They may settle (sets a bit of a precedent), or it may actually make it to court.

As of right now, I don't think anyone's done this.

Idea: Remind the counter help in posted places of the signs...

"Hey, this isn't a family business, is it?"

"Uh, no..."

"So, hey, you know that if some robber sees that "no guns" sign, and takes advantage of knowing that nobody can legally carry in here, and robs the joint, you can sue the owner?"

Sooner or later, if enough people do this, the owners might start thinking...
 
This seems like a good idea. It just seems a shame to have to sue to get your rights recognized by a business.
But, I'm pretty certain that noone cares about the boycotts I've done as a result of the signs. So, maybe it's a good idea.
 
Citroen, you have the right list. However, where these types of suits will break down is not on the duty, they definitely have the duty, but on causation. Criminal acts of third parties almost always break the chain of causation, and hence let the property owner off the hook. This, of course, makes sense and protects us all, but it sucks when someone can deliberately make you less able to protect yourself and then not suffer any consequences. You can, of course, choose to frequent another establishment.
 
I'm not a lawyer, and have very little knowledge of the law. However, my question is this. Why doesn't the supremacy clause override laws that infringe upon the second amendment?
 
I'm not a lawyer, and have very little knowledge of the law. However, my question is this. Why doesn't the supremacy clause override laws that infringe upon the second amendment?
Click to expand...

It does. However, judges, district attorneys routinely break this law by enforcing contrary laws. It is exactly analogous to a hypothetical community that would allow slavery now that the Fourteenth Amendment has been ratified. The local laws are completely unconstitutional.
 
Tex, I realize what you are telling us but is it not true that standards that were typical a few years ago, no longer apply? In some other matters, is what I mean.

There was a time not too long ago when an employer could only be held liable for the actions of an employee when that employee was acting within the scope of their employment; not true today. There was a time when neligent hiring required that the employer have known of a likely problem; today the standard is "knew or should have known".

I am not trying to argue the point, just attempt to add that court decisions are not forever when it comes to standard of proof.

Thanks for any clarification.
JOhn
Charlotte, NC
 
My accountant wrote to the management of a major mall that the no gun signs exposes them to total liability even if a personal injury crime happened in their parking lot. They must have researched it because the signs came down very shortly after.
 
Oddly enough...

It seems that the Brady Campaign was kind enough to research some cases for us.

Looking at their report "No Gun Left Behind: The Gun Lobby's Campaign to Push Guns Into Colleges and Schools" (found here: http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/reports/no-gun-left-behind.pdf ) they have a list on page 12 (20th page in the PDF) of State court decisions supporting the idea that the college is liable for violence on its campus.

I have not had a chance to verify these (fall semester just started), but plan on looking into it when things settle down.

-Siderite
 
Maybe we can convince some multimillionaire to cough up some cash so we could afford to sue these places that infringe upon our RKBA (or "lobby" the politicians to pass meaningful legislation)
 
But that's kind of my point. That someone sue the individual or entity (in this case City of Saint Louis and State of Missouri) who disarmed them, causing them to be a helpless victim while traveling to/from the gun free location, or while at said location.
Click to expand...

If you consider yourself a helpless victim when you don't have a gun, you are already in more trouble than you realize. That is a very defeatist mindset.
 
I have to agree with TX1911fan. The problem will be to establish causation. You will have to show that whoever suffered the harm would not have suffered the harm if they had their concealed handgun. Of course, you have a lower standard of proof than a criminal court, so it wouldn't be impossible.

I think the main thing holding back a case like this isn't lack of analogous case law; but just no facts that make a good case. Bascially, you need a CHL who suffers an actual injury as a result of a gun-free zone, you need to prove that it was reasonably foreseeable that denying him his handgun would result in that injury, and you need to prove that he wouldn't have been injured anyway even if he had the handgun.

It hasn't happened yet; but eventually it will. Look at Virginia Tech, one of the TAs on a different floor had a CHL and was specifically not carrying it due to school policy. Given human nature and the increasing number of CHLs, it will eventually happen again.
 
One of the problems with this issue is that there is a potential for liability issues regardless of the decision of the landowner/mgmt. The question then for the landowner/mgmt is to ascertain which decision has the greatest likelihood of being the more costly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Nugent@CNN: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster
Replies
0
Views
318
Cheeseybacon
C
S
  • Locked
The Threat of Gun-Free Zones
Replies
2
Views
535
P95Carry
P
K
  • Locked
Guns in a school zone?
Replies
11
Views
727
SteveS
S
2
  • Locked
Arizona Gun free Zone Act proposed
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Liko81
L
D
  • Locked
(AZ) Lawmakers move to limit gun-free zones
Replies
1
Views
610
Monkeyleg
M
Back
Top