• 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.

Posting 'no guns' signs carries liability

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
From the source:

https://www.piaw.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=360:concealed-carry-law-presents-insurance-concerns-for-wisconsin-businesses-&catid=173:latest-news said:
MADISON, Wisconsin (October 27, 2011) – The new Wisconsin law that allows a person to carry a concealed hand gun if that person obtains a concealed carry weapons license, is forcing many businesses to make some important decisions.



Business and property owners may post signs that firearms (concealed or open) are not allowed on the premises. The signs must be at least 5-inches high x 7 inches wide and posted in conspicuous locations near all entrances to the building. The prohibition applies to customers, vendors, guests and employees. Violations are subject to a $1,000 forfeiture.



But the new law raises several questions about liabilities and insurance coverage if someone is injured by a concealed weapon brought onto the property.



“Property owners or occupants who do not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on their premises are immune from any liability arising from their decision,” says Ron Von Haden, CIC, Executive Vice President of the Professional Insurance Agents of Wisconsin (PIAW). “Conversely, if a business prohibits concealed carry, it may be accepting some liability for the actions of customers and employees arising from the use of a concealed weapon.”



If a business doesn’t prohibit concealed carry and an employee brings a weapon to work and that weapon falls on the floor, discharging and wounding a customer, the business owner is “immune from any liability arising out of its decision” under the law.



However, if the business prohibits weapons, then it has no such immunity. So the customer could presumably sue the business for negligence in failing to enforce its no weapons policy.



“No one knows how the courts will ultimately interpret the liability standards,” says Von Haden. “While it appears that the new law allows greater opportunity for businesses and owners to be negligent if they prohibit concealed carry handguns, I would have to believe that risk is very low.



“At the same time, employee handbooks, office policies and procedure documents may have to be revised to accommodate the new law,” Von Haden adds. “And businesses should definitely check with their insurance agents to see if their policies have any limitations or restrictions on coverage relating to negligence claims arising out of the use or possession of weapons.”
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
It's a bit misleading. They are liable, as I understand it, if they post signs prohibiting firearms IF a criminal/bad guy/perp/predator causes injury or worse, NOT just due to some concealed weapons. By posting signs and removing the ability of a CHP/CHL/OC-er to defend themselves they take upon themselves the liability.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
It's a bit misleading. They are liable, as I understand it, if they post signs prohibiting firearms IF a criminal/bad guy/perp/predator causes injury or worse, NOT just due to some concealed weapons. By posting signs and removing the ability of a CHP/CHL/OC-er to defend themselves they take upon themselves the liability.

That is exactly how I read it. Where is the misleading part?
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
That is exactly how I read it. Where is the misleading part?

The article seemed to limit the liability to an action concerning a concealed firearm (or weapon - what else, a nerf bat?). It's broader than that. Any physical assault which includes or seems to be leading to grievous bodily harm would be covered.

It sounds like they're limiting it to other licensed carriers or something. At best it's confusing.]]

--------
OK, I just reread the article:
According to the state law, which took effect November 1st, a business that allows concealed weapons is immune from liability should an incident happen. But the law doesn't mention immunity for businesses banning concealed weapons.

So the immunity is if someone uses their firearm in a place that allows firearms (or doesn't prohibit them). So if someone is being robbed and shoots the BG and hits a customer, the business isn't liable, JUST because they allowed firearms. The liability is if a business posts a no firearms (properly?) and an "Incident" occurs (presumably of grave bodily harm, armed robbery, kidnapping, employees going postal, etc.).
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I think it is pretty clear. You have no added liability if you only adhere to state laws in your establishment.

If you choose to make up your own rules that cut short or circumvent the state laws, you are accepting liability for damages that occur because of that choice.

This is not necessarily about anything law specific, but instead common sense.
 

customcreationllc

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
90
Location
Naugatuck CT
"No, I'd rather not have them in here. Mixing guns and alcohol isn't a good thing," Tony Mueller said.

I never buy this statement.
It is totally acceptable to drive a 26,000lbs truck with 10,000lbs in tow at .08% alcohol, one mistake can kill an entire family or more. And if you wanted to you could drive over as many people as you want. How different is that than a gun?

They don't want you to carry a 160grain bullet or hell even a .22 which is in a holster so the only accident that can happen is if you pull it out, driving accident can happen anytime. The worst case you kill one person which I think is less likely than a truck accident.
Alcohol should never be an excuse to say you didn't know what you are doing.

At least Connecticut understands that and allow up to .10% alcohol (the old driving standard).

Not saying go out and get drunk with your gun, just saying there are responsible drinkers.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Not saying go out and get drunk with your gun, just saying there are responsible drinkers.

I will also add that no matter how you drink, you are who you are and you are responsible for your actions all the same. Murder is murder no matter what BAC you may have.

No matter how much you drink, your gun will not achieve sentience and leap out of your holster to attack the people around you.

