Gun buster liability

Hi all, since i have not been on this site long. was wondering if this has been suggested.

i noticed one of the lame excuses for putting up a gun buster sticker, was that the business was afraid of liability ( i think this is a silly argument ). this is just a pat answer, given without thought. and a little hard to argue with in today's suit happy world.

here is what i wondering about. couldn't there be legislation to make anyone that puts up one of these and takes away your ability to defend yourself, takes on full liability if something does happen. i know that NC made a law a few years ago that anyone that had a resort ( pool ). they had to carry 1 or 2 millions dollar insurance policy. maybe this would make them think twice before they put a sign up

of course i know each state is different. and this would be impossible in some. is there any state that already considered this.
weather you think this is nonsense or not. all pro and cons will be appreciated

PapaBear,

This has been discussed a number of times over the years. The hash-outs usually covered the same points. And, ultimately landed back at the point: it is worse to encourage government to legislate away more property rights, than it is to not patronize businesses that ignore the right to self-defense.

It would be nice if they did something like that. Basically your right ends where the other person's property rights begin. But as they are denying you your right to self defense (which directly affects your right to life) they need to pick up your safety and thus are liable should something happen that reasonable self defense might have stopped (so dude driving his car bomb into a building wouldn't be something they could be responsible for).

I don't see anything like this passing, but it would be nice.

papa bear said:

Hi all, since i have not been on this site long. was wondering if this has been suggested.

i noticed one of the lame excuses for putting up a gun buster sticker, was that the business was afraid of liability ( i think this is a silly argument ). this is just a pat answer, given without thought. and a little hard to argue with in today's suit happy world.

here is what i wondering about. couldn't there be legislation to make anyone that puts up one of these and takes away your ability to defend yourself, takes on full liability if something does happen. i know that NC made a law a few years ago that anyone that had a resort ( pool ). they had to carry 1 or 2 millions dollar insurance policy. maybe this would make them think twice before they put a sign up

of course i know each state is different. and this would be impossible in some. is there any state that already considered this.
weather you think this is nonsense or not. all pro and cons will be appreciated

Click to expand...

I would fight such legislation. Just don't go where you are not allowed to defend yourself. When you see one of those signs and choose to disarm before going in, that is "assumption of risk."

It is when we look to the government to help us out that we infantilize ourselves, empower government, and make everyone just a little less free. Look to yourself first and only to government in its role as the defender of our rights against forceful usurpation.

A million dollars for each bullet wound. 5 million for each wound on a minor, 5 million for each death, 10 million for each dead minor.

Nice round numbers.

Schools should not be protected from the fines.

No, no, no. As Eye mentioned, we create larger troubles by asking government to solve our problems.

If we ask the government to solve something, we imply that the government has the power to solve it. Remember, anything the government gives, it can take away.

How is it giving the government any power for holding them accountable for our rights, and I dont see how it gives them power to hold businesses accountable for putting our lives at risk. I know that rights are "given" by governments, not businesses, but the people doing business come in with rights. Those rights were there before the place opened up, and it if it is open to the general public, the rights come with the people, if you want to regulate that, then sell membership cards, or start a club. Gun rights should be protected like sex, race, speech and so on.

actually you are not taking away their property rights. they would still have the choice. . would you not expect the pool owner to be responsible if someone was injured in the pool area? and how about a monopoly a place you have no choice

if a establishment can not deny you access for a vague right than why not protect a well defined right

btw, what would the liability be in a business that does not post. it would seem that the one that caused the injury , is the one to be liable

papa bear said:

actually you are not taking away their property rights. they would still have the choice. . would you not expect the pool owner to be responsible if someone was injured in the pool area? and how about a monopoly a place you have no choice

if a establishment can not deny you access for a vague right than why not protect a well defined right

btw, what would the liability be in a business that does not post. it would seem that the one that caused the injury , is the one to be liable

Click to expand...

<sigh>

Well, I guess we gotta have this conversation all over again after all.

You in fact are denying them property rights. You are subordinating their rights to yours. And, you are holding them liable for the criminal actions of others. Pretending they have a choice is just like TSA searches at airports. TSA pretends you have a choice, you don't have to fly if you don't want to be searched. Bull$hit. Give me the choice to fly with or without a search; then they can say I have a choice.

But, none of that matters. The critical point is that government has no business interfering; it has no power. Giving it that power is asking for trouble. This is not a matter of who's rights are more important. This is a matter of letting government decide who's rights are superior--an express ticket to trouble.

" You are subordinating their rights to yours."

But isn't that what they are doing to us?

stainless1911 said:

How is it giving the government any power for holding them accountable for our rights, and I dont see how it gives them power to hold businesses accountable for putting our lives at risk. I know that rights are "given" by governments, not businesses, but the people doing business come in with rights. Those rights were there before the place opened up, and it if it is open to the general public, the rights come with the people, if you want to regulate that, then sell membership cards, or start a club. Gun rights should be protected like sex, race, speech and so on.

