Typical bad example. You're trying to create a problem where there isn't one.

Typical trolling post. Lets see how long you derail this thread

You should do all your banking online or ask for special accommodations.  If you knowingly follow policies and rules knowing you are putting yourself at risk, and there are alternatives, then you bear some of the responsibility if you're injured.

That's partly why I said to vote with your wallet.  If you disarm yourself by choosing to go to a gun free business, that's your choice -- isn't it?

Banks are no different.  Switch banks, use their online and phone services, or ask for a medical exemption for masks.  Sheeple would accept the risks because they feel they have no other choice.

The Christian cake baker is a totally irrelevant situation.  The reason for his gun free zone doesn't matter.  Whether his reason is religion, his dog was shot in a hunting accident, his wife is a better shot than he is, or loud noises make him curl up in the fetal position, it all has the same end result:  disarming his customers.  He's free to have that policy in his store, but he can't get immunity from liability simply because he claims religious beliefs.  He needs to get insurance and implement additional safety measures for his clientele, or he's risking losing his business if something bad happens.

It's no different than if he sprinkles holy water at the entrance to bless his customers when they enter, and someone slips on the water and gets hurt.  The accident was foreseeable, and religious beliefs can't shield him from the consequences.

As for baking cakes for Gay weddings, go read the decision.  He didn't prevail on the argument that he can run his business however his religious beliefs guide him.  Rather, the NATURE of his cake decorating was deemed "a creative process," and he was being forced to use his creativity and skill to make a cake that supported something he did not think was right. 

Making a store a gun free zone has zero to do with creativity or skill.

Seems like it could be a double edged sword though. Don't allow firearms and the store is liable. Allow firearms and they could still be liable if another customer ended up causing harm with a firearm.

The other problem with this type of suggestion is that it can snowball. So imagine you park your car in a parking lot of a business and it gets broken into. Is the business responsible if it didn't have a security cameras? What if it did have cameras but no security guards? What if there were security guards but the injured party says there weren't enough? I don't think we should take steps to an even more litigious society.

You say that the accident was foreseeable but that's not a good example because the store is creating the wet floor, the store isn't creating robber.

I have no objection to voting with your wallet, if a store has a sign saying no firearms allowed I will choose another store if possible.

Typical trolling post. Lets see how long you derail this thread

You mean, how long u derail the thread trying to move goal post and other tactics people use when wrong. FIFY

Seems like it could be a double edged sword though. Don't allow firearms and the store is liable. Allow firearms and they could still be liable if another customer ended up causing harm with a firearm.

The other problem with this type of suggestion is that it can snowball. So imagine you park your car in a parking lot of a business and it gets broken into. Is the business responsible if it didn't have a security cameras? What if it did have cameras but no security guards? What if there were security guards but the injured party says there weren't enough? I don't think we should take steps to an even more litigious society.

You say that the accident was foreseeable but that's not a good example because the store is creating the wet floor, the store isn't creating robber.

I have no objection to voting with your wallet, if a store has a sign saying no firearms allowed I will choose another store if possible.

Another bad example. Geez.

*edit

Quantity doesn't = quality.

If a business has no sign, then all G. But if they put a no guns allowed sign or guns allowed, then liability could be there. When there's the weight of the law for no guns allowed, then the gov should also share liability.

Seems like it could be a double edged sword though. Don't allow firearms and the store is liable. Allow firearms and they could still be liable if another customer ended up causing harm with a firearm.

The other problem with this type of suggestion is that it can snowball. So imagine you park your car in a parking lot of a business and it gets broken into. Is the business responsible if it didn't have a security cameras? What if it did have cameras but no security guards? What if there were security guards but the injured party says there weren't enough? I don't think we should take steps to an even more litigious society.

You say that the accident was foreseeable but that's not a good example because the store is creating the wet floor, the store isn't creating robber.

I have no objection to voting with your wallet, if a store has a sign saying no firearms allowed I will choose another store if possible.

Wrong.

