Business with ‘gun-free zone’ signs may be tagged with legal liability

[RamRoddoc]

You mean when business demand a citizen give up their right to self-defense for public safety that when it goes horribly wrong it may make the business bear a measure if responsibility? Really, they can't infringe upon the rights of the citizen and be immune from that liberal leftist decision?

What will the world come to?

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/01...igns-may-be-tagged-with-legal-liability-94257

A Mississippi shooting Friday night illustrates perfectly not only the ineffectiveness of “gun-free” zones, but also the fact that the posting on “no firearms allowed” signs can put a storeowner in legal jeopardy.

A man was shot outside a Jackson, Miss., convenience store where the proprietor had posted a “no firearms allowed” sign.

The unidentified victim was shot in the leg during an altercation in which multiple shots were fired

First, it is obvious that criminals have no regard whatsoever for “no firearms” signs and that, in fact, the presence of such a sign may even encourage a criminal to enter a business to commit a criminal act (robbery, etc.) since, presumably, no one (except possibly the business owner) would have a firearm

And the point becomes clearer...

The not-so-obvious question is “what is the responsibility of the business owner to protect his/her customers if they post a ‘no firearms’ sign at their place of business?” It is already the law in MS that a business owner must exercise “reasonable care” to protect a customer from injury. One sees this a lot in “slip and fall” cases (wet floors, owner has duty to warn of danger).

But what about the situation where a customer, legally armed, either openly or with a concealed carry permit, disarms themselves to do business in the “no firearms” business and is injured or killed by some gun-wielding thug intent on committing a crime? What does the owner’s duty of “reasonable care” to protect the customer mean in those circumstances?

They have taken away the right of honest legal self-defense, so what liability do they incur for that decision?


Legal firearm for self-defense vs. illegal firearm for crime so where is the justice?

 

[boxer90]

I think it's great. If a bakery can get sued for not baking some cupcakes or whatever for a gay couple, if someone gets shot because of a "gun free zone" at a business, fair game. Fight fire with fire.

Though in all honestly, I don't have a problem with a business discriminating along any lines: guns, color, sex, orientation, etc. Free market will sort it out and if people want to give their money to people that hate them, well, so be it then. It creates competition. If you think back to Segregation, businesses that said whites only voluntarily rejected a percentage of their local consumer base. That created opportunities for others to step in and collect that market share. Colleges were an example of that. The big schools like Alabama wouldn't let blacks in, but smaller institutions like Howard and Spelman would. Those places thrived and provided educational opportunities that black students couldn't receive elsewhere. Now look at those institutions today: many are in decline because they can't compete against the Alabama and Georgia types. I think Morris Brown in Atlanta is on it's last leg.

Not advocating for segregation or anything, but when a business rejects your money on some non-economic principle, it creates an opportunity for someone else to thrive. To tie that back into guns, if convenience store A has a "no guns" sign, give your business to convenience store B that doesn't have such a sign. If the issue is large enough in the community, eventually store A will adjust their policy, change ownership, or go out of business altogether. Store A should have a right to say "no guns" but Store A should also be prepared to lose business as a result.

But that would be a perfect world, and we live in the opposite of that, so get a good lawyer and sue away. It works for the liberals and their causes.

 

[3clicks_Off]

What will the world come to?

 

[batoncolle]

I will encourage you to OC your Mosin Nagant all over the mall and piss off every liberal soccer mom and whiney ass concealed carrier in the joint - since they are really just one in the same.

But to go after private property rights makes us just as bad as liberals. There are 5 sacred things that made this country great - 2A, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, respect of life, and private property rights. I don't compromise on any of them.

If they don't want me carrying on their property, then the hell with them. They will not see a dime of my money. But it's their right to do so.