• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Wisconsin Bankers Assoc member forum held on WI CCW

Vandil

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
240
Location
Sun Prairie
Wisconsin Bankers Association just held an electronic discussion forum on WI CCW, 250 reps from 170 Wisconsin banks attended one of them being yours truly. This trade association consists of 98% of WI chartered banks. Most of it is standard legal boiler plate but there were a few interesting bits. An opinion about restricting CCW in drive up teller lanes while the customer is still in their personal vehicle on bank property. As well as discussing lack of bank liability and responsibility after posting a no CCW sign and customer injury due to a 3rd party.

Member handouts in PDF format are attached.
Authors appear to be
pneuman@boardmanlawfirm.com
jmirus@boardmanlawfirm.com
WI Banker Legal VP not credited
kcelven@Wisbank.com

If anyone has access to the Wisconsin Credit Union League's 9-13-11 opinion "To Post or Not to Post?" I'm curious if it's comparable. Community Bankers of Wisconsin posted the Wisconsin Banker opinions almost to the letter.

Concealed Carry and Bank Liability Summary
...

Banks may not prohibit individuals from keeping firearms in a vehicle being driven or parked in a parking
lot or to any part of the building, land or grounds used as a parking lot. It currently appears likely that the
law will permit banks to prohibit individuals from carrying firearms in vehicles being driven through a
bank's drive-through, subject to the posting requirement.


Liability was the focus of a majority of the memberships questions. I found this to be actually a bit scary personally. Strip your right of self defense, force you to enter a facility known to be targeted by armed criminals, then deny liability based on reasonable foresee-ability and the posted sign providing adequate warning.

Concealed Carry and Bank Liability
...
In general, and depending on the facts and circumstances of course, we believe banks that
prohibit firearms run a low risk of incurring liability for injuries caused by concealed firearms in
many circumstances, even though they are not afforded the statutory immunity provided by the
Act. Banks that prohibit firearms are not expecting any firearms to be on the premises.
Therefore the harm caused by a concealed firearm is less likely to be reasonably foreseeable than
if firearms were allowed. In addition, the fact that harm may be caused by a concealed firearm
may be difficult for a bank to reasonably discover because the weapon is often concealed from
view until moments before the harm takes place. However, if a bank prohibits firearms and an
individual enters the premises with a firearm to the knowledge of the bank, then there is a higher
risk of liability for injuries caused by the firearm, because the potential for harm is more likely to
be reasonably foreseeable and the bank is more likely to have a duty to protect its customers.
Plaintiffs injured by concealed firearms may argue that banks prohibiting firearms are
required to take additional steps, such as providing metal detectors or security guards to enforce
a no firearms policy. However, banks are only required to protect against reasonably foreseeable
harm, not guarantee customer safety. As a result, it seems unlikely that Wisconsin courts would
impose additional preventive measures on banks that prohibit firearms beyond posting notice.
Even if harm is reasonably foreseeable under certain circumstances, a bank that prohibits
firearms will not be liable unless it fails to take reasonable steps to protect its customers by
controlling the conduct of third parties or providing an adequate warning.

WI Banker approved signage.
Apparently no security is a form of security program.
v6Sno.jpg
 

Attachments

  • WBA Concealed Carry Indepth Analysis.pdf
    66 KB · Views: 211
  • WBA Concealed Carry Summary.pdf
    48.4 KB · Views: 189
M

McX

Guest
they are obviously more concerned about your money, and being politically correct, than your safety.
 

musky1011

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
12
Location
, ,
it is a losing battle with the banks...The Federal Reserve runs the country,all the banks,lawyers,police,military,politicians and all the courts...You will never win in court against a bank
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
it is a losing battle with the banks...The Federal Reserve runs the country,all the banks,lawyers,police,military,politicians and all the courts...You will never win in court against a bank

lol, banks are completely separate entities from the government. Just because the money is insured by the government, doesn't mean the bank is owned by the government.

This is not a case where someone was physically harmed, but their identity was and they are

http://www.darkreading.com/database...against-bank-over-breach-to-move-forward.html

http://www.twincitiesbusinesslitigation.com/articles/interesting-1/

http://www.chicagobusinesslitigationlawyerblog.com/2010/02/court_rules_claim_for_negligen.html

You honestly think you cannot take on the bank? lmao
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Banks that prohibit firearms are not expecting any firearms to be on the premises.
Therefore the harm caused by a concealed firearm is less likely to be reasonably foreseeable than if firearms were allowed.
What idiots!
Can't they 'reasonably forsee' that criminals will go along like they always have, attacking people & places that look to be easy prey?

And I agree that their lawyerly person is giving very bad advice... I thought being able to read & reason were prerequisites to being a lawyer? Why can't s/he figure out that the part of the law that says "if you don't post, you're immune from liability" means exactly what it says?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
What idiots!
Can't they 'reasonably forsee' that criminals will go along like they always have, attacking people & places that look to be easy prey?

And I agree that their lawyerly person is giving very bad advice... I thought being able to read & reason were prerequisites to being a lawyer? Why can't s/he figure out that the part of the law that says "if you don't post, you're immune from liability" means exactly what it says?

No one has ever been robbed outside a bank either...

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/...onths-ago-dies-of-his-injuries-115603569.html

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Shot...dup-in-northwest-Harris-County-128918873.html

http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2011/05/30/news/doc4de2d0c03b4f2231622189.txt

http://www.walb.com/story/15216337/employee-robbed-outside-bank?redirected=true
 

Packfanatic

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
177
Location
North of Madison
oxyMORON

"We participate in the no firearms allowed security program."

Well that about sums it up. I guess we will all be secure since they have a security program in effect. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
it is a losing battle with the banks...The Federal Reserve runs the country,all the banks,lawyers,police,military,politicians and all the courts...You will never win in court against a bank
I'm sorry, I didn't see that section in the US Constitution where it says banks are above the law.... (The little dots mean I'm being sarcastic, son.) :monkey

I sincerely hope that nobody is injured or killed because of this policy; but if they are, I sincerely hope that the officers of the bank responsible for the decision have to pay until it hurts, and then pay some more.
 
Last edited:
M

McX

Guest
the banks are private entities, that are supported, and bailed out by the federal government. they routinely rip off citizens, with impunity (although i saw in the paper today many of them are up on fed. charges of ripping off veterans), and they routinely hide behind the same slogan the government uses on us: We are here to help you. conspiracy?! nah.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
the banks are private entities, that are supported, and bailed out by the federal government. they routinely rip off citizens, with impunity (although i saw in the paper today many of them are up on fed. charges of ripping off veterans), and they routinely hide behind the same slogan the government uses on us: We are here to help you. conspiracy?! nah.

trustme.jpg
 

springfield40

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
7
Location
Osseo, Wi
You little whiner JOEY, come on and put on your fake cop suit and get in your fake cop car and make believe your going to Indy. Better go cry to the Mods, as for your buddy at Mechanix LTD, he asked me to dance and thats cool, Lizzys it will be.

So now banks are Nazis, you need some mental health care immediately. You should not be allowed to own a firearm JOEY.
 

RR_Broccoli

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
170
Location
WI
Yet another reason to not use banks.:cuss:

For a lot of people, the drive thru getting cash or an ATM visit is one of their most vulnerable times when they are most likely to get hijacked or robbed.

Never mind the fact the law specifically talks about rights of citizens to possess firearms in parking lots. :rolleyes:

I hope it works out for them. [..snicker..snicker..]
 

Fast Ed

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
65
Location
Delafield, Wisconsin, USA
Bankers Rationale

Talking to a banker trained in security the other day about this issue, he explained to me one of the security issues the law does not anticipate or address. Most banks do not employ armed security guards anymore. Their security is to give the thief money with a die pack included and get him/her out of the bank as quickly as possible. The reason for this is that banks are built with a lot of marble, concrete and steel, all of which deflect bullets in potentially unsafe directions. They do not want shoot outs inside the bank because the bullets will end up being richochet'd all over the place and do not feel that is as safe for the customers as handing out the die pack and getting the scum bag out the door. Examining a GREAT majority of bank robberies shows that this method is effective in minimizing gunfire inside the bank and allowing law enforcement the best opportunity to find the perp. A GREAT majority of bank robberies involved no gunfire, and a great many of them involve no firearm at all. There are some cases where firearms have been discharged during a robbery, most into the ceiling or floor to scare the patrons and employees. Even crooks are smart enough to know two things: 1. A dead teller can't give you any money. 2. Robbery gets you much less time behind bars than does murder. The banks feel that it is more safe for the customers and the employees to minimize or eliminate the possibility of gunfire during a robbery and less safe to shoot it out with the bad guy. It's only money. Just wanted to explain the mindset. Don't wish to take a side.

Fast Ed
 
Top