Letter to anti-gun bank

V

v8fbird

Moderator
Guys,

So I've worked my way up the chain of command of the company I bank with about the no gun signs outside every branch. I just got an incredibly hostile phone call from a Vice President, and I asked him for the address of his superior, which he gave to me. I'm requesting a response in writing from this guy, because I like to have something other than my poor memory of a phone call.

Obviously they aren't going to change their policy but since nobody's really bothered to talk it through with me yet, I'd like to ask some questions that are hard for them to answer or, if they do answer them, they show a hateful bias against guns.

The questions I have so far:


I would ask you to list the reasons that you think lawfully carried weapons pose a threat to XXXXXX, its customers or its employees.

I would ask you to explain why you believe that anyone intent on committing a crime with a firearm would leave his gun at home simply because of your sign.

I would ask you to explain why it would not be a case that a criminal would be more apt to pick XXXXXX as a target than another bank that allows their customers to carry firearms.

Finally, I would ask you to explain what, if any, assurances you can give me that XXXXXX will keep me safe while banking at XXXXXX.



Suggestions welcome about where I go from here.
 
Seriously? Don't even bother asking for their justifications (which are invariably liability-driven). Just politely inform them that due to their policies and the hostility of their upper management towards reasonable inquiries concerning those policies, you will be closing your account (if applicable) and moving your funds to a bank with a more customer-oriented culture. Nothing terrifies upper management more than having weasel-words thrown at them. :D
 
v8fbird, First off, be cool and polite, and if the answeres you get are not to your liking, I would do as Coinneach has stated "Just politely inform them that due to their policies and the hostility of their upper management towards reasonable inquiries concerning those policies, you will be closing your account (if applicable) and moving your funds to a bank with a more customer-oriented culture. Nothing terrifies upper management more than having weasel-words thrown at them".
 
I may change banks, but I've been using them for almost a decade and like them in every other respect. The tellers all know me by name. If your grandma made you leave your gun in your car while you were in her house, would you stop visiting your grandma? Probably not. I do most of my banking from the drive through anyway, and they don't have any signs posted about that. I just figured I would express my displeasure.
 
Keep fighting the good fight V8. I have changed banks once, grocers twice and a certain restaurant chain that I really used to enjoy is now on my off limits list.
The sacrifices are many, but in the end it WILL have an effect.
 
Bless you 2 rugers, you have the right attitude and will. Coinneach is right, politely ask them those questions you pose (which are excellent), and then after their canned bogus nonsensical nonresponsive reply, tell them that since their reply didn't really address your questions (it won't because it can't), that you have no choice but to change banks. Then follow up by sending proof of the closed account to same management once the account has been closed. And use this:

"I am FBI certified. My concealed carry permit assures that I have had:

-A full background check
-No felony convictions
-No drug convictions
-No mental impairments

Do you know this much about your other patrons or employees?

A "No Firearms" Policy:
-May Increase your liability
-Denies your customers thier right to self-defense
-Creates a "Safe Workplace" for Criminals
-Shifts the Burden of providing safety from others onto you!

Criminals won't obey your "No Guns" sign

I will respect your policy and patronize your competitors

For your convenience, your name will be added to the "Legal Guns Prohibited Nationa Merchant Database" at www.FirearmsCoalition.org .

Gun Rights Guarantee All Rights."

Hmmm, but now I'm not seeing any such list located at www.firearmscoalition.org . Anyone know what's up with that?
 
Simple: If they disarm you, they take away your means of self-defense from a gun weilding maniac bank-robber, for example By ordering you with their sign to comply with this disarmament as a condition of entering their bank, they implicitly are representing to you that in lieu of your own firearm for protection, they will be substituting their own protection of you. This may in some circumstances create a legal 'duty' to protect you which otherwise may not have existed, but for the 'stupid sign'. They breach their duty, fail to protect, you get hurt/killed, and successfully sue them. They've increased their liability potentially.
 
What about this:
Best Case Scenairo​
Your "gun weilding maniac bank-robber" enters and screams "Everyone DOWN! Get on the floor NOW!" The armed citizen pulls his gun, shoots the bg. The bullet passes thru, because of the close range involved, and strikes someone else.

