"no carry" zones opening them selfs to law suits?

As much as I advocate that a business that declares itself gun free assumes responsibility for their patrons, the more I think through it the less liability I see.

To get specific, mass shootings in movie theaters in the US are extremely rare to the point of statistical insignificance. If a theater declares itself a gun free zone and something happens, the theater owners can reasonably claim that there is not a history of violence that makes it financially feasible for them to post security. Most juries are going to agree.

We also have to be aware that the owners of private enterprise have rights to. If they wish to post a policy that says you may not carry a firearm into a movie theater they have that right. It's the same as a friend of mine who won't allow alcohol in their house and won't allow anyone to bring alcohol to any events they host. I don't agree with it, but they have that right.

The best thing to do is vote with your wallets. Again, specifically movie theaters that might be tough as very very few allow CCW. However, for other business it might not hurt to make them aware that you prefer to go to the competition because they don't require law abding citizens to disarm.
 
I think the argument would be that if you disable someone from protecting them selfs then they should provide safety

Kinda like if they tried to ban weopons here the police better get a much faster response time.


Or in highschool how if a bully beats up a kid he is expected to take it. If he so much as blocks he is in trouble as well.

I think this would be a beautiful thing to see tieing up the court systems.
You would definitely loose but it's better this wasting people time then some 1800 imfakingmypain case.

And I agree we should start collecting and sharing arrivals about ccw or hd saving lives.
There was one recently that actualy made national tv (shocker)
That lady with the shotgun asking the cops for permission to kill if they entered her home and they said " do what you gotta do to protect your kid"

We all seem to get up in flames when bad things happen and guns are blamed. We really need to be more proactive about this.
Break.com had a vid of some 67 year old chasing two robbers out of a store after the robbers drew guns. He shot one of them in the ass I think.. A bad shot but a good outcome
 
Schools are a bad example. They are not a private business and there is an explicit agreement between school administrators and parents to keep the kids safe. We've had lockdowns and police present when any kind of activitiy that potentially threatens the school has taken place.

The issue with bullying is a whole different social issue and hardly relevant though some of the attitudes may be similar. (Stand your ground vs. Duty to retreat)
 
IMHO, this is America, u can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean he would win in court. I would think if you could find an injured ccw holder who actually left his gun home or in the car b/c of the theaters policy, then u may have a case .... I still doubt it would win though. But the theater might settle out of court.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2
 
Oh, that's a good one; don't waste a tragedy.

Actually, things are always more complicated. Public and private establishments and employers do in fact have a certain liability to protect patrons and employees. They may be required to both have an emergency exit and (presumably) a requirement to keep it secured but they can't chain it shut so it can't be used in the case of an actual emergency. They are responsible for the relative safety of the premises. If a light fixture falls off the ceiling and injures someone, they are responsible. It becomes even more complicated if the building is leased but generally such things are covered in the lease agreement. Likewise, lots of things are covered in insurance policies. Chances are, an commercial insurance policy may forbid firearms or weapons on the premises.

All of this applies to homeowners, too. You are even liable to a certain extent for the safety of an intruder. While you are certainly permitted to secure access to your property as best you can, you cannot set traps for intruders. In fact, strictly speaking, you can't even set a trap on your deck for raccoons if you don't have a trapper's license.

These issues go back a long, long time, as you no doubt know. They are a little different from place to place and from time to time but since the basic problems remain the same, they don't change all that much.
 
From my (very) limited reading of the Colorado Revised Statutes, it appears that the property owner can limit firearm carry on his property. If that's the case then it would be interesting to see what actions the property owners take against the shooter. Could they sue him? Could they have a charge added? I admit that I'm woefully ignorant of Colorado law, but there must be some action that the theater can take to limit the liability from an obviously criminal act.
 
I could be mistaken but aren't there some (maybe just one) states that have such a law on the books? They can prohibit lawful carry but in doing so they are burdened with liability if their patrons are harmed by a criminal on the premesis. I thought I had read that somewhere.

Also, I disagree with calling cc a "privilege". That may be the way its interpreted now, but if you define some of the words in the second amendment (bear: verb, to carry) its impossible to say its a privilege when its a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Just my take on it.
 
Last edited:
BlueTrain said:
...Public and private establishments and employers do in fact have a certain liability to protect patrons and employees. They may be required to both have an emergency exit and (presumably) a requirement to keep it secured but they can't chain it shut so it can't be used in the case of an actual emergency. They are responsible for the relative safety of the premises. If a light fixture falls off the ceiling and injures someone, they are responsible....
Click to expand...
These, and various other premises liability rules, are generally matters of building codes and use permit requirements and a general obligation to keep a premises open to the public in good repair. But in general, as discussed above, absent special circumstances a business is not liable for the criminal conduct of third parties.

Young.Gun.612 said:
I could be mistaken but aren't there some (maybe just one) states that have such a law on the books? They can prohibit lawful carry but in doing so they are burdened with liability if their patrons are harmed by a criminal on the premesis....
Click to expand...
There is something like that under the Wisconsin CCW law, but that is unique. AFAIK, no other State has any law remotely similar.
 
This like many legal arguments is in a legal gray area and depends on your ability to appeal to the judge.

I think it is a valid argument which the NRA ought to be actively spending our money to fight these cases. After a solid win or two, this will become a solid president.
 
I think it is a valid argument which the NRA ought to be actively spending our money to fight these cases.
Click to expand...
I can't see the NRA backing such a case. It's a long stretch in the best of circumstances, and the backlash from business owners on every front would be damaging.
 
Colorado states the law doesn't uphold signs at a local business for no concealed carry. In other words it's not a violation of state law to carry into a business that's posted. Only if they somehow discover you're carrying, ask you to leave and you refuse are you breaking the law.

