Question on commercial property gun ban.

O

Old Smoker

New member
I have a friend of mine, who operates a commercial business nearby. Wisconsin now allows concealed carry. He questioned whether he should post a ban on cc weapons. His insurance agent told him not to post, because he would then have to have someone at the gate patting down for guns. In other words if you ban cc in your business, you have to enforce it or otherwise your business is liable for any altercations by a cc person. Any legal guys have any comments?
 
Tell #1 criminals don't follow laws and no matter how many signs posted criminals will carry their guns in. #2 Does he really want to be responsible for the security of a patron because of not allowing a CC to enter with their firearm. #3 It is even possible that a patron with a CC could even be in a position of preventing a crime or stopping more live from being lost.
 
IANAL, however,

Why ban a guy with a CC who has gone through the background check and been declared an honest citizen?

The guy without a CC but who is carrying, anyway, is the one to worry about.
.
 
Why ban a guy with a CC who has gone through the background check and been declared an honest citizen?

The guy without a CC but who is carrying, anyway, is the one to worry about.
Click to expand...
Agreed ... as you have put it I have had many background checks to get my CC.
 
Wait a sec- if he posts a sign, what happens?
Respectfully, I'd need to have my layer tell me that instead of my insurance salesman, before I believed it
 
Iowa yesterday, Wisconsin today, Illinois tomorrow

He questioned whether he should post a ban on cc weapons
Click to expand...
Why would he want to do that as It won't have the effect he wants. You Wisconsin neighbors, are going through the same issues that we went through, here in Iowa.. ..... ;)
In other words if you ban cc in your business, you have to enforce it or otherwise your business is liable for any altercations by a cc person.
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer but did pose this concern to our county attorney, in regards to city and county properties. He agreed that they would have to install metal detectors at the doors and hire a security guard. He was also honest enough to admit that the city could not afford the expense. ..... ;)
Why ban a guy with a CC who has gone through the background check and been declared an honest citizen?
Click to expand...
Exactly !!! .... :eek:

Be Safe !!!
 
Old Smoker said:
In other words if you ban cc in your business, you have to enforce it or otherwise your business is liable for any altercations by a cc person.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt that.

There have been many, many discussions on this forum of banning CC in businesses, many of them with lawyers participating, and I have never one time seen that argument made.

My opinion of banning concealed carry is simple. I believe it should be legal and I believe it should not be done. I would (and have) boycotted any business that does it.
 
Old Smoker

You might inform him he might see a few of these handed to him by customers, I carry a few in my wallet

no-guns-no-money-2.jpg
 
In other words if you ban cc in your business, you have to enforce it or otherwise your business is liable for any altercations by a cc person. Any legal guys have any comments?
Click to expand...
Does the Wisconsin CCW law include any civil liability immunities? I can tell you how the law works under Ohio law, which addresses this question, but that wouldn't be very relevant to your question.
 
I can tell you for a fact I'm by no means the only person who doesn't do business with anti-Second Amendment bigots. People who don't respect our civil rights don't get my dollars.
 
I didn't mean this to be about 2nd rights. Its just a question. If you ban guns on your commercial establishment, do you have to enforce the ban at the door, to satisfy legal liability. But, this brings up another question. How are insurance companies re-acting to public carry.
 
Well, here in Ohio, for example, our CCW law says: “A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer‟s decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer.” Notice there is no express immunity related to acts caused by non-licensees. I quote this only as an example of what to look for in your WI statute.

A little research on the WI law reveals something similar:

• A person who does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from his or her decision. Wis. Stat. § 175.60(21)(b).
• An employer who does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon is immune from any liability arising from that decision. Wis. Stat. § 175.60(21)(c).
Click to expand...
So, it looks like the WI immunity provision is even better. Note that it provides immunity only to a person/employer "who does not prohibit..." No immumity if one decides to prohibit. Does that mean one must search and scan all who enter if carry is prohibited? That hasn't been determined (litigated) yet. But the law provides immunity to liability only if carry is not prohibited.

Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer and I am not a Wisconsin lawyer. This is not legal advice.
 
His insurance agent told him not to post, because he would then have to have someone at the gate patting down for guns.
Click to expand...

Some of the statements made by people who have no idea what they are talking about are incredibly ridiculous. What an ill-informed agent.
 
WI gives public places that DO NOT ban guns immunity from civil suits brought because of the use of a firearm on their property. Those that BAN firearms do not have that legal immunity....

Hense the advice from their INSURANCE agent. Probably could be reinforced by lower liability rates too.

For this and many other reasons your friend DOES NOT want to ban firearms at their business.
 
Armorer-at-Law said:
So, it looks like the WI immunity provision is even better. Note that it provides immunity only to a person/employer "who does not prohibit..." No immumity if one decides to prohibit. Does that mean one must search and scan all who enter if carry is prohibited? That hasn't been determined (litigated) yet. But the law provides immunity to liability only if carry is not prohibited.

Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer and I am not a Wisconsin lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Click to expand...

Why would someone need immunity from the action of a person who is acting directly against your instructions?

That's like saying that if you don't tell someone not to run out in the road and they do and get hit you're not responsible but if you tell them not to run out in the road and they do and get hit then it's your fault.

Or, if you tell your teenage daughter that she can't use the car but she does anyway it's your fault but if you didn't tell her she couldn't and she does, it's not your fault.

It's silliness. Banning concealed carry does not make you responsible for the actions of people you banned that aren't even supposed to be there.

What we have there is implied immunity. You can't be responsible for what someone does that you told them not to do.

You need immunity if you allow an action and there are negative consequences related to your allowing that action. You don't need immunity from actions that you expressly forbid.
 
You can't be responsible for what someone does that you told them not to do.

You need immunity if you allow an action and there are negative consequences related to your allowing that action. You don't need immunity from actions that you expressly forbid.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? Your analogies are completely off the mark.

The point is that if you ban carry by the law-abiding, you have prevented them from access to their most effective means of self defense. It makes them less safe because they did obey.
 
Sorry, PK, but this goes to the heart of the point that Glenn E. Meyer and I always seem to make in CCW in business threads: The way to get rid of most such bans is to afford immunity to businesses that allow carry.

It also goes to the heart of the gun-free zone problem: Gun-free zones that are not fully enforced (metal detectors, guards, etc) only serve to ensure that law-abiding types are disarmed.

I think Wisconsin got this one completely right. If you, as business owner, force me to disarm in order to enter, then you should bear full responsibility for my safety.

OTOH, if you keep your nose out of what I carry, then you should be indemnified against anything I might do.
 
This is a question which will be decided in a court room. Unfortunetely it will be decided after blood is spilled.

I would like spatz to comment. He allways seems to have a good feel for these type questions.
 
Armorer-at-Law said:
You're kidding, right? Your analogies are completely off the mark.

The point is that if you ban carry by the law-abiding, you have prevented them from access to their most effective means of self defense. It makes them less safe because they did obey.
Click to expand...

Ok. What is the precedent for this theory? I'm not saying there isn't one, there are lots of stupid precedents in the legal system, I'm asking...

What other object can be banned and have the "banner" responsible for the actions of those who disregard the ban?

I would make the argument that any patron who walks past that sign has accepted a contract of sorts and the "danger" that goes with it.
They are not obligated to be there. It's not like they're being forced into combat without a gun.

If the only parking for my business is across the street, am I obligated to provide a crossing guard? Crossing the street is a lot more dangerous than buying a pizza without carrying a gun.

If I were a business owner (I am) who was inclined to ban CC (I'm not), I would take the chance of being theoretically responsible. The odds are about the same as winning Power Ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top