Legal Liability Law - "Due Care" Issue?

BeoBill · Dec 28, 2016

Should Business Owners Be Held Responsible for Consequences of Their Gun-Free Zones?
http://constitution.com/business-owners-held-responsible-consequences-gun-free-zones/

...The question of liability for gun-free zones has found its way to the Missouri state legislature. State Representative Mike Moon (R-157th District) has pre-filed Missouri House Bill 300 to be presented to the 2017 legislative session.

Section A, Paragraph 1 of HB300 reads:

“Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.068, to read as follows: 571.068.

1- Any business enterprise authorized to post signs on property prohibiting the possession of a concealed firearm by a person authorized to carry a concealed firearm under sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall assume absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of the endorsement or permit holder while such person is on the premises of the business enterprise and on any property owned by the business enterprise that the endorsement or permit holder is required to traverse in order to travel to and from the location where the endorsement or permit holder’s firearm is stored. The provisions of this section shall not apply to private property not used for commercial purposes or to private residences of any type. For purposes of this section, ‘business enterprise’ means any business that sells or provides goods or services to the general public.”

Maybe we should push for a law like this here... :innocent0

rseymorejr · Dec 28, 2016

That's the way it should be. If you deny me the right to defend myself on your property then you can be responsible for my safety.

Rab1515 · Dec 29, 2016

Didn't Tennessee pass a similar law?

Raineman · Dec 29, 2016

Now we're talkin'!

This would be some nice offense.

MDFF2008 · Dec 29, 2016

It's equally important to provide immunity to the business owner for following the law.

MikeTF · Dec 29, 2016

My answer is 'No'. The person committing the crime is responsible for the crime, not the business owner or anyone else.

We don't need more laws. I hope Trump makes good on one of his campaign speeches where he says for every new piece of legislation we should be removing two old pieces of legislation.

Let's not fall into the liberal mindset that passing laws solves problems.

Bob A · Dec 30, 2016

"Sorry your family was slaughtered because I banned you from legally carrying the means of self-defense, but it's not my fault. Blame the guy you whose homicidal actions I prevented you from stopping."

Passing some laws may permit people to attempt to solve their own problems. Of course, eliminating some laws may have the same effect. That's part of the difference between Maryland and Free America.

Pinecone · Dec 30, 2016

Rab1515 said:
Didn't Tennessee pass a similar law?

Yes, last fall IIRC. Passed and signed into law.

MikeTF · Dec 30, 2016

If the Supreme Court rules that police officers do not have a duty to protect someone, how can the states expect to pass laws that require that private business owners are required to protect patrons (if they prohibit firearms on their private property) and have them hold up when a case is brought to the Supreme Court?

Let the business owners put up their signs. I'd prefer it so that I know who not to do business with.

RoadDawg · Jan 1, 2017

MikeTF said:
If the Supreme Court rules that police officers do not have a duty to protect someone, how can the states expect to pass laws that require that private business owners are required to protect patrons (if they prohibit firearms on their private property) and have them hold up when a case is brought to the Supreme Court?

Let the business owners put up their signs. I'd prefer it so that I know who not to do business with.

That is one of the most misunderstood rulings ever handed down from the SCOTUS.

It was all about liability of the state local and municipal Police department. NO ... One may not sue the Police because they became a victim of a crime in PUBLIC in that jurisdiction. IMHO, This based on the premise that we as citizens are responsible for our own self and the Police are not babysitting. Nor do the act as our personal bodyguards. Police are not Pre-Cogs

However, when or if a business owner bars a person from providing for their own defense on the business property... They MAY be held liable for damages in the same manner as they are currently held liable for not providing proper fire exits and protection to their patrons.

The business bears certain legal risks. Fire and robbery are known hazards and the business should either provide or allow the patron to provide for the proper defense agains these known hazards.

Barring a ruling to the contrary from the SCOTUS... Take down the anti 2A signs or accept the risk your business creates opportunities for.

Bob A · Jan 2, 2017

I wonder if the concept of "special relationship" can be applied here.

Here's a link to a brief discussion of the concept:
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=38303

A paragraph from that link:

The federal civil rights statute that allows for civil liability against state and local government agents is located at Title 42, section 1983 of the United States Code. This law holds that such individuals can be found civilly liable for damages if they violate a person’s constitutional rights under the color of law. Such actions may arise when an officer conducts an illegal search or seizure or makes an unlawful arrest. Therefore, if an individual who had a special relationship with the state was injured as a result of having his or her due process rights violated, this can form the basis of a civil lawsuit.

If a governmental agency permits a business open to the public to deny said public the right to defend itself, would this be an infringement of a civil right? It would seem to be arguable.

esqappellate · Jan 3, 2017

Bob A said:
I wonder if the concept of "special relationship" can be applied here.

Here's a link to a brief discussion of the concept:
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=38303

A paragraph from that link:

If a governmental agency permits a business open to the public to deny said public the right to defend itself, would this be an infringement of a civil right? It would seem to be arguable.

Nope. The agency is the one acting under color of state law and it is merely "permitting" the private actor to do something. The deprivation of life is by the private owner who is banning carrying and the private owner is not acting under color of state law.

daggo66 · Jan 3, 2017

It's not necessary in MD. If a business posts a no guns sign, it doesn't legally create a gun free zone. You also have a choice to take your business elsewhere.

BeoBill · Jan 3, 2017

daggo66 said:
It's not necessary in MD. If a business posts a no guns sign, it doesn't legally create a gun free zone. You also have a choice to take your business elsewhere.

I'd like to hear from one of our resident Counselors' opinion as this is a civil matter, not criminal.

Legal Liability Law - "Due Care" Issue?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

BeoBill

Crank in the Third Row

rseymorejr

Ultimate Member

Rab1515

Ultimate Member

Raineman

On the 3rd box

MDFF2008

Ultimate Member

MikeTF

Ultimate Member

Bob A

όυ φροντισ

Pinecone

Ultimate Member

MikeTF

Ultimate Member

RoadDawg

Nos nostraque Deo

Bob A

όυ φροντισ

esqappellate

President, MSI

daggo66

Ultimate Member

BeoBill

Crank in the Third Row

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page