Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Should Your Small Business Welcome Legally Carried Guns?

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270

    Should Your Small Business Welcome Legally Carried Guns?

    There are some social issues in our country that are just downright contentious and even after years of public debate, sides seem as polarized as ever. Most don't impact the small business owner, but gun law is an issue that some owners need to consider.

    http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com...-carried-guns/
    Safety of your customers? Which ones the unarmed ones?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I thought they did an adequate job of stressing the liability risk involved in prohibiting effective and efficient means of self defense. What is needed is (and I can't believe I'm saying this) more businesses being sucessfully sued for failing to meet a reasonable duty to care for the customer.

    That's going to be a tall order.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    I'm with ya, we can't have small business exercising their property right, can we.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Under the common law of torts, there is the duty of care to a visitor invitee/licensee.

    I looked briefly also at attractive nuisance doctrine but it is the landowner unable to appreciate the hazard (of barred/invited armed visitors) in this case.

    I used to organize a sporting event held way out in the country in South Carolina, a Bicycling Century ride and Kayak paddle at Givhans Ferry SP. Near the entrance to the park was a small general store with many obvious security arrangements - barred windows, video and locked front door. When I introduced myself and announced the impending 300 customers, the obviously armed proprietor was not too impressed. He explained that he had to run his bar across the street and the store single-handedly and that he "had built his own prison." I have never forgotten the idea of us building our own prisons.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Lawfully armed citizens "trespassing" upon private property, it could be argued, would not benefit from such a tort. Guns not welcome, you ain't invited. Visitor? Nope, trespasser. As a criminal, now, I have no duty to care for your well being while you are trespassing upon my private property.

    Boycott the business, let them know that you will and why, and hope for a change in policy. One example is provided in the story.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Under the common law of torts, there is the duty of care to a visitor invitee/licensee.

    I looked briefly also at attractive nuisance doctrine but it is the landowner unable to appreciate the hazard (of barred/invited armed visitors) in this case.

    I used to organize a sporting event held way out in the country in South Carolina, a Bicycling Century ride and Kayak paddle at Givhans Ferry SP. Near the entrance to the park was a small general store with many obvious security arrangements - barred windows, video and locked front door. When I introduced myself and announced the impending 300 customers, the obviously armed proprietor was not too impressed. He explained that he had to run his bar across the street and the store single-handedly and that he "had built his own prison." I have never forgotten the idea of us building our own prisons.
    Many operate that way, literally and figuratively.

    Prison or fortress - all in the POV.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I thought they did an adequate job of stressing the liability risk involved in prohibiting effective and efficient means of self defense. What is needed is (and I can't believe I'm saying this) more businesses being sucessfully sued for failing to meet a reasonable duty to care for the customer.

    That's going to be a tall order.

    stay safe.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I'm with ya, we can't have small business exercising their property right, can we.
    Right to be safe vs property rights - a dilemma of some long standing.

    I lean toward Quasi Public as a solution. You invite the public onto your property, you are treated as if you were a public/municipal facility.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    found it interesting the channel 12 Augusta GA spot about the T-Bonz steakhouse didn't get coverage on the forum (or i missed the headlines back in may)

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Right to be safe vs property rights - a dilemma of some long standing.

    I lean toward Quasi Public as a solution. You invite the public onto your property, you are treated as if you were a public/municipal facility.
    No arguments from me, except the "invite" part, gun owners are not invited by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    found it interesting the channel 12 Augusta GA spot about the T-Bonz steakhouse didn't get coverage on the forum (or i missed the headlines back in may)

    ipse
    +1

    However, folks around here typically get all worked up when we hear of a "infringement" if you will. A business that desires lawfully armed citizens to patronize their establishment is not as much fun to discuss, unless the employees are hot chicks, like a certain eatery in Rifle CO.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Right to be safe vs property rights - a dilemma of some long standing.

    I lean toward Quasi Public as a solution. You invite the public onto your property, you are treated as if you were a public/municipal facility.
    I agree, but the SCOUS says no except in a very limited cases. The exception is when the shopping complex gives the appearance of a town, streets, stop signs, street lights, etc.

    In Ohio the law holds harmless businesses where gun shootouts occur.

    Open carrying in businesses is 99% positive, but it's that 1% that can screw-up your day.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Right to be safe vs property rights - a dilemma of some long standing.
    I don't think so. Rights neither conflict nor overlap. If there appears to be a conflict in rights, a closer examination will reveal that there is only a right, and an action which is incorrectly interpreted as a right.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I don't think so. Rights neither conflict nor overlap. If there appears to be a conflict in rights, a closer examination will reveal that there is only a right, and an action which is incorrectly interpreted as a right.
    +1

    I'll tend to side with the property owner to set his own rules. If an individual still voluntarily abides by those rules he has waived his right to do .....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I thought they did an adequate job of stressing the liability risk involved in prohibiting effective and efficient means of self defense. What is needed is (and I can't believe I'm saying this) more businesses being sucessfully sued for failing to meet a reasonable duty to care for the customer.

    That's going to be a tall order.

    stay safe.
    A judge recently allowed "reasonable care" law suits against the Aurora movie theater to proceed. He based his opinion on the "fact" that the theater could have reasonably foreseen a theater being the target of a mass shooting.

    BTW that theater was not the largest one showing Batman, or the one closest to his apartment; it was the only one posted against lawful carry.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    A judge recently allowed "reasonable care" law suits against the Aurora movie theater to proceed. He based his opinion on the "fact" that the theater could have reasonably foreseen a theater being the target of a mass shooting.
    [ ... ]
    That needs to be trumpeted from the roof tops, especially a win on that basis!
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Let the verdict do our trumpeting for us. If a lawyer can sway the jury to see the obvious, then the number and size of the check(s) they will have to write will be the trumpet.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I agree, but the SCOUS says no except in a very limited cases. The exception is when the shopping complex gives the appearance of a town, streets, stop signs, street lights, etc.

    In Ohio the law holds harmless businesses where gun shootouts occur.

    Open carrying in businesses is 99% positive, but it's that 1% that can screw-up your day.
    The obvious, best approach, I think, is hold any private business in harm, that invites the general public to their place of business, but demand that you disarm while on their property.

    Its the immunities that harm the citizen. Qualified and absolute immunity for law enforcement and the courts as well as this, well, uhm, private property/business immunity for businesses. Get rid of them, and allow these people to be sued into non-existence, and the problem would go away overnight, once, sad to say, tragedy strikes.
    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Custodian View Post
    The obvious, best approach, I think, is hold any private business in harm, that invites the general public to their place of business, but demand that you disarm while on their property.

    Its the immunities that harm the citizen. Qualified and absolute immunity for law enforcement and the courts as well as this, well, uhm, private property/business immunity for businesses. Get rid of them, and allow these people to be sued into non-existence, and the problem would go away overnight, once, sad to say, tragedy strikes.
    On the other hand once the business owner knows they are not held liable, the business no longer has an accuse to disallow gun toters. Unless the business owner has an actual prejudice towards guns. Civil Rights cover race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Does carrying a gun fall within a religious belief?
    Then said he unto them, But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •