"Gun-free" businesses held liable

[Perd Hapley]

Well, not yet. But a bill to that effect has been filed in Missouri.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/02/bill-would-let-disarmed-missourians-sue-businesses-if-injured-gun-free-zones/94805174/

I don't think property rights need to be any further weakened by such a measure. No one's making you go to the posted business, so you assumed the risks by going there unarmed. Besides, concealed is concealed, and private gun-free zones aren't enforced by law in Missouri. You can only be asked to leave, and hit with a trespassing charge, if you refuse.

[Fly320s]

I agree with you assessment.  Even if this bill becomes law and gets overturned at the first trial, I still like it.  It does to the antigunners what they have been doing to us for years: puts the burden and responsibility on us.  It is about time the antis get a taste of their own medicine.

[Firethorn]

I agree with you assessment.

Don't you mean disagree?

That said, I like it for a simple reason - in many cases the owners cite "insurance reasons" for banning firearms.  Like they get a cut on their insurance rates, or expect that banning firearms will shield them from liability or something.

If a law like this passes, until it's tossed out at trial or something, the adjusters will have to take it into account.  Now, I don't think that shootings are common enough to make a real difference in insurance rates, but it would call into question any "assumptions" about liability and the savings thereof of having a "no weapons" policy.

You still have the right to ban firearms if you want.  But, just like not getting rid of the ice on your sidewalks, it may come with some extra liability.

I don't see it as far out of line that if you insist people disarm themselves when they come to visit, that you shouldn't shoulder an increased responsibility to protect them.

That said, I wouldn't restrict the ability to sue to just gun-owners.  Victim disarmament zones are known to to have a higher chance for spree killers.

[MillCreek]

I will be interested to see if these laws pass appellate court scrutiny and the business community will likely not be in favor.  More likely this is legislative grandstanding, not too different in concept than magazine bans or background checks for all transactions in regards to any real difference it makes on crime.  But because it is 'gun-positive' and proposed by a conservative, we are supposed to be in favor of it.

[Hawkmoon]

Well, not yet. But a bill to that effect has been filed in Missouri.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/02/bill-would-let-disarmed-missourians-sue-businesses-if-injured-gun-free-zones/94805174/

I don't think property rights need to be any further weakened by such a measure. No one's making you go to the posted business, so you assumed the risks by going there unarmed. Besides, concealed is concealed, and private gun-free zones aren't enforced by law in Missouri. You can only be asked to leave, and hit with a trespassing charge, if you refuse.

That's fine if there's a Wal-Mart next door to the Target, and if one bans guns you can go to the other. In many smaller municipalities (or outside thereof) there may be only one shopping mall, and most malls are posted against weapons. What about concert venues? How many of those are there in most parts of the state? If a major (ahem) "artist" is going to do ONE concert in your state, and the venue prohibits firearms, your only choice is to forego the concert, or to go unarmed (and, thereby, defenseless).

This isn't weakening property rights. It's affirming that actions have consequences. The way it works now, owners of properties that serve the public deprive the public of the right to carry the means of self defense, but those property owners absolve themselves of any responsibility for doing so. This proposed law doesn't deprive them of their right to ban guns from their properties, it just says if they do so they need to reckon with the consequences of their actions.

[RevDisk]

I will be interested to see if these laws pass appellate court scrutiny and the business community will likely not be in favor.  More likely this is legislative grandstanding, not too different in concept than magazine bans or background checks for all transactions in regards to any real difference it makes on crime.  But because it is 'gun-positive' and proposed by a conservative, we are supposed to be in favor of it.

Not sure about that. If one takes no stance and just points at state law, I don't see how they could or should be liable. But if one takes active policies, they should have to partial liability for the consequences. I could see the valid argument that if businesses are informed of their liability, they should be given a period of time to work out the implications. But I've personally always held the view that businesses and government agencies that post no-carry signs should absolutely have the right to do so and absolutely be liable for the consequences of doing so.

[MillCreek]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/06/missouri-governor-elects-wife-robbed-at-gunpoint-three-suspects-arrested.html

If only Ms. Greitens had been carrying. 

[Brad Johnson]

I'm torn on it. Part of me likes that business who choose to restrict carry will be held liable, but another part of me doesn't like the BigBrother.Gov stamp on a business owner's choice (even if I disagree with it).

Brad

[Perd Hapley]

That's fine if there's a Wal-Mart next door to the Target, and if one bans guns you can go to the other. In many smaller municipalities (or outside thereof) there may be only one shopping mall, and most malls are posted against weapons. What about concert venues? How many of those are there in most parts of the state? If a major (ahem) "artist" is going to do ONE concert in your state, and the venue prohibits firearms, your only choice is to forego the concert, or to go unarmed (and, thereby, defenseless).

