Suing "Gun Free Zone" Entities

[Deanimator]

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.

Makes you wonder why Susan Gratia Hupp didn't sue Luby's because she had to leave her gun in the car.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Makes you wonder why Susan Gratia Hupp didn't sue Luby's because she had to leave her gun in the car.

It wasn't Luby's that prevented her from carrying the firearm; but state law. Texas state Constitution specifically says that the legislature may regulate the carrying of arms, so probably not many options that way either.

 

[TX1911fan]

Criminal activity will relieve a party from liability only if the criminal activity was unforseen. So, you would have to prove, as Bart said, that posting the no gun sign meant that the property owner could reasonably forsee that criminal activity would result. In most instances, I don't think you would be successful.

Criminal conduct – Intervening criminal conduct does not insulate from liability if that intervening cause was foreseeable, particularly if it was in fact foreseen. [Hines v. Garrett]

Oh, and Citroen, the doctrine of respondeat superior is alive and well in the US, and employers continue to be liable for the actions of employees acting in the scope of their employment.

 

[Blackbeard]

Criminal activity will relieve a party from liability only if the criminal activity was unforseen. So, you would have to prove, as Bart said, that posting the no gun sign meant that the property owner could reasonably forsee that criminal activity would result. In most instances, I don't think you would be successful.

I think for a successful test case, we would have to have:

A) A university in a high-crime area
B) A no-guns policy,
C) Knowledge that no-gun policies increase likelihood of violent crime,
D) A dead student, unfortunately, and
E) A family willing to sue the school for wrongful death

Seems more likely that we'd be able to sue for failure to enforce their no-gun policy with the killer. Make it too expensive for them to have a no-gun policy because they'd have to lay out millions in security rather than pennies for the paper the policy is printed on.

 

[Blackbeard]

Or to put it more concisely, we need precedent that preventing someone from defending himself against a third party is a tort.

 

[Citroen]

Yes, it is!!

Tex, that was not my point - my point was (still is) that while it once required that an employee be acting within the scope of their employment, that is no longer the case. The standard has been expanded from "knew" but is now "knew or should have known".

Laws are somewhat fluid and subject to change. I would think that under the same concepts that allow for successful suits over fake cameras (providing the illusion of security but failing to provide security) there MIGHT be an expansion to "provided the illusion of safety but failing to provide same".

Again, I am not an attorney.

John
Charlotte, NC

 

[worker]

I was thinking something similar, but instead I though there could be a 'law' inacted saying that 'If you declare something gun-free' you must provide metal detection devices and personell to operate them on every single enterance of the 'gun-free' zone.

If you have failed to detect a gun due to negligence and it was used to commit crime, then that company/ententiy/individual would be held liable for the damages due to the negligence

 

[stevemis]

'If you declare something gun-free' you must provide metal detection devices and personell to operate them on every single enterance of the 'gun-free' zone.

If you have failed to detect a gun due to negligence and it was used to commit crime, then that company/ententiy/individual would be held liable for the damages due to the negligence

Good plan. In an ideal world, wouldn't it also be nice if you could check your firearms at the door and pick them up on the way out?

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Worker: I was thinking something similar, but instead I though there could be a 'law' inacted saying that 'If you declare something gun-free' you must provide metal detection devices and personell to operate them on every single enterance of the 'gun-free' zone.

If you have failed to detect a gun due to negligence and it was used to commit crime, then that company/ententiy/individual would be held liable for the damages due to the negligence

That puts an undue burden on the business. Why should they have to pay for metal detectors. If they put up a sign that says they do not allow guns in their business, you take the risk of going in. It is infringing on the rights of business owners by doing what you suggest.

How about if they ban guns that is their right, it is your right to not go there. Government buildings are different obviously as it is a right guaranteed to us. Gun lockers would be mandatory in some government buildings like Jails.

This is fair to all.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I think for a successful test case, we would have to have:

A) A university in a high-crime area
B) A no-guns policy,
C) Knowledge that no-gun policies increase likelihood of violent crime,
D) A dead student, unfortunately, and
E) A family willing to sue the school for wrongful death

This would only work in states that allow carry on campuses and that a particular campus/school has disallowed it. Otherwise, you are fighting state law.

I think you will have a tough time with C given that the validity of C is questioned just like its opposite is questioned by those on each side of the gun debate.

-------------

Very well said, Tecumseh.

 

[CPerdue]

Fletchette wrote :

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".

This is precisely what I am contemplating with Roanoke City as a result of being turned away from the July 4th concert. In truth I don't want to sue them if there is some other way to reach a conclusion that protects the next schmuck at a county fair or whatever. The city commonwealth's atty. seems approachable on this so I am hopeful.

I didn't engineer the situation but it would be easy to do so, just OC to the next concert held at a city park, walk up to the first cop you see and ask if they have a problem with your weapon. No threat of arrest, little to lose, but it pushes officialdom to take a documented action which can be contested if offensive.

Next time I am in this situation I will be sure to emphasize my desire to protect the cop from unwittingly making a violation of my civil rights under color of law and thereby committing a felony - it may motivate them to try harder to get a legal opinion on record from their boss.

C.