Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Fact Check

  1. #1
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527

    Fact Check

    In this article I read the quoted statement below. Is this an accurate statement?

    But under the bill, private individuals and groups that allow concealed carry on their property would have blanket immunity from any legal liability from that decision. Those who post signs prohibiting concealed weapons would not receive that immunity.
    Last edited by Trip20; 06-22-2011 at 10:25 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    The first half (not posting = immunity) is explicitly stated in the bill.

    The second half (posting = not immune) is an interesting interpretation and I'm not sure of the logic behind it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    Here's the relevant section...

    Code:
    SECTION 71.  943.13 (6) of the statutes is created to read:
    943.13 (6)  A person that does not, under this section, prohibit an individual
    who is carrying a firearm from entering or remaining on property that the person
    owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
    I guess the logic is "If you don't prohibit carry, you can't be held liable for that decision. However, if you do prohibit carry, you are not immune from liability to that decision."

    In other words, if the worst happens (unlikely, of course, but let's speak rhetorically here) and Joe Carry kills an innocent bystander, their family can't sue the store.

    However, the store prohibits carry, and Joe Carry is hurt/killed because he was forced to leave his gun in his car, he / his family can sue the store.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Teej View Post
    However, the store prohibits carry, and Joe Carry is hurt/killed because he was forced to leave his gun in his car, he / his family can sue the store.
    You have a near zero chance of winning a lawsuit because a private property owner prohibited you from carrying. They are not currently nor will they be responsible for your safety if a 3rd party decides to shoot the place up.

  5. #5
    Regular Member RR_Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Teej View Post
    Here's the relevant section...

    Code:
    SECTION 71.  943.13 (6) of the statutes is created to read:
    943.13 (6)  A person that does not, under this section, prohibit an individual
    who is carrying a firearm from entering or remaining on property that the person
    owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
    I guess the logic is "If you don't prohibit carry, you can't be held liable for that decision. However, if you do prohibit carry, you are not immune from liability to that decision."

    In other words, if the worst happens (unlikely, of course, but let's speak rhetorically here) and Joe Carry kills an innocent bystander, their family can't sue the store.

    However, the store prohibits carry, and Joe Carry is hurt/killed because he was forced to leave his gun in his car, he / his family can sue the store.
    In that last case, I would make a guess the logic goes something like this:

    - you make rules (as is your right)
    - you must enforce the rules
    - if you don't, you created a situation (the CC person in the place)
    - therefore, you are not immune

    Being "not immune" is different from "being liable".

    I don't really like that clause, it sets up stores with the choice of frisking people or taking on liability they don't really deserve to have. On the other hand, it'll make some stores think twice before slapping the signs up.

    What is the liability of a store when someone is illegally concealing or openly carrying against policy now? Maybe it's no different pre/post law change.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    You have a near zero chance of winning a lawsuit because a private property owner prohibited you from carrying. They are not currently nor will they be responsible for your safety if a 3rd party decides to shoot the place up.
    Be that as it may, you are not barred by statute from trying...unlike if they don't prohibit carrying.

    The OP's comment was spoken by the chief atty for legal aid. Regardless of what I think about her brother, I would hope she knows the law better than me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    You have a near zero chance of winning a lawsuit because a private property owner prohibited you from carrying. They are not currently nor will they be responsible for your safety if a 3rd party decides to shoot the place up.
    I disagree. In a case like this you have to convince a jury that the owner could have prevented the attack or allowed you to. It is not a criminal case so I would say you have a good chance at a positive judgement.

  8. #8
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Teej View Post
    The first half (not posting = immunity) is explicitly stated in the bill.

    The second half (posting = not immune) is an interesting interpretation and I'm not sure of the logic behind it.
    That is the way laws are written. So, if before this law you weren't immune, now that you don't post you are immune. Posting removes immunity.

    As I tell others, there is no law that says I can have lasagna on Tuesdays, but it's legal.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmike.me View Post
    I disagree. In a case like this you have to convince a jury that the owner could have prevented the attack or allowed you to. It is not a criminal case so I would say you have a good chance at a positive judgement.
    Please cite an example nation wide where such a lawsuit prevailed. If the premise is valid, it should not be difficult considering that most if not all states allow posting....

Posting Permissions

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