Sue Gun Free Zones

imported post

How about if the property owner required you to leave your car unlocked? Wouldn't that be enough "special relationship"?

Click to expand...

Maybe... Let's say for example you were required to leave your key(s) to park, or park by valet. You come back to find your GPS ripped. A sign on the garage says 'not liable for damage, etc.'. You do the right thing and call the police. An investigation ensues, and since the only people to have access to the carwas you or the valet, guess who's going to be questioned?

My bet is in that case their sign is worth about -$2000.00 or so - enough to cover the gps, any possible mount/wiring damage & court costs, and I'd bet the valet company or garage mgt. would settle after initial blustering. Because think about it, if you sit on the jury that hears that case with those facts how do you vote?

Now, how does this relate to victim zones? So far the courts have only recognized culpability for injury when there is a 'special relationship' such as that of the innkeeper. Of course, a lot of the victim zone signs say "For the safety of our customers..." - that's an overt statement that they're providing a "safe environment" IMO... Others?

imported post

So the question remains, how can we argue a "special relationship"?

Lets take it this way. The Mall, being known to be a "sensitive area" has at least a moral responsibility to keep us safe while we shop if they are to be removing our ability to defend ourselves.

That being the case I would argue that if I or someone else in the mall fell victim to a crime that the mall is in fact liable due to the fact that they deprived me of my firearm, and thus were negligent to the point that it caused me or someone harm or loss by the fact of either depriving me my right of protection or by not providing adequate security.

Mr. Y wrote:

How about if the property owner required you to leave your car unlocked? Wouldn't that be enough "special relationship"?

Click to expand...

Maybe... Let's say for example you were required to leave your key(s) to park, or park by valet. You come back to find your GPS ripped. A sign on the garage says 'not liable for damage, etc.'. You do the right thing and call the police. An investigation ensues, and since the only people to have access to the carwas you or the valet, guess who's going to be questioned?

My bet is in that case their sign is worth about -$2000.00 or so - enough to cover the gps, any possible mount/wiring damage & court costs, and I'd bet the valet company or garage mgt. would settle after initial blustering. Because think about it, if you sit on the jury that hears that case with those facts how do you vote?

Now, how does this relate to victim zones? So far the courts have only recognized culpability for injury when there is a 'special relationship' such as that of the innkeeper. Of course, a lot of the victim zone signs say "For the safety of our customers..." - that's an overt statement that they're providing a "safe environment" IMO... Others?

Click to expand...

imported post

.

imported post

Sorry There is no way in H#!! that you could sue me for telling you that you can't carry open or concealed on my property. When you start paying my taxes and maintenance then you will have some sayso, even an anti gun Landlord can't keep you from carrying on the place he rents to you!!

imported post

The concept I am working here is that the mall is negligent because they didn't allow me the tools to defend myself, nor the proper security to protect me instead.

I understand and agree with property rights, but we also have to look at the public aspect of a mall. They are opening their doors to the general public and as such are not in the same arena as my home.

But we also aren't talking simply about monetary suits. We can sue them to take or not take action. We can sue their policy and seek to argue that if they are open to the general public. My major issue here is that if they actually would provide proper security and protection to the level that I don't need to concern myself with it to the point of carrying I would be ok with it.

If they don't allow me the means to protect myself then they are responsible for providing that protection and are responsible for the liability of failing to do either.

I will put it this way. Are they liable to me if there is an earthquake and part of their mall injures me as a result? I am pretty sure that would be the case. If they are liable for my injuries during another act of which they have no control over such as this, then they are liable for a crazed gunman.

I know the next argument might be that in this scenario the building is owned by them and it injured me and the gun is not owned by them. So work with me here and lets argue this out.



Bill in VA wrote:

Theseus wrote:

... I would argue that if I or someone else in the mall fell victim to a crime that the mall is in fact liable due to the fact that they deprived me of my firearm, and thus were negligent to the point that it caused me or someone harm or loss by the fact of either depriving me my right of protection or by not providing adequate security.

Click to expand...

But let's not also forget about the bad guy who brought harm to you,particularly if he also violated the mall's rules of use (i.e., he brought his gun into the mall too.) Would it be the mall's fault taht he harmed you with his violation of mall policy? Or taking it even further down the road angels dancing on pin heads, what if, in your attempt to protect yourself by shooting the gun-toting bad guy, you miss and hit Mrs. Jones' 3 year old child. Is that also the mall's fault, sice they didn't keep her child safe? No one's making any of us go into private space where we aren't allowed to carry; we voluntarily enter those places and have to accept some personal responsibility. Part of that personal responsibilty means respecting others' personal proerty rights, part of it means accepting responsibility for our actions, be thery armed or unarmed.



EOM

Click to expand...