This isn't weakening property rights. It's affirming that actions have consequences. The way it works now, owners of properties that serve the public deprive the public of the right to carry the means of self defense, but those property owners absolve themselves of any responsibility for doing so. This proposed law doesn't deprive them of their right to ban guns from their properties, it just says if they do so they need to reckon with the consequences of their actions.

I don't think anyone's claiming that businesses won't be allowed to ban guns. The problem is that "but everybody depends on Wal-Mart to get their stuff" turns into "they have a right to go to Wal-Mart, and do/be X." That is a weakening of property rights. Even in your own post, you've gone from the need to buy food at Wal-Mart to the "need" to watch concerts. Really?

[DittoHead]

No one's making you go to the posted business, so you assumed the risks by going there unarmed.

Doesn't that go both ways?
No one is making the owner declare it a gun-free zone either. By doing so they assume the risk of being sued if something happens there.

[HankB]

When you open a business to the public, you do lose some of your property rights; a business open to the public is NOT like a private home, especially when it's a publicly held corporation.

A person can ban - from their home! - someone else for ANY reason, or no reason at all. Race, religion, sexual orientation, the way a person parts their hair, speaking with a funny accent - are ALL reasons a person can refuse to admit someone to their home.

However, a business ostensibly open to the public like an ordinary restaurant, department store, or supermarket can't (for example) hang up a sign saying "NO COLOREDS ALLOWED" or put up a job recruitment sign saying "No Irish need apply." Simply by being open to the public, they are likely compelled by law to also provide fire protection, emergency egress, ADA compliant facilities, etc., in their business, whether they want to or not.

Now, you may plausibly argue from a property rights standpoint that they SHOULD be able to have discriminatory policies and skip public safety rules in their businesses, but in today's legal climate . . . they can't.

So with this background, it's reasonable to hold a business that bans guns legally carried for self protection as recognized and approved by the state while at the same time failing to provide protection, OUGHT to be held liable, since it is reasonably foreseeable that their ban endangers the safety of persons who would otherwise take responsibility for their own safety.

[Marnoot]

Liberal cities/states could use similar logic to say that business-owners that dont make their businesses gun-free should be liable if there's a mass shooting. The fact that gun-free doesn't have that effect, or even has the opposite effect, has no bearing. Liberals variously don't care, or don't want to believe. A local government holding businesses liable for a "gun-free" decision in one area creates precedent and ideas for a different local government elsewhere to do the same thing (with opposite reasons) in another.

[Perd Hapley]

Now, you may plausibly argue from a property rights standpoint that they SHOULD be able to have discriminatory policies...

Yes, that is the point. They should be able to exercise control over their businesses, like I can, over my home.

[RevDisk]

Yes, that is the point. They should be able to exercise control over their businesses, like I can, over my home.

Sure, they can and should be able to do so. Except too many were idiots and hopped in bed with Jim Crow. Admittedly, some percent were legitimately coerced by local Klan, government or police. Sometimes all three were essentially the same thing. Extreme violations and long duration oppression of US citizens led to a perfectly legitimate response.

The argument over whether it's still applicable or should be allowed at all is a legitimate argument.

My personal belief is, if government isn't involved, freedom of speech and association would applu. If govt money is involved, well, you take the King's shilling and you are the King's man. Public money means public interest, and everyone's interests should be represented.

[AJ Dual]

And of course there's also some rather HUGE unspoken quid-pro-quos with anti-CCW posted businesses.

Namely: "If we don't see it, you don't take it out, and you don't finger-eff it in our restrooms and have an ND or forget it in there so the next person finds it, we don't really care. Because if we did, we'd have pat-downs and metal detectors at the door, and we don't."

Granted, your state laws and how comfortable you might be violating a posted business will vary.

In WI, it's a civil forfeiture, not even a misdemeanor.

Southern Jim Crow analogy might be um... if you were a rather light-skinned black person, and they didn't notice... or something.

[Hawkmoon]

I don't think anyone's claiming that businesses won't be allowed to ban guns. The problem is that "but everybody depends on Wal-Mart to get their stuff" turns into "they have a right to go to Wal-Mart, and do/be X." That is a weakening of property rights. Even in your own post, you've gone from the need to buy food at Wal-Mart to the "need" to watch concerts. Really?

Your position above appears to be a reversal of your position earlier in this thread:

I don't think property rights need to be any further weakened by such a measure. No one's making you go to the posted business, so you assumed the risks by going there unarmed.

