Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: What if I was injured in school zone, public building etc...

  1. #1
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    If I was robbed or injured while in a school zone or in a public building that I could not have a firearm to protect myself with, would I be able to sue for liability because I was prohibited? Or say I am at work (I can not carry at work) and I am injured for the same reason could I sue my employer?

    I was thinking that since they would not be able to guarantee my safety in any of the above situations but are prohibiting me from defending myself doesn't that create some liability?
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Whence the guarantee of safety or of no risk?

  4. #4
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )


    That would be the owner, IE the government. If you are wrongfully injured there is liability. If I were injured because I was unable to defend myself (or worse, killed) would I or my family be able to sue the Feds for preventing me from protecting myself. As they can not guarantee my safety, and it is ultimately my own responsibility to protect myself. By preventing me the ability to effectively protect myself would that not make them liable for any damages that may have occurred?



    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )
    That would be the owner, IE the government. If you are wrongfully injured there is liability. If I were injured because I was unable to defend myself (or worse, killed) would I or my family be able to sue the Feds for preventing me from protecting myself. As they can not guarantee my safety, and it is ultimately my own responsibility to protect myself. By preventing me the ability to effectively protect myself would that not make them liable for any damages that may have occurred?
    IANAL, but suing the government for liability for an injury falls somewhere between nearly impossible and impossible

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    There is case law to support this. A case in Texas recently with a judge who warned the business that if they prohibited the individual in the case from being able to protect himself, then they assumed the responsibility for his protection and the liability should he be the victim of a crime while on the premises. I seem to recall the business was arguing property rights.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    There is case law to support this. A case in Texas recently with a judge who warned the business that if they prohibited the individual in the case from being able to protect himself, then they assumed the responsibility for his protection and the liability should he be the victim of a crime while on the premises. I seem to recall the business was arguing property rights.
    Well, they say that with rights come responsibility. I agree with the private property rights meaning the business owner can ban guns. Maybe he could be held liable, but I'd counter with "assumption of risk." If someone enters knowing that he will not be allowed to protect himself, he knowingly assumes that risk.

    However, this is moot. The OP was talking about publicly owned buildings. In those cases, the owner is varying levels of government.

  8. #8
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    There is case law to support this. A case in Texas recently with a judge who warned the business that if they prohibited the individual in the case from being able to protect himself, then they assumed the responsibility for his protection and the liability should he be the victim of a crime while on the premises. I seem to recall the business was arguing property rights.
    Well, they say that with rights come responsibility. I agree with the private property rights meaning the business owner can ban guns. Maybe he could be held liable, but I'd counter with "assumption of risk." If someone enters knowing that he will not be allowed to protect himself, he knowingly assumes that risk.

    However, this is moot. The OP was talking about publicly owned buildings. In those cases, the owner is varying levels of government.
    No, my question was for BOTH. As my current employer has decided not to allow weapons on any of his property (means I cant even have my sidearm in my car when parked on his lot for work), he is assuming the responsibility of my protection and safety. If I am walking down the hall and slip on some water or oil he is liable. So why wouldn't he be responsible if I am shot or stabbed by an unruly customer? If he does not permit me the right of protection would it not be arguable that he is taking up that task? Same thing for a government building, if I am walking down the hall and a ceiling tile falls and injures me they are liable, would they not be? An example is I am at the city courthouse. I am unarmed as it is a public building. I need to use the restroom. While in there a thug comes in and threatens to kill me if I dont hand over my wallet and valuables. Afterwards he hits me with his pistol (cause criminals wont be concerned over the no carry law) and I am severely injured. Now if not for the no carry law in this building I would have been able to defend myself. Why would I not put the blame on that city for not allowing me to defend myself?
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    No, my question was for BOTH. As my current employer has decided not to allow weapons on any of his property (means I cant even have my sidearm in my car when parked on his lot for work), he is assuming the responsibility of my protection and safety. If I am walking down the hall and slip on some water or oil he is liable. So why wouldn't he be responsible if I am shot or stabbed by an unruly customer? If he does not permit me the right of protection would it not be arguable that he is taking up that task? Same thing for a government building, if I am walking down the hall and a ceiling tile falls and injures me they are liable, would they not be? An example is I am at the city courthouse. I am unarmed as it is a public building. I need to use the restroom. While in there a thug comes in and threatens to kill me if I dont hand over my wallet and valuables. Afterwards he hits me with his pistol (cause criminals wont be concerned over the no carry law) and I am severely injured. Now if not for the no carry law in this building I would have been able to defend myself. Why would I not put the blame on that city for not allowing me to defend myself?
    I'd agree with you when it comes to publicly owned buildings; if I can't carry, they SHOULD be responsible and held liable for my safety. When it comes to you're employer though, you are CHOOSING to enter his private property. You are agreeing to abide by the terms of employment. If you continue to work there and harm comes to you, it was your own choices that lead to you disarming. No one forced you to work there.