Worst Case Scenario​
Three armed citizens pull guns and start shooting. The bg is eliminated but two bystanders are also shot. One dies.

Two questions:

  1. From a liability stand point: where do you think the greatest risk is to the bank?
  2. What is the statistical probability of any of these happening?
 
GAryfdl- in the scenario you posed above, the person doing the shooting would be liable for the shots they fired, not the bank. If you use your CCW you are responsible for the bullets that leave the barrel, not the business you are standing in.

SW
 
Let me see if I understand your reasoning Gary. The bank in question allows concealed carry. A SSShtk' em up guy comes in and lead flies. Innocents are hit by "FRIENDLY":eek: fire.
How is the bank liable? Were the shooters employees of the bank?
The people who fired are responsible. It really is that simple.
The bank did not shoot them, so why would they be liable? It is exactly this logic that we must work to reverse.
Worst case scenario
A pedestrian walks up to "SUZIES SIDEWALK LEMONADE SALE" and is hit by gunfire from an 80 year old grandmother being assaulted on the sidewalk by HELLBOY.
The bullet travels through "SOS", and into the unlucky Pedi.
Who is responsible? Sweet Suzie? He "WAS" patronizing "HER" lemonade stand.
The Grandmother who fired the shot? The state? They did issue the CCW permit. How about Hellboy who got the whole turd rollin?
In the long run, how often do you think the "BAD MEN" will keep picking people and places to victimize when the likely outcome will be their destuction?
Best case scenario
Bad guy is "ANNIHILATED" upon utterance of the words "STIK EM UP", BY EACH AND EVERY PATRON IN THE BUSINESS, ALL OF WHOM ARE CARRYING AND TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS.
 
Two questions:

From a liability stand point: where do you think the greatest risk is to the bank?

What is the statistical probability of any of these happening?
Click to expand...

There is no risk to the bank, it didn't lose it's money and its guards didn't shoot anyone.

Florida has allowed CCW in banks since 1987 and it has not occured yet.


BTW, in your scenerios, the death of the innocents is charged to the BG. Even if you kill one of two BGs, the remaining BG is charged with murder because the he started the felony that resulted in the death of his partner.
 
I would ask you to explain why it would not be a case that a criminal would be more apt to pick XXXXXX as a target than another bank that allows their customers to carry firearms.
Click to expand...


I despise the companies that prohibit legal CCW in their establishments: I will never agree with that position.

But I can see the potential that they may answer the above question by saying that they fear that a bank patron thus armed with a CCW handgun might attempt to intervene in a robbery, lacking adequate training except for a "do-gooder" attitude and a desire to be a hero, and may turn a bad situation worse. It's possible.

Once again, I favor allowing CCW just about everywhere, but I anticipate the bank's argument on this issue.


-azurefly
 
:confused: I thought Hellboy was a GOOD GUY! :(

I would agree w/:
1) The shooter should be responsible.
2) The bank should not.

BUT

An attorney, who thinks there is money to be made might not. And the courts may just agree w/ him. This is a liability world for businesses. And business will take every step their attorney(s) recommend to minimize liability exposure. There is no logic. Logic has nothing to do w/ any of it. Personal injury lawyers will take your case FOR FREE, i.e. they lose/you don't pay.

Regarding Suzie: as Suzie is presumably a minor she's clear. But how big is the house who's lawn she is set up on?

There have been several threads and posts where the writers are complaining about the infringement by business on their 2nd Amendment Rights, and blaming the business. For the record, business, in general DOES NOT CARE! They DO care about minimizing liability. And it is their lawyers who are telling them what to do in this area. The lawyers would much rather run the risk of one gun in a bank than multiple guns regardless of WHO has them.

Let me put it this way. Why does a person carry? Generally, because they feel they may be harmed, and want to protect themselves from that harm. Now ask yourself "what harms business"? Answer a loss of profits. How does a business lose profit? Many different ways but one of the biggest is a liability lawsuit. If you are injured by a bg during a robbery, go ahead, sue the bank. You may very well win. Maybe the courts will decide that the bank should have had armed guards and they didn't take enough precautions to protect you. I guarantee, if there is a lawyer out there who thinks you have a case you won't have to find him, he'll find you. BTW, know why banks don't have armed guards anymore? It increased the risk that someone was going to get shot because the bg would try and take out the guard first.
 
