in civil court for not protecting you in the event of assault?

Why not?

All the signs around here are worded so that the responsibility is on the one reading the sign. Something to the effect that it is illegal to carry except where permitted by law. Just a fear mongering attempt IMHO since it is legal to carry in those places but most will only see the illegal part. Really pisses me off!!!

A good question.

Arizona and Arkansas put language to this effect in their original CCW bills, but neither made the final cut.

No. They have no affirmative duty to protect you. However, what if the store has a policy against lawful concealed carry on premises? Is it not foreseeable that a deranged person would choose the defenseless victim zone they have created (by their policy) as a logical place to wreak his havoc?

Jordan,

Is there any case law that found the owners of the establishment liable?

From what I was told during my permit class, the Walmart's here in TN used to post their premises forbidding carry in their stores. One night, a female permit holder, left her pistol in her car, and went shopping inside. On her way back to her car, she was assaulted and kidnapped. The kidnapper raped her, and then killed her. Her husband sued Walmart for not providing security since they disarmed her in the 1st place. Walmart settled out of court for an indeterminate dollar amount (although estimated at several million). The next day, all of the posted signs disappeared from every Walmart store in the state, and have never returned.....

I've often wondered the same thing..

I wish a couple lawyers would chime in with opinions - but I also assume it varies from state to state.

Anyone can file suit for almost anything...I'd say you'd have to prove the attack occurred because it was a gun free zone. I'd say there's an outside chance you'd win....

if there is the possibility of making money, or damaging America, there will be an attorney ready to take up the challenge.

There was a discussion about something like that on a local talk show radio, KLJB.
If I remember correctly, there was talk that insurance company's where taking note from the liability stance.

I think a logical argument could be made by a good attorney, that by "advertising" your store as a protection free zone, you are literally inviting riff-raff to target your stores and your customers. I'd bet there will be challenges to that effect, but only after innocent people are killed.

Yes, they are liable.

There are a few, a very few, stores in my area with signs like these:











I think that CCW organizations would do well to mount PR campaigns that inform folks about the process. Something like -

Who's Carrying A Concealed Weapon?
Someone who�
* Has undergone a complete background check by the Sherriff's Department, encompassing local, state, and federal databases
* Has zero felony convictions
* Has zero domestic violence convictions
* Has successfully completed state-mandated CCW training
* Has successfully demonstrated state-mandated marksmanship standards
* Is at least 21 years of age
* Will undergo another background check every X years
* As a CCW permit holder, is part of a group that is statistically the most law-abiding in the nation.


I get the feeling that anti's, and the otherwise ignorant, think that CCW's are passed out at random. I doubt that having the facts would change their mind, but it would certainly deflate their arguments.

FC

Sue the store and the owner and the manager for trampling your civil rights. Imagine the uproar if the sign said 'No Chinese Allowed'? or whatever other group you'd like as an example.

You can sue for anything , it will be up to a jury if you win the case or lose it

I think the basic argument comes from Heller, where the court confirmed the fundamental right to self defense. If an entity compromises your fundamental right to self defense, it would seem it has incurred an obligation.

The law in TN has changed a couple of times but it originally would not allow CCW holders to carry in any restaurant that served alcohol of any kind. We had to place notices on our doors stating carry was not permitted. Around seven or eight years ago the law changed. Our attorney called me and told me to take the sign down at once. He advised that if I did not allow legal carry inside my restaurant and if that person was hurt in any way by someone else with a gun, and we prohibited that injured person from protecting themselves, we could be found liable. Since I also carry, I was happy to oblige. However, I do not believe that if someone was carrying a legal weapon and did not protect others, the law would hold that person culpable. A civil law suit is another matter though. Anyone can sue for anything, but I doubt they would win.

You realize the corporations don't really care about the average people for the most part. Government doesn't effectively deal with things like faulty tires blowing out, pintos burning kids up or BP poisoning all your favorite gulf coast sea food.

What they do care about is getting smoked by a lawyer who makes them act like they live in a civilized society and reminds them that they are not feudal lords who can kill the average American citizen while they are putting their kids in English boarding schools and sending their wives on Parisian shoe shopping trips in their corporate jets.

Let me ask you this. If my employer has a no firearm policy, is my employer liable from the time I leave home to the time I get home?

And there you have it!!!

We have a few decades of random violence and mass shootings as precedence. I think one could make a case that the store is liable because it was a reasonably forseeable threat. And given the statistics over the past few decades, you could also make the case that any threat of liability for allowing someone to carry concealed in their business isn't backed up by any facts or statistics.

It would be a tough case, because the property owner or business owner also has the right to say what does and does not go on in their business.

Tough case, but one I'd love to see happen. Although I'd hate to have anyone hurt or killed just to see it happen.

Only if you are not able or allowed to carry to and from work (i.e. must park in company parking lot where you can't leave a firearm in the vehicle).

One of my Reps introduced a bill last month on the issue...

"This week in Harrisburg, an amendment has been filed by state Senator Rich Alloway (R-33) to House Bill 827. This amendment would amend employee parking lot protection language into HB 827 and could be voted on sometime this week in the Pennsylvania Senate. Thus, it is critical that you contact your state Senator TODAY in support of this amendment.

The Alloway amendment would prevent public and private employers from establishing, maintaining or enforcing a policy to prohibit employees who are concealed carry license holders from storing a handgun secured in their motor vehicle parked at their workplace.

There seems to be a plethora of businesses micromanaging the lawful contents of one�s private vehicle at the workplace. These policies are widespread across the Keystone State, and something needs to be done. These types of gun bans only serve to jeopardize the safety of employees commuting to and from the workplace, and the employer holds no liability if you fall victim to a violent crime during your commute. You shouldn�t have to be the next potential victim of violent crime because you decided to seek employment at a steel company or a department store that arbitrarily bans the storage of firearms in your privately-owned vehicle.

It�s important that you call AND e-mail your state Senator TODAY and urge him or her to vote for this pro-gun amendment to HB 827. Urge your state Senator to stop the banning of firearms inside one�s private motor vehicle. Tell them that 23 states around the country have employee protection parking lot laws, and that Pennsylvanians should have the same rights as nearly half the country!"

In Washington the no gun signs have no law to enforce them, it is more like a suggestion. See the sign, go in anyway and there is nothing they can do but ask you to leave. I think that would rule out any suing.

The answer to that question is yes! Under Washington State Law along with a number of other states under Workman's Compensation Laws the employer is liable for any injuries not only in the workplace but also sustained while in transit directly to and from the workplace.

There have been several cases where and employee has stopped at the local watering hole on the way home and was in an accident and the employer had to pay under Workman's Comp.

Yes I know it's like comparing apples to oranges, but under that reasoning a president has been set.

Yeah that may work for Washington, but most other states have a law on the books for businesses that post it.

I understand that but what gets me is whenever the stats come out for states with good gun laws WA always ranks poorly.