VAgun22222
Regular Member
However, if they exclude someone who is armed and then a violent situation ensues where the now-unarmed patron is injured, that patron should be able to pursue legal remedies from the store owner who willingly placed that patron in harm's way. Yes, the patron had the choice of not going into that business, but the owner also had the choice (responsibility?) of assuring the patron's safety. I know that there are a lot of items in this paragraph which could be open for intense discussion, but I'm just throwing them out (maybe playing devil's advocate, eh?).
That's very interesting. I suppose a law could also be written to provide renters who are prevented from possessing or carrying firearms on premises to sue for damages if they are harmed in an aggravated robbery or unable to resist an armed robbery. Obviously a harm has been done to them by the rental property for preventing them from protecting themselves, but properties have comprehensive ways of protecting themselves from liability, so something like a law could change that.
Coupled with a law that targets the insurance companies, property rights are intact, but there's no reason to completely ban guns outside of negligent discharge since it won't mean a lower insurance premium. And if they're taking government funds, that's really never a great thing to do anyway, because the government can always make up whatever conditions they want.