gun free zone liability ?

[revenger 473]

  Now that a picture has shown up of one of the establishments where the shooting in Maine occurred was signed as a "gun free zone" what is the chances that one or more of the victims files a lawsuit against the establishment  based on the fact that they did not allow them to defend themselves.  When an establishment chooses to not allow firearms then they should take on the responsibility of protecting the customers and be liable for injuries or death should a customer be denied the ability to defend themselves.   it's time start turning all these anti-gun laws back on thme.  

[father-of-three 243]

That would be a case with interesting outcomes as it works its way up through the courts.

[JohnnyB 4,325]

I doubt the bowling alley would lose the case!  The patrons knew of the restriction and chose to enter unarmed! I will NEVER patronize ANY business that denies me my 2nd Amendment rights! 

I can't have my gun....You don't get my money!

[1LtCAP 4,264]

it's a case that would be a slam-dunk if fought well. someone should sue the crap outta them for just that.

[bennj 215]

Unfortunately I have to agree with JohnnyB, those that entered, entered at their own risk. Just as those that carry are supposed to be cognizant of the restrictions. 

[brucin 923]

If it's not a crime to enter an establishment with a unarmed victims sign then it's up to the individual to decide whether or not to obey the sign.

If the state has made it a crime to enter an establishment then it is the states responsibility to protect you, one would think, however the state has been relived of that responsibility by several court rulings. 

[1LtCAP 4,264]

see? to me, those business's that're putting up "no guns allowed" signs are pretty much saying.....don't worry, we got you. we're providing security.  on that vein, those places not allowing guns into their business's should also be responsible for providing safe and secure storage of their customers firearms.

[revenger 473]

I feel that that any injury sustained by a customer in any establishment that could be perceived by an average person to preventable be on the owner of that business.  these injuries should be treated no different than any "slip and fall" injury or "coffee burn" where we see countless times where the victim is awarded millions of dollars.  The owner of the establishment, using perverted reasoning chose to create a condition that that puts its customers at risk of an otherwise preventable injury,  just like leaving the banana peel on the floor in the produce isle for an extended time these GFZ signs are no different.  by placing these signs it must be understood that the ones placing these signs assumes all responsibilities for your safety and welfare and liable for any injury.

  Our gun advocacy groups should be sending letters to the owners / board of directors of businesses, malls owners or any other private property owners who make a corporate decision to post signage dictating constitutionally protected personal behavior within their publicly accessible property demanding the name and account of their insurance company and  the level of liability insurance  should any possibly preventable injury occur to any of it's members.

[GRIZ 3,369]

I agree if you see a no guns sign you don't have to go in.

I've never heard of any case where someone was injured by a no guns sign.

Slightly different perspective but if you decide to go swimming at a beach that's posted "no swimming when life guards are not present" and there are no lifeguards present and you drown, should your survivors be able to sue?

So if you go into a guns allowed establishment with your gun, it gets held up, you respond and get injured, should you be able to sue?

[YankeeSC 1,204]

^ I like your analogy and thought about it for a moment, I guess the difference for me is we have a right to bear arms and not a right to go swimming.  Never the less though, good point.