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.

Click to expand...

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.

Here's the relevant section...


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.

Teej said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Teej said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Interceptor_Knight said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Interceptor_Knight said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Teej said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

mrmike.me said:

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.

Click to expand...

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....