Once again, I favor allowing CCW just about everywhere, but I anticipate the bank's argument on this issue.
Click to expand...

It's all or nothing. If you buy the bank argument, it is a small step to other frequently robbed places such as convenience stores, liquor stores and other places with large sums of money like shopping malls.

The potential of a "do-gooder" is everywhere. You must depend on the CCW's training not to do something stupid.
 
Let me pose a couple more questions. And I'm not doing it to be a PITA. I live in one of the two states that does not allow CC. I'm trying to understand how the other states would look at things.

Lets go back to the bank, no bg this time. The armed citizen goes into a bank (or possibly any public establishment) someone sees the weapon, screams "HE/SHE'S GOT A GUN! As a result someone gets injured and requires treatment. Who's liable?

I'm a business owner, and my business is open to the public. What are my rights to limit what someone may bring into my establishment? Let me give you a little background. A business, that allows access by the public, is not a public place (at least here it isn't) it is still considered private. A public place is the library, courthouse, post office etc.
 
If you use your CCW you are responsible for the bullets that leave the barrel, not the business you are standing in.
Click to expand...


That's funny, in light of the fact that The Palm Beach Post reports (in the issue that's coming out for Friday) that in two separate cases, lawsuits were filed on Thursday holding businesses liable for murders that took place on their premises:
The family of a 19-year-old who was shot to death in a shopping center on 45th St. in April 2005 on Thursday accused the shopping center owners of contributing to his death. In the suit filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, the family of Elrado Telfer claim the owners of the Mangonia Park center should have increased security in light of other crimes that had been committed there. The shopping center is owned by a trus; Sidney Spiegel serves as trustee.
Click to expand...
The mother of a 35-year-old who was shot dead in a McDonald's parking lot in October on Thursday filed suit against the owner of the Riviera Beach fast food restaurant. In the suit filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, Martha Jones accuses restaurant owners Ricky Wade and the R&L Partnership of contributing to the death of her son, Ricky Chavers. The restaurant in the 3500 block of Broadway had been the scene of violent crime before Chavers' death, she claims. No one has been charged with shooting Chavers.
Click to expand...


Infuriating.


-azurefly
 
Yeah, well, didn't someone on this forum say yesterday or the day before that the idea we're living in the midst of a torrent of frivolous lawsuits is a myth?

What else can these travesties be called? Should McDonald's be responsible for the fact that the neighborhood is a *#(^hole of criminals who yeah, now and then, shoot people?! What the hell can McDonald's do? Put a barbed wire fence around its perimeter? Hire a phalanx of armed guards to patrol? Hire off-duty police officers to patrol (enough to keep ALL areas of the premises simultaneously guarded, mind you)?

What if McDonald's did this at its highest-crime locations, and then a shooting occurred at one of its low-crime locations? Well, then, of course McDonald's would be LIABLE once again. :mad:

So, McDonald's decides, "Hell, it's just not worth keeping a store open in this kind of neighborhood," and pulls up stakes. Suddenly they're bigoted and prejudiced against the black community (like in the Domino's Pizza cases where they would not deliver to high-crime black areas because their drivers were getting robbed, and they were accused of racism), and Sharpton is organizing a picket outside HQ. :mad:


-azurefly
 
Yeah, well, didn't someone on this forum say yesterday or the day before that the idea we're living in the midst of a torrent of frivolous lawsuits is a myth?
Click to expand...
Yep and I'm the reason he said it because I brought The McDonald's coffee suit. The point I've trying to make on several of the threads is: if you're a business, someone is probably going to try and sue you.

Regarding the cases you posted: no matter what McD's or the shopping center would have done, it wouldn't have been enough. They're still going to get sued. And here's the kicker. The suits may never see the inside of a courtroom. Many are settled out of court, because its cheaper than a trial, even if you win. I have seen this numerous times in product liability lawsuits. It's simply a matter of cutting your losses. You do what costs the least to minimize the effect on the bottom line.

It ain't 'purdy' but that the way it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top