I think you're creating a bit of a red herring by trying to establish a distinction between "wants" vs. "needs." The point is, these are ALL places -- businesses, venues, whatever you want to call them -- that are open to the public, that invite the public into their premises, and that actually depend on the public for their revenue. Yet some of these businesses want to deprive the public of the constitutional right to bear arms, while not assuming responsibility for providing the defense they are depriving the public from providing for themselves. The reality today is that nobody who has a computer or a smart phone really "needs" to go anywhere. You can have food, clothing, medicines and entertainment delivered right to your door.

Once you decide that you'd rather go to a physical location rather than order on-line, then there's a need (or a "want," if you prefer) to be prepared to defend yourself. A law such as that proposed for Missouri doesn't prohibit a business from banning guns on or in its property, it just requires that business to accept the responsibility for interfering with the public's right to defend itself.

[Perd Hapley]

Sure, they can and should be able to do so. Except too many were idiots and hopped in bed with Jim Crow. Admittedly, some percent were legitimately coerced by local Klan, government or police. Sometimes all three were essentially the same thing. Extreme violations and long duration oppression of US citizens led to a perfectly legitimate response.

The argument over whether it's still applicable or should be allowed at all is a legitimate argument.

My personal belief is, if government isn't involved, freedom of speech and association would apply.

I agree.

[Perd Hapley]

A law such as that proposed for Missouri doesn't prohibit a business from banning guns on or in its property...

Why do you keep propping up this straw man? Who suggested that businesses would not be allowed to ban guns? Can you cite a source for this claim you feel you must continue to contradict?

Your position above appears to be a reversal of your position earlier in this thread:

What do you think I'm saying in those two posts, and where's the contradiction?

I think you're creating a bit of a red herring by trying to establish a distinction between "wants" vs. "needs."

No, I just pointed out how your paper-thin argument went full retard Tropic Thunder, when you started complaining about how there's only one concert venue. Have some compassion, fistful! Only ONE concert venue!! Want, need, whatever; owning a property or business means having control over it. Reducing one's control over one's property weakens that right.

The point is, these are ALL places -- businesses, venues, whatever you want to call them -- that are open to the public, that invite the public into their premises, and that actually depend on the public for their revenue. Yet some of these businesses want to deprive the public of the constitutional right to bear arms...

There is no constitutional right for me to do things you don't like on your property. Why do you think that should change just because you offer bananas for sale, or host concerts, or prepare taxes for a fee? As you said, a business depends on the public. Shouldn't that be enough of a check on them?

And for extra clarification, putting a no-guns sign on private property or a shop window can't deprive anyone of any rights. Not when entering the property is voluntary, and especially not when the no-gun sign hasn't the force of law (which is the case in Missouri). Patronizing that business is a choice, as is compliance with the sign.

[Firethorn]

Why do you keep propping up this straw man? Who suggested that businesses would not be allowed to ban guns? Can you cite a source for this claim you feel you must continue to contradict?

I think that what he's trying to say is that he doesn't think that it's a property rights violation until you're actually telling them that they can't do something like ban CCW on their property.

Only ONE concert venue!! Want, need, whatever; owning a property or business means having control over it. Reducing one's control over one's property weakens that right.

I don't think that shifting liability law a touch is necessarily a violation.  Hell, Cinemark got sued over their "allowing" of the gunman to get into the theater with his duffel bag full of guns, despite being a gun-free zone on paper.  They ended up settling, if I remember right.

There is no constitutional right for me to do things you don't like on your property. Why do you think that should change just because you offer bananas for sale, or host concerts, or prepare taxes for a fee? As you said, a business depends on the public. Shouldn't that be enough of a check on them?

The point is that businesses already have to accept a lot more infringement, outright infringement, than private households do.

And for extra clarification, putting a no-guns sign on private property or a shop window can't deprive anyone of any rights. Not when entering the property is voluntary, and especially not when the no-gun sign hasn't the force of law (which is the case in Missouri). Patronizing that business is a choice, as is compliance with the sign.

Entering the property is not always effectively voluntary.  For example, what if there's only ONE business of that type in the area?  What if they're ALL posted?  You can only buy so many things off the internet.

[Perd Hapley]

Entering the property is not always effectively voluntary.  For example, what if there's only ONE business of that type in the area?  What if they're ALL posted?  You can only buy so many things off the internet.

So just because Acme Supply is the only x-supplier in the area, you are forced to go there? Are you really? You have no other choice?

[Hawkmoon]

Why do you keep propping up this straw man? Who suggested that businesses would not be allowed to ban guns? Can you cite a source for this claim you feel you must continue to contradict?

You did, in your opening post.

What do you think I'm saying in those two posts, and where's the contradiction?

I think in your first post was that this proposed law shouldn't be passed because it's a violation of the property owner's rights.

[Perd Hapley]

You did, in your opening post.

I think in your first post was that this proposed law shouldn't be passed because it's a violation of the property owner's rights.

OK, and that contradicts what?