If someone walks in and starts shooting, and the people were allowed to be armed, they'd have a chance to fight back. If they choose to be unarmed, that's not the business' fault if they were allowed to carry there.

The guy who wanted to commit murder would have entered armed with a weapon regardless of the signage and policies.  There's no liability for the business in so far as what one criminal decided to do.

Unless you can prove the gun-friendly policy had something to do with the criminal act of that one individual, then the business is not liable.

Making his customers sitting ducks against their will when the criminal shows up -- that's something that can have foreseeable consequences.

It's not a difficult concept.  Maybe you'd like to further explain this double-edged sword theory of yours. 

As for your poor analogy, courts have ruled in many cases that a business was liable for car break ins and damage in spite of signage saying you're parking at your own risk, company not responsible, yada yada...   It all depends on the state's laws and the circumstances.  Disclaimers cannot counteract negligence or failure to take reasonable measures to safeguard parking lots and garages especially if break ins and car theft are common in that lot/garage.

On top of all that, there's a massive difference between property loss and injury or death when it comes to liability.  That includes amount of damages.

Wrong.

If someone walks in and starts shooting, and the people were allowed to be armed, they'd have a chance to fight back. If they choose to be unarmed, that's not the business' fault if they were allowed to carry there.

The guy who wanted to commit murder would have entered armed with a weapon regardless of the signage and policies.  There's no liability for the business in so far as what one criminal decided to do.

Unless you can prove the gun-friendly policy had something to do with the criminal act of that one individual, then the business is not liable.

Making his customers sitting ducks against their will when the criminal shows up -- that's something that can have foreseeable consequences.

It's not a difficult concept.  Maybe you'd like to further explain this double-edged sword theory of yours. 

As for your poor analogy, courts have ruled in many cases that a business was liable for car break ins and damage in spite of signage saying you're parking at your own risk, company not responsible, yada yada...   It all depends on the state's laws and the circumstances.  Disclaimers cannot counteract negligence or failure to take reasonable measures to safeguard parking lots and garages especially if break ins and car theft are common in that lot/garage.

On top of all that, there's a massive difference between property loss and injury or death when it comes to liability.  That includes amount of damages.

Thats a weak argument.
Can you find any such example where a company has been successfully sued because someone suffered due to policy to not allow a firearm?

What usually happens in cases such as a car break in on a property is when there was a certain expectation of security that was not enforced. So for example if a business had a security gate but the gate was broken that opens the company up to more liability because the customer had an expectation of security in that they were lead to believe a security measure was in place when it actually wasn't.

Thats a weak argument.
Can you find any such example where a company has been successfully sued because someone suffered due to policy to not allow a firearm?

What usually happens in cases such as a car break in on a property is when there was a certain expectation of security that was not enforced. So for example if a business had a security gate but the gate was broken that opens the company up to more liability because the customer had an expectation of security in that they were lead to believe a security measure was in place when it actually wasn't.

That's a weak opinion.

"Can you find any such example where a company has been successfully sued because someone suffered due to policy to not allow a firearm? "

That's not the entire issue.  The issue is whether the company also added security measures to ensure the safety of its customers and employees.

Schools have been sued after mass shootings.  Some of those are still going through the legal process.

Police departments were sued for failure to stop an active shooter.

The movie theater in Aurora, CO, was sued, but the gun free zone policy was actually the government's policy/law that disarmed the public.  That's usually been the case since so many of these crimes occurred in cities and states where concealed carry is not commonly permitted.  After Bruen, that's already changing.

Now that "shall issue" is the law of the land, many places (like here) are rushing to stop CCW by trying to get businesses to do it for them.  I predict there will be more lawsuits over gun free zones once the people responsible can't hide behind the law and qualified immunity.

That's a weak opinion.

"Can you find any such example where a company has been successfully sued because someone suffered due to policy to not allow a firearm? "

That's not the entire issue.  The issue is whether the company also added security measures to ensure the safety of its customers and employees.

Schools have been sued after mass shootings.  Some of those are still going through the legal process.

Police departments were sued for failure to stop