Responsibility for protection

imported post

Here's a question I keep asking myself every time I see a sign banning firearms:

If a business posts a sign banning my firearm, they are requiringme to disarm and become defenseless.

Aren't they assuming responsibility for my safety? If I am made to leave my weapon in my vehicle, and then I am shot or injured by another person while at that business, that would be grounds for a lawsuit because they have disarmed me, correct?

I believe that if they can post a sign denying me my firearm, they should be required to post a sign informing me that they are responsible for my safety while on their premises. After all, I have the right to be protected at all times, right?

The signs these businesses post specifically ban weapons. Police officers carry weapons. CCW laws equalize the right of self defense between police and civilians. Since the sign specifically bans firearms, aren't the police barred from carrying them at that business as well?

I would be interestedin knowingif anything like this has come up in discussions here, or if anyone knows a real life case where this has happened.

imported post

HmmmI don't leave it in the car. Unless I am going through a metal detector on my way to court! Besides who's gonna know unless you are trying to CC a 44 mag in your shorts.



They can buy all the signs they want. All that means to me is don't flash my gun and get asked to leave. Concealed carry to me is just that, concealed.Especially to those with those little signs. As for OC........ Leave it in car, don'tsupport thatplaceor CC.

For some strange reason some folks don't want all thier rights !!!!!

imported post

I have said for years that this would be an interesting case. Of course in order for it to have chance in court, a lot of pieces would have to come together:

1. A person would have to prove that they did not have their weapon BECAUSE the establishment posted "no firearms". To do this, they would probably have to prove that they ALWAYS carried their weapon but that they did not have it on this occasion because of the no gun policy. Possibly something like having their weapon and having a witness to their leaving it in their vehicle because of the sign prohibiting carry.

2. That person would have to suffer some harm, probably physical harm in order to get a possible judgement.

3. That person would PROBABLY have to convince a jury that he/she could have prevented the harm that came to them IF they had not been denied the right to have their weapon.

4. Even with all of the above, a jury would have to be willing to say that our right to carry on someone else's premises was more important than a property owner's rights to control their own property.

It makes me furious when a business is posted, however I do try to understand that I don't own the property and I try to think of how I would feel if I couldn't control what went on in my home. (For example if I couldn't tell my brother-in-law that he had to do his chain smoking outside, not in my house!!!)

Although it would be a very interesting case, it would be very difficult to win in court of law.

imported post

Very interesting points, acrimson. However, I don't think your brother in law has a RIGHT to smoke in your house. If a business' wishes are the be-all end-all, how come we don't still see "whites only" signs? How come Augusta has to let women into their clubhouse?

Because the businesses cannot infringe on a person's civil rights.

Now, isn't carrying my gun a civil right? I guess THIS right isn't as important as the others.

imported post

I carry a .44 S&W 625 in my shorts! In the smart carry.Check out missouricarry.com. John Ross carries a S&W .500 makes my .44 look like a pea shooter he also carries in a smart carry.

imported post

Oh, I agree that we have the RIGHT to carry, I just respect a business owner to control his/her own property. In fact I respect that person's right to post "no guns" so much that I don't disrespect him/her by going into that store at all.

imported post

I agree with that also. I don't support businesses that don't support me. I won't buy anything from Illinois either, due to their "unfriendliness". (I live across the river, and often visit friends, but I always buy fuel, iced tea, snacks, food, etc. before I leave Missouri. Not at the local Ayerco, either. They have an anti-gun sign.)

However, I'm also into weight lifting, and the only gym in my small little town has a anti-gun sign. I realize that it isn't practical nor safe to lift weights while packing, yet I would still feel more comfortable carrying into and out of the place. They have steel lockers with padlock latches in the locker room, so I would feel safe keeping my firearm stored there. It's mostly the idea of being told I can't that makes me irritated.

I was taught "Either always carry, or never carry, but never ever 'sometimes carry'." and I believe it is a sound principle. It would be a bad thing to get into a bad situation and automatically "reach" for someting that may or may not be there.

(BTW: What is the standard term that everyone generally uses for those signs? I just call 'em "anti-gun signs", but I think there is a term people use to reference them.)

imported post

It could be an interesting case but I doubt that you would get very far with it. You would be provided the same protection as any other customer. It would also depend on the state laws about posting. Here in SC the law is very specific about the sign requirements and do carry the weight of the law as far as I can find out. Since the legislature has chosen to favor the merchant I would suspect that the law would favor the merchant inyour case but IANAL.

The main problem would be proving that if you were armed that you would have made a difference and that may be difficult to prove especially to a jury. But then we go to airplanes and you are not allowed to carry there but it is assumed that you are safe. In a similar manner if you are attacked at a school what is your recourse to either the school or state for forbidding your carry.

The one word in your OP is defenseless and can you prove that because you don't have a gun that you are defenseless and could not get out of the way because of it? It is an interesting concept but how about if you were shot/stabbed/beaten but had your gun on you, (which is a possibility, guns just increase the odds in your favor but don't provide complete protection) is the merchant then relieved of liability?

imported post

No one has the "Right" to be protected.
You have the right to protect yourself.
If that means not entering a business that disallows your firearm then so be it. Do not patronize places that don't support your views.