This is different than driving a car (no matter how much everyone wants to say differently), since if you do nothing and drink until you pass out, the gun still hurts no one (although it would be negligent to leave your firearm unattended of course). If you are driving and you pass out, you have kinetic energy that could harm others. Carrying a firearm only becomes dangerous if you act. Driving a car can become dangerous if you act or fail to act.

All that being said, I do not recommend people drink with a firearm. There is a lot of liability and responsibility associated with both and the law doesn't favorably on it (like you said, .10 BAC). Besides, you are likely carrying a firearm to defend yourself, why impair yourself if self defense is that important to you?
 

Dana1956

New member
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
1
Location
Ohio
Thank you

From the source:

I want to thank the person who posted this article in it's entirety. At the original website where this was first posted...it has been removed. I am in the process of writing letters to Jo-Ann Fabric who has recently posted the NO GUN sign on it's doors. I recently wrote to them and got back a form letter. Their response to me was that after "thoughtful consideration, Jo-Ann decided to post the signs to create a comfortable shopping environment and experience for our customers". I have wrote them back asking them if they are now responsible for the safety of their customers. Because someone on this forum had the foresight (front sight?) to cut and paste that whole article about liabilty, I have been able to back up what I wanted to say. Thank you! :banana:
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
I think it's funny how a national chain, has such varying differences by state.

I haven't found one of 'em posted here in CT yet. I go there sometime to get paint for my roll marks.

Jonathan
 

Freiheit417

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
167
Location
Connecticut
I think it's funny how a national chain, has such varying differences by state.

I haven't found one of 'em posted here in CT yet. I go there sometime to get paint for my roll marks.

Jonathan


Toys 'R Us in Waterbury, CT is posted. I wrote them a polite email regarding their policy and I got absolutely no response. I didn't really expect a response, but felt the need to let them know anyway.

I suppose they are content with prohibiting 160,000+ CT permit holders (i.e. potential customers) from their store just because someone chooses to legally carry a firearm. I let them know that I gave my business to other companies that do not create criminal-safety zones. I emphasized that criminals will not be deterred by such a sign.

In case anyone has not seen this yet, check it out >> http://www.friendorfoe.us

I would like to see more businesses posted there so I know who deserves my money and who does not. Anyone care to share info for CT businesses there?
 

smokeyburnout

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
125
Location
connecticut
I know quite a few people who almost exclusively carry only when they have their kids with them. Having signs like that posted drives them all away. Also with the toysrus thing in waterbury, it's funny that that toy store and the mall are right in the middle of the highest crime rate area of the city and are both posted no guns. By funny I mean sad.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
I remember a big thing a few months ago about JoAnn's Fabrics. Here is an interesting case. Signs posted, gun owners wrote in and said they wouldn't support their business with such nonsense and they temporarily removed the signs only to put them back up again.

But not here in CT it seems (drove by yesterday). How the hell do they do this sort of thing so selectively?

Makes no sense to me.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
But not here in CT it seems (drove by yesterday). How the hell do they do this sort of thing so selectively?

The same reason people are ever surprised by OC in CT. Many people are simply oblivious to the fact that people carry firearms around them all the time. Many people in the northeast think carrying guns is a 'southern thing'.
 

JohnnyO

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
79
Location
, ,
With all the comments about 'signage' it makes me wonder if people actually look for signs before entering. Given the places I have been and how I 'travel' I get the impression that I may have missed a few signs along the way.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
If the sign is indeed conspicuous, I don't think you want to have to deal with the nonsense.

Jonathan
 

JohnnyO

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
79
Location
, ,
If the sign is indeed conspicuous, I don't think you want to have to deal with the nonsense.

Jonathan

Yes, I absolutely agree and I have no problem respecting the wishes of the property owners. My concern is the prominence of the signs. Unless I am looking for something like a sign with the store's hours of operation I really can't imagine being bothered to read random postings. Now if it were blinking in bright lights or some other method of calling attention to itself then I could see (no pun intended) noticing it.
 

JohnnyO

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
79
Location
, ,
Here is an observation form my day today. I needed to pickup something at Sears. I drove over to the Brass Mill Mall in Waterbury.

I parked right outside the tool/hardware department since that was where I needed to be. I searched high and low at the entrance and all I could find was stickers on the glass depicting the universal 'No-Smoking' insignia. Just for the heck of it I walked out of Sears into the mall. I could not find any signage there.

Then I walked to a actual mall entrance. Went out, turned around and then examined that entrance. Again nothing of noteworthiness. However 10 or 15 feet into the mall beyond the second set of doors was a freestanding sign entitled 'Code of Conduct'. One of the last 'bullet' points on the list was No Firearms.

Now I can't argue that I am unaware of the 'rules' there but who stops to read the Code of Conduct poster at a mall? Given the entrance I used, one utilizing the same point of entry would never be exposed to the Code of Conduct.
 
Top