"“No Firearm” signs in Colorado have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.
Carry In State Parks/State & National Forests/WMA"

http://handgunlaw.us/states/colorado.pdf
 
Lawsuit Filed Against Colorado Theater, Warner Bros., James Holmes' Docs

http://www.100wapi.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29882592

Brown is also suing the Century 16 movie theater where the shooting took place for failing to equip the emergency exits with alarms or manning them with security guards. Witnesses said that Holmes entered through an exit door he had initially jimmied open before the movie started.
Click to expand...

I wonder how that particular lawsuit will shake out...
 
Skadoosh said:
http://www.100wapi.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29882592
Brown is also suing the Century 16 movie theater where the shooting took place for failing to equip the emergency exits with alarms or manning them with security guards. Witnesses said that Holmes entered through an exit door he had initially jimmied open before the movie started.
Click to expand...
I wonder how that particular lawsuit will shake out...
Click to expand...
That is a theory of liability that might possibly have some legs. It's still a long shot, but it's better than the "they're responsible because they wouldn't let me have a gun" line of thinking.
 
I got this in the e-mail:

http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m22.1.html

Claims that carry is against the law altogether in CO and Aurora. Is this true? Or is the claim BS? CO experts?

As far as the door bit - a liability type buddy of mine, yesterday in the gym, thought that the door bit might have traction. He does kind of work and said that nonfunctions alarms could be grounds. Probably go for a settlement.
 
I wonder how that particular lawsuit will shake out.
Click to expand...
I saw that, and the thought crossed my mind that nobody's calling for lawsuits against the gun manufacturers, or the retailers who sold Holmes the guns and ammunition. How the times have changed.

Claims that carry is against the law altogether in CO and Aurora. Is this true?
Click to expand...
Colorado has statewide preemption, meaning that state law supercedes any local law (state code 29-11.7-101). Aurora, Denver, and several others still have stricter laws on the books, but if I'm correct, those aren't enforceable.

Denver has won lawsuits allowing them to restrict "assault weapons," "Saturday Night Specials," and open carry, but that's all I'm aware of. The Aurora statutes should have no effect.
 
I saw that, and the thought crossed my mind that nobody's calling for lawsuits against the gun manufacturers, or the retailers who sold Holmes the guns and ammunition. How the times have changed.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think it's pretty well established in case law by now that the intervention of a criminal third party insulates the firearm/ammunition manufacturers from lawsuits in cases where there's nothing actually defective with the gun or ammo. Contrast that to cigarettes, where product-liability lawsuits *have* gained traction, because there's no criminal third party between the manufacturers and the consumers.
 
No alarm on "Emergency Exits"

The theaters I visit near my home have marked "emergency" exits that are not alarmed. These are also normal exits from the theaters to the parking lot so that you do not need to go through the crowded lobby of the complex when a movie is over. Up until now the only problem the theater had was someone opening the doors and letting a non-paid person in to see the movie. It is not unusual to see the door open and close several times before a movie starts. Anyway, they are exits that double as emergency exits.

Because of this, I see any suit based upon the exit doors not being alarmed will fail. However, these are complex suits and the better lawyers often prevail in spite of what we might expect.
 
Frank Ettin stated that you had to prove: 2) he would have fixed things if he had his gun. If the situation involves a well armed gunman in body armor, in a large, dark, crowded room, with obscuring smoke and in the midst a bunch of panicking people, it would be a real tough sell to convince a judge that a marginally trained (if that) guy with his trusty J-Frame would be able to do any good.
To me this is the crux of the matter. In another situation maybe you could say they were morally responsible for banning guns and someone got killed. Not in this case. We've debated this in other threads to death. There simply wasn't a way that didn't involve divine intervention to stop this.
 
It's a plausible jump to such a conclusion, but as noted above by Frank & others, it probably won't fly in this case.

But... let's think it through a little bit.

How many folks who CCW also have liability insurance for up to $500,000 or more to specifically cover you in the event your carry weapon improperly discharges in a theater, Wal*Mart or Starbucks and injures someone? Anyone?

How much do you think such a policy would cost? Obviously no insurance company will cover deliberate acts -- even shooting someone in lawful self-defense -- but accidents, maybe.

Suppose that someone did successfully sue a business for a "No Firearms" policy after a shooting. What then? Would businesses be required to let in anyone who was carrying? What about the owner's property rights?

Or do you think the insurance companies would lobby the snot out of legislators to force thee and me to obtain some kind of liability insurance? If they lobby for such a law, you can be sure it will also include limiting or excluding the liability of businesses. (Hint: There's money to be made here, both ways).

John Q. Public sits down in a theater and, for whatever reason, his gun goes off. The bullet plows through the seat and strikes another patron in the foot. How much for surgeries to restore the foot, plus damages? John Q. gets to pay and the theater get off free. Even if the victim is say, a second year Dallas Cowboy's running back.¹

And once that requirement becomes law, how will the insurance company determine your premiums? They'll use public records of unintentional discharges vs. the population of CCW carriers. Then look for any police reports involving you - any ND's, your driving and/or criminal record, your credit history (are you trustworthy?), age and health (taking any medications?). You can continue this nightmare from here on your own.²

Before pointing a finger at a business or property owner who posts a "No Firearms" sign as having some blame, think of what the long term consequences might be.³

¹ This is the kind of thing that can keep you awake at night, even if you are insured.
² Not only are most insurance companies risk-adverse, but many supported anti-gun legislation just to reduce medical claims by insured clients. No reason to think they'd have an incentive to provide any kind of "low cost" insurance.
³ This applies only to businesses open to the public where you are a customer. If implemented by a landlord or apartment management, or you're an employee of a business there may be other legal remedies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top