Jared's Jewelry Store

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stargazer65

New member
I was going to patronize this store because it is close to home, and they carry Pandora Jewelry. I have changed my mind after I saw this:

attachment.php


This is not a local store issue, all the stores have this posted, it is a nationwide policy. It's their right under law to do this, as far as I know, but I recommend that you don't patronize them, I will be sending them a letter.

This picture is not mine, but the sign on our store is the same.
 

Attachments

  • jareds.jpg
    jareds.jpg
    55.2 KB · Views: 652
Maybe you should send them a copy of your receipt when you purchase elsewhere; lost sales convey a message well for most retailers.
 
And I am sure robberies decreased once the robbers realized they were going into a "gun free zone"...
Click to expand...

Maybe, it's too rare an event to tell. Also there are other confounding factors. For instance, the store I mentioned now has an armed guard there all the time.

I forgot to mention these robberies were during business hours. Was a smash and grab.
 
Funny thing is they have that sign even here in Illinois where they don't have CC. I got my wife her wedding right there and was taken a back at it, i've never seen a "no gun" sign here in Illinois before.

I can see why the owner of a jewelry store would not want people with firearms under any circumstances coming in their business. Same thing as a bank. The flip side of that is most people who lawfully carry a firearm will never commit a serious crime of any kind, they are even less likely to commit a felony than a non gun owner. It is a flawed logic.


PS Side note to our Indiana readers: Do they still have no gun signs at all of the I80/Indiana Toll Road rest stops?
 
Yeah, there is no way armed robbers would try anything after they read that.

Imagine if you were a hardcore armed robber and you saw that sign? :p
 
They have read or been told by some liability type that allowing concealed carry is a risk for them. Quite common in the business lit. There are some counter articles around.

Hard to convince them on a national level to ditch this. If you discuss the 2nd Amend and rant - you get nowhere. Probably the same for boycotts that are clearly unorganized.

Bummer.
 
If you want to see real robbery, compare what Jared's sells a high quality 1 Carat VVS1, versus the Rapaport monthly price list....
 
The real point to these signs is not to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, its to protect their business. They are not so stupid as to actually believe that a criminal is deterred by the sign, nor are they worried about those people who lawfully carry becoming robbers.

What they worry about is the other people, their customers, who a) feel safe and protected by the sign, and b) (and most importantly) are freaked out by seeing firearms in any setting outside of a range, police officer or hunter in the field (and many are freaked out by hunters).

They are afraid that if these people see someone with a gun in the store, they will stop shopping there. And that is a larger chunk of their business base than CCW holders.

It boils down to simple economics. OR, at least, that's how they justify it. I'm sure their insurance also plays a part in it. If someone had an accidental discharge/negligent discharge, or even a deliberate shooting, if they "allowed" that person on their premises, then they would be held liable.

This is something I have never quite been able to understand about our laws. IF a third party breaks the law about shooting someone, how can the property owner be held responsible if there was no rule about them being armed on the property? But if there is a rule that says "no guns" then the property owner is blameless? Oh, I know the argument, that if they allow arms on their property they are responsible because third party misuse is a "forseeable circumstance"?

Seems to me that if I "allow" rain to fall on my place, then someone drowning would be a "forseeable circumstance" as well, wouldn't it? Or that arson was a forseeable circumstance because something in my place will burn?

Sad, but that seems to be the insurance companies and courts think these days.
 
Good post 44 AMP

I came back to this thread, because I thought of the deliberate shooting reason.

If a robbery did take place and a CCW tried to intervene and other customers were injured, it could turn into a huge liability.

I know we all want to place the onus on the robber, but given the various state laws and our litigious society, thats not always the case.
 
On one hand, I generally take my business to places that are smarter in their signage. There are some that post signs that leave loopholes for permit holders, if one reads them. For example, signs that don't comply with state requirements, or signs that ban unlawful carry. I normally avoid doing business with stores that have outright bans.

OTOH, I understand their anxiety, and feel that the long term fix will have to be tort reform. Indemnify businesses against liability in such scenarios, and they will lose most of the incentive (most, since some are actual anti's, liability issues notwithstanding) to post such bans.

Meanwhile, it is nice to live in a state where it is up to me whether to comply. In Missouri, if one does carry, there is no criminal or civil liability in a posted business unless one a) is caught and b) then refuses to leave.

I generally believe in respecting the business owners property rights, but boycotting, but it's nice to have the choice.
 
Does anyone know of an instance wherein a business that did not have a policy regarding CC was actually held liable for an injury which occurred during a defensive situation?

Seems to be the legal theory but I've never seen reference to it actually happening.

I'm curious how it would differ if you owned a parking lot and a licensed driver ran someone over? I'm not trying to go down the "ban cars cause they're dangerous" path... I'm saying that it really seems like the same legal situation. You own the property, you allow cars, someone does something bad with a car, you're responsible?

I know the "people don't see cars as dangerous..." argument but from a technical legal standpoint, how would it be different?
 
We discussed that a bit ago and our legal eagles consensus was that it would be very difficult to sue on the grounds that you couldn't carry.

It would also be very difficult to get a lawyer to take the case on contingency as the rewards seem small.

IIRC, the idea is that the evil actor is responsible - not the store for his or her actions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top