Click to expand...

If a business informs you in advance that they do not allow you to carry, and you choose to enter, not carrying, you and they are simply both exercising freedom of choice. In your case, you are assuming the risk that they are not forcing you to assume. Getting the government to weigh in on your side, forcing the private property owner to assume the risk for your choice is giving the government power over our (and the property owner's) choices.

Such would be anti-Liberty.

Again, stop looking to the government to free us from the consequences of our choices. To do so is to self-infantilize.

stainless1911 said:

" You are subordinating their rights to yours."

But isn't that what they are doing to us?

Click to expand...

No, you still have the right to carry. If the government forces (or legally motivates through the possibility of pecuniary consequences) them to accept your carry on their property, they are losing part of their property rights.

Finally. An acceptable explanation. Thank you.

All I ask from anyone is that if you want to win an argument, you must provide a better one.

i realize that at some time that a similar idea has been discussed before, but this can be beneficial for new members that have not already made up their mind.

again not forcing anyone to do anything. maybe a defining the liability of posting.

No worries, we all learn, that's why we're here. Some things that seem basic for some members are complicated for others, and not necessarily just the new ones.

could it be the role of government is the protection of our civil rights? something like what happened in the Woolworth which ended segregation of restaurants.


eye, how do you feel about access to public property, such as government properties. or basically property payed for by the public or tax paid?

papa bear said:

could it be the role of government is the protection of our civil rights? something like what happened in the Woolworth which ended segregation of restaurants.

eye, how do you feel about access to public property, such as government properties. or basically property payed for by the public or tax paid?

Click to expand...

Government property and public property are the same thing. I only say this because it is germain to the topic, as many folks mistakenly think that a store open to the public is public property. It is still private property.

Any public property that readily invites the public should do so fully respecting the RKBA. Some public property is reasonably secured from the general public. Restricting entry and restricting some rights upon entry would be reasonable. Example: the armory at your local police station.

However, the lunch counter at Woolworth's (private property) is another story. I believe that the property owner should have total control over who enters his property and the activities they are allowed to participate in while on his property. The only reason that discrimination on such private property is unlawful is the legal invention of "public accommodations." While barring blacks simply because of their race is repugnant, such action is a natural RIGHT. The legal theory of "public accommodation" violates this RIGHT and is anti-Liberty

While barring folks based on race is repugnant, so is the governmental removal of the right to enjoy one's property by force of law. Doing what is right is an individual choice. Forcing folks to do what is right is not the purview of government.

sorry if i am not making myself as clear as i would like. i do try and put it in a way that others will understand

how about tax paid property, like ball game facilities or i guess coliseums where events are put on

and again what is the liability of posting, opposed to not posting? of course local laws are different, but is there no difference ?

maybe this way, could or have there ever been a suit for someone being disarmed by a policy?

papa bear said:

sorry if i am not making myself as clear as i would like. i do try and put it in a way that others will understand

how about tax paid property, like ball game facilities or i guess coliseums where events are put on

and again what is the liability of posting, opposed to not posting? of course local laws are different, but is there no difference ?

maybe this way, could or have there ever been a suit for someone being disarmed by a policy?

Click to expand...

Whether a property owner should be able to bar carry depends whose name is on the title, regardless of the source of the money that acquired the property. If it is titled to the government, it is public property, and our rights should be (but usually aren't) respected by the law.

If it is privately titled, the owner should have the absolute final say.

It depends on State law as to whether public property can ban carry. In Alabama, by law, it can't. In reality, it does. The courts will have to settle this. This may happen soon because ALOC has a municipal worker who suffered job consequences for carrying off-duty on municipal property. (BTW, there is a 2001 AG ruling that says that municipalities cannot enforce handgun carry policies on their employees. In essence, they are flat allowed to carry on duty! Period.)

Barring a State law to the contrary (which I would argue is unconstitutional and anti-Liberty), property which is titled to a private entity or person can set its carry policies without fear of a suit for violating the RKBA.

Liability for injuries due to a shooting on private property that is posted for "no guns" would have to be settled by a court. The argument I would find most persuasive would be that people who voluntarily enter private property, disarming themselves to avoid revocation of invitation, assume the risk of going about unarmed. No liability should attach to the property owner.

If private property is posted and yet you insist on carry, just respect private property rights and go elsewhere.

What about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE&feature=player_embedded

stainless1911 said:

What about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE&feature=player_embedded

Click to expand...

He's wrong on the 1st and 2nd amendment points. If a company doesn't want anyone spewing political speech in their store, they can eject them same with arms.