SovereigntyOrDeath said:
. . . It will probably take someone being denied to carry their firearm into an establishment and getting killed as a result of not being able to defend themselves in a robbery etc. Sue the establishment for millions of dollars . . .
. . . SCOTUS has said that LEO's have no obligation to defend you, so I do not see how a private property owners would be negligent if they did not.
Completely not equivalent. Business owners are held to a legal context and environment wholly different from police officers and police departments.
In many states, property owners and possessors owe different degrees of responsibility, or duties, to people who come onto their property, depending on how such people are categorized. The law recognizes three main categories of people who might be on someone else's property: invitees, licensees, and trespassers. . . .
Invitees - An invitee is a person who is invited onto property for business reasons, and would include customers of a retail store and job applicants. Property owners owe the highest degree of care to invitees to make sure they are safe from dangers on their property. Under this standard, a property owner not only has a duty to repair and correct known dangers, he also has a duty to reasonably inspect for, discover, and correct unknown hazards in those areas of the premises to which an invitee might have access. . . . [Emphasis added.]
http://realestate.findlaw.com/owning-a-home/property-owners-legal-duty-to-prevent-injury.html
Any good plaintiff's attorney would strategically extract key admissions in a deposition, have a good line of questioning at trial (maybe similar to the following), and a better than minimal chance of an award:
"Mr. Owner, in your deposition I asked if one of the important reasons for your firearm prohibition is that you consider firearms a potential hazard to your customers that you'd rather not have on your property, correct?"
"Correct."
"Mr. Owner, also in your deposition we talked at length about all the different kinds of hazards you are concerned to discover, if they exist. You gave me quite an extensive list of all the inspections you do. Quite impressive, I must say! You stated emphatically to my questioning that any business owner who doesn't inspect for any situation they've taken it upon themselves to consider a hazard should, in your words, 'reasonably be considered negligent toward their customers'. Am I recalling all that accurately, Mr. Owner?"
"Yes, that's exactly what we talked about and what I said."
"Mr. Owner, so it's fair and reasonable to say that if an owner considers something a hazard, he should be looking for it, inspecting for it is another way to put it, otherwise he's just being completely negligent on that matter? In fact, that's how you stated it almost verbatim in your deposition, right? Do you want me to read that part of your answer to you, for your recollection?"
"No. That is what I said."
"Mr. Owner, when you looked for or inspected in some way and initially discovered the hazard of the firearm carried by the perp who later harmed my client, what did you then do to attempt to remove the--what you consider at least--potential hazard?"
"Ummm . . . I didn't know the perp had a gun before he hurt your client."
"Mr. Owner, so somehow the perp circumvented your method to inspect for or otherwise discover the hazard, is that what you're saying?"
"No. I didn't look for or inspect for a gun on the perp at all."
"Mr. Owner, do you look for or inspect for this hazard on anyone?"
"Ummm, no . . ."
"What??? But I thought you just affirmed that your own words were an owner who doesn't look for or inspect for something he considers a hazard is being completely negligent! Are you then, completely negligent in this case???!!!"
(Counsel for the defense) "OBJECTION!"
"I withdraw the question. The plaintiff rests!"
