WI No-Guns Signs vs Liability?

[steve4102]

WI has written into their Carry laws a small liability clause.

It states, a person who does not prohibit individuals from carrying concealed weapons on property the person owns or occupies is "immune from any liability arising from" such decision.
Employers that do not prohibit employees from carrying concealed weapons are also afforded immunity "from any liability arising from" such decision.

OK, not posting a sign, if something firearm related goes down the employer or business owner is "Immune".

What if a business does post a No-Guns sign? I have read numerous times on several Firearms/Carry forums that this Liability clause in WI law places Legal liability on those that DO post a No-Guns Sign.

Is it reasonable to conclude that if immunity is granted for Not posting a sign, that Liability will be legally imposed on those that do post a No-Guns sign? Is this Ipso-facto logic or is it a real possibility?

 

[Tom Servo]

What if a business does post a No-Guns sign? I have read numerous times on several Firearms/Carry forums that this Liability clause in WI law places Legal liability on those that DO post a No-Guns Sign.

That doesn't appear to be the case. This article goes into great detail about potential liability under Wisconsin CCL law.

Furthermore, the Wisconsin courts have ruled (based on a great deal of precedent) that,

The obligation of an owner of a public building to furnish a safe place under the safe place statute is limited to structural or physical defects or hazards.

So, they're not really liable for failing to provide protection from shootings committed by third parties because they're not expected to provide such protection in the first place.

I've heard the liability fantasies before. They just aren't true.