    I know the Supremes have decided that the police have no obligation to protect the individual, they only have a duty to protect the public at large. Even though I agree with the concept, I don't think it would hold up in court.

    For the record, I work for such an employer. I choose to break the rules and carry anyways. I am ready to accept the consequences for my actions too.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    There is case law to support this. A case in Texas recently with a judge who warned the business that if they prohibited the individual in the case from being able to protect himself, then they assumed the responsibility for his protection and the liability should he be the victim of a crime while on the premises. I seem to recall the business was arguing property rights.
    Well, they say that with rights come responsibility. I agree with the private property rights meaning the business owner can ban guns. Maybe he could be held liable, but I'd counter with "assumption of risk." If someone enters knowing that he will not be allowed to protect himself, he knowingly assumes that risk.

    However, this is moot. The OP was talking about publicly owned buildings. In those cases, the owner is varying levels of government.
    No, my question was for BOTH. ...
    Oops. Sorry. I had a few posts back and forth with you on the public-owned buildings and forgot that you did ask about a private business too. Sorry.

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    There is case law to support this. A case in Texas recently with a judge who warned the business that if they prohibited the individual in the case from being able to protect himself, then they assumed the responsibility for his protection and the liability should he be the victim of a crime while on the premises. I seem to recall the business was arguing property rights.
    Well, they say that with rights come responsibility. I agree with the private property rights meaning the business owner can ban guns. Maybe he could be held liable, but I'd counter with "assumption of risk." If someone enters knowing that he will not be allowed to protect himself, he knowingly assumes that risk.

    However, this is moot. The OP was talking about publicly owned buildings. In those cases, the owner is varying levels of government.
    I was merely relating a case where this was raised as an issue. I am an ardent supporter of private property rights and as such, there are times when I find myself torn between fundamental natural laws. I don't pretend to know a firm and fixed answer to this question.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
    Posts
    272

    Post imported post

    Here's a little twist ... ...

    You work at Joe's Coffee and Car repair and he supports the 2A.

    Then he get gets married to a controlling crazy woman from Hollywood, she hates guns, makes him sell all his guns and then to top it off, makes him ban them from the shop.
    So, you start leaving your Beretta locked in your car due to Joe's request.

    Matter of fact Joe starts sleeping with another woman due to his wife's crazy ways.

    You don't agree with any of this crap and so you begin to look for other work, you just can't up and quit because you need to pay rent, make a car payment, and feed your self.

    A month goes by ..... you've found another job and you walk into Joe's on Monday morning to give your 2-week notice and tell Joe why you're leaving .... Then around 10:00AM the crazy wife walks in waving a pistol and popping off rounds while she screams at Joe ... you cheating dirt-bag .... she hits Joe 3 times in the chest, then she points the gun at you and fires .... she hit you in the elbow and you watch half of your arm hit the floor.

    1. My gun was in my car and I could not defend my self.

    2. Now who's going to tell me I can't sue and why ?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Sure you can sue.

    The woman who shot you.

  14. #14
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    My question boils down to this, who is ultimately responsible for my safety? Outside of the workplace it is mine. However at work you are required to adhere to policy. If that policy results in your injury you can sue your employer. Your employer must make efforts to protectyou while your in his place of business. I that policy is that no weapons are allowed on the property, that should mean that employer has other provisions in place to protect those whom he or she employees. In court you are proving negligence, wouldn't it be negligent of that employer to not provide for your safety while in their service?
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Your employer has no such responsibility. To give him such infantilizes you. He has a responsibility to provide a reasonably safe place of business, not a totally safe one. Since the chances of a shooting in a workplace is so infinitesimal, he cannot reasonably be expected to take action. Even if he were, he could easily argue that he was, by banning guns, trying to protect you.

    Yes, I know. You'd completely disagree with that argument. However, it is not your opinion of that argument that matters.

    The ultimate responsibility for your safety lies with you. Everywhere. Including at work. If you feel that being armed at work is so critical to your safety, and your boss does not, don't work for him.

    If you choose to work for someone who does not allow you to carry, you have voluntarily assumed that risk.

    That is the other side of the coin of Liberty. Responsibility. If you want to be free, be responsible. Don't look for other people to be responsible for what happens to you.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Boulder, ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    This is a good question, and one I've been wondering about.

    ---------------quote-------------
    http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm
    The Police: No Duty To Protect Individuals

    The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship, " concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."
    ...

    One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.

    Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York’s high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." [12]

    ---------------end quote-------------

    Has anybody tried suing based on the Riss and DeShaney cases, in a gun-ban city?

    The city or a "gun free zone" business makes it impossible to protect themselves by disarming them, then claims no responsibility for protecting citizens who follow that law?

  17. #17
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    JohnF wrote:
    This is a good question, and one I've been wondering about.

    ---------------quote-------------
    http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm
    The Police: No Duty To Protect Individuals

    The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship, " concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."
    ...

    One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.

    Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York’s high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." [12]

    ---------------end quote-------------

    Has anybody tried suing based on the Riss and DeShaney cases, in a gun-ban city?

    The city or a "gun free zone" business makes it impossible to protect themselves by disarming them, then claims no responsibility for protecting citizens who follow that law?
    Thus, the basis for my question.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )
    That would be the owner, IE the government. If you are wrongfully injured there is liability. If I were injured because I was unable to defend myself (or worse, killed) would I or my family be able to sue the Feds for preventing me from protecting myself. As they can not guarantee my safety, and it is ultimately my own responsibility to protect myself. By preventing me the ability to effectively protect myself would that not make them liable for any damages that may have occurred?
    IANAL, but suing the government for liability for an injury falls somewhere between nearly impossible and impossible
    they have insurance, the claim would have to be taken care of with their Insurance company.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Glock34 wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )
    That would be the owner, IE the government. If you are wrongfully injured there is liability. If I were injured because I was unable to defend myself (or worse, killed) would I or my family be able to sue the Feds for preventing me from protecting myself. As they can not guarantee my safety, and it is ultimately my own responsibility to protect myself. By preventing me the ability to effectively protect myself would that not make them liable for any damages that may have occurred?
    IANAL, but suing the government for liability for an injury falls somewhere between nearly impossible and impossible
    they have insurance, the claim would have to be taken care of with their Insurance company.
    "They" have sovereign immunity. You will be denied permission to sue.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Glock34 wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )
    That would be the owner, IE the government. If you are wrongfully injured there is liability. If I were injured because I was unable to defend myself (or worse, killed) would I or my family be able to sue the Feds for preventing me from protecting myself. As they can not guarantee my safety, and it is ultimately my own responsibility to protect myself. By preventing me the ability to effectively protect myself would that not make them liable for any damages that may have occurred?
    IANAL, but suing the government for liability for an injury falls somewhere between nearly impossible and impossible
    they have insurance, the claim would have to be taken care of with their Insurance company.
    "They" have sovereign immunity. You will be denied permission to sue.
    i never said anything about suing. If you slip fall in a public building or on the property ( parking lot ) they HAVE to cover it, that's why they have insurance. If you get beat up in a public building, I bet your legal council will be able to find a way of getting $$$ compensation.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  21. #21
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Post imported post

    I agree with the judge. If you deny someone the tools required to adequately defend themselves should the need arise, you should be held responsible for their safety. Especially if it's like the city of Chicago or something and/or there is a situation like the one mentioned in New York.

  22. #22
    Regular Member XD40coyote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    woman stuck in Maryland, ,
    Posts
    709

    Post imported post

    In regards to workplaces, the state of MD only cares for the top bosses. In one building in Baltimore city, some top officials have offices, so there are armed guards in the lobby and I assume at the places on the top floor where the gov't VIP's have their offices. However, there is no metal detector to go through or wanding done in the lobby. Crazy people sometimes have beefs with some state dept's, such as assessments and taxation or transportation. Some of these depts are in this building, but they have no armed guards at thier offices like the VIP's probably do. There is nothing to stop some nut from illegaly CCing and going to one of these offices to shoot the place up. The guards will take 2-3 minutes at best to get up there.

    There is a building in Baltimore county that houses state dept's offices, and they have basicaly NO security, at least not armed. These offices at one time where located in the courthouse, which does have armed guards and metal detectors.



    The whole school zones thing has me in a tizzy too, and post offices. What country/nation am I in again? And people think we are "gun kooks" when we carry? Is this country called the United States of Baaaaa?

Posting Permissions

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