• 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.

If a business posts, does their liability extend to the parking lot?

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
I understand that if a business posts NO CARRY, they are accepting responsibility for employees and patrons, but does that make them responsible in the parking lot as well? I mean if you cant carry into the business you will need to leave your defense firearm in the car, leaving you vulnerable from that point. So logical that means that business should also be responsible for your safety while on their property or shared parking lot, would you agree?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I understand that if a business posts NO CARRY, they are accepting responsibility for employees and patrons, but does that make them responsible in the parking lot as well? I mean if you cant carry into the business you will need to leave your defense firearm in the car, leaving you vulnerable from that point. So logical that means that business should also be responsible for your safety while on their property or shared parking lot, would you agree?

You can carry in the parking lot, but you cannot carry into the building. So if you have to disarm because you went into the building, they can be held liable.
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
If the "No Firearms / Weapons" signs are posted at the entrance to the establishment, but there is no signage at the perimeter of the parking lot that states "No Firearms / Weapons allowed on this property", then you should be legal by leaving your firearm in your vehicle.

Case in point:

The Veterans Administration Medical Center in Memphis posts signs at the entrances to their parking lots which forbids bringing weapons onto the property (parking lot, sidewalks, buildings); and there are clearly marked "No Weapons" signs at each entrance of the building(s). When I go for my appointments, I have to leave my handgun at home or risk getting arrested and appearing in United States District Court, which I have absolutely no desire in doing.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
If the "No Firearms / Weapons" signs are posted at the entrance to the establishment, but there is no signage at the perimeter of the parking lot that states "No Firearms / Weapons allowed on this property", then you should be legal by leaving your firearm in your vehicle.

Case in point:

The Veterans Administration Medical Center in Memphis posts signs at the entrances to their parking lots which forbids bringing weapons onto the property (parking lot, sidewalks, buildings); and there are clearly marked "No Weapons" signs at each entrance of the building(s).

They cannot ban the property, 175.60 (15m) (16).

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/175/60
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
They cannot ban the property, 175.60 (15m) (16).

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/175/60

Maybe not in Wisconsin...but the VAMC in Memphis, Tennessee certainly does.

A friend of mine checked himself into the mental health ward a few months ago, and in the middle of a Q&A session with the psychiatrist, he divulged that he had an encased shotgun in his work van, which was parked on the medical center's parking lot, along with all his other personal belongings, as he was in the process of moving to Indiana to stay with his mother.

His shotgun was confiscated and he will be appearing in U.S. District Court on charges of bringing a weapon onto the property of the medical center.
 
Last edited:

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
You can carry in the parking lot, but you cannot carry into the building. So if you have to disarm because you went into the building, they can be held liable.

Thats what I thought, now what about multiple businesses? Example is PickNSave shares the parking lot with Blockbuster, Fashion Bug, some restaurant etc. Blockbuster posts and PickNSave doesn't. Now I get mugged because I am going into Blockbuster (not yet into the building), does that make both liable or just the posting business? The reason I ask is if its a shared liability, company A may not want to share liability with company B. Might be a bit of a stretch but I can foresee the legal battle if it were to happen.

Milpro, I am pretty sure they can not prohibit you from legally transporting a firearm in your vehicle. So if you drive there in your car and leave your firearm locked up they have no say in the matter. The exclusion may be if they provide secure lock boxes outside their property lines. At least thats what I picked up from my recent CCW course.
 

gdyslin

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
34
Location
Madison, ,
If the "No Firearms / Weapons" signs are posted at the entrance to the establishment, but there is no signage at the perimeter of the parking lot that states "No Firearms / Weapons allowed on this property", then you should be legal by leaving your firearm in your vehicle.

Case in point:

The Veterans Administration Medical Center in Memphis posts signs at the entrances to their parking lots which forbids bringing weapons onto the property (parking lot, sidewalks, buildings); and there are clearly marked "No Weapons" signs at each entrance of the building(s). When I go for my appointments, I have to leave my handgun at home or risk getting arrested and appearing in United States District Court, which I have absolutely no desire in doing.

Federal law trumps WI statutes, Title 18 US Code says it is against Federal Law to have firearms anywhere on VA property which includes the parking areas. I work at VA Madison and we were briefed on this also.
 

Brendon .45

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
282
Location
Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Would not Federal safe transport laws apply as long as the firearm was unloaded/encased/transported per the law. (Looking for a link to the law right now)

As far as the VA briefing you about it, they could be wrong. My employer told me they were posting the building, even though they already have a no firearms policy listed in the employee manual. They said they were not going to post the parking lot as if it was a favor to me. I had to inform them they were not allowed to post the lot per Act 35. They were also not familiar with the immunity clause if they had not posted. How many places actually read the laws before making policy?
 

kawisixer01

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
115
Location
Janesville, Wisconsin, United States
Would not Federal safe transport laws apply as long as the firearm was unloaded/encased/transported per the law. (Looking for a link to the law right now)

As far as the VA briefing you about it, they could be wrong. My employer told me they were posting the building, even though they already have a no firearms policy listed in the employee manual. They said they were not going to post the parking lot as if it was a favor to me. I had to inform them they were not allowed to post the lot per Act 35. They were also not familiar with the immunity clause if they had not posted. How many places actually read the laws before making policy?

My employer just posted the parking lot even after I told the plant and HR managers that they could not following an announcement in a meeting, and forwarded on the FAQ link that outlines this to them. Now I'm wondering if: I should let it go, push the point with our national speak up line and face possible retribution at the plant level, or wait for the possibility of them firing me for having a weapon in my vehicle and then reap the rewards of a legal settlement after they violate my rights and fire me and I sue. My only question is if the clause in act 35 could be used to protect a hunter's long gun in his vehicle. I think you'd be hard pressed to find at least one vehicle in work or SCHOOL parking lots during the hunting seasons without a firearm in it.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
My employer just posted the parking lot even after I told the plant and HR managers that they could not following an announcement in a meeting, and forwarded on the FAQ link that outlines this to them. Now I'm wondering if: I should let it go, push the point with our national speak up line and face possible retribution at the plant level, or wait for the possibility of them firing me for having a weapon in my vehicle and then reap the rewards of a legal settlement after they violate my rights and fire me and I sue. My only question is if the clause in act 35 could be used to protect a hunter's long gun in his vehicle. I think you'd be hard pressed to find at least one vehicle in work or SCHOOL parking lots during the hunting seasons without a firearm in it.

This should qualify for the whistle blowers protection clause.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
My company posted but I basically threw a fit and refused to continue to work there if they posted my particular building. None of my employees wanted our location posted due to the nature of what we do and where we do it. I won, believe it or not, because our CEO had been listening to our HR nonsense and had not been given the facts. In the course of our discussion I brought up the liability issue several times and was told repeatedly they had no more liability than they did before. I told them I hope we never have to test their assumption, but I have searched and really cannot find anything that says they are liable for their employees protection. Almost all of the law sites state that they should not have increased liability. Do you have a link I could use to show that they do? It would be very helpful.

I would simply bring to your employers attention that OSHA requires employers to provide a "safe work environment". That would depend on what constitutes a safe environment. Different work places will have different situations and requirements. I am sure that even a mid grade lawyer would be able to use that in a civil liability case
 
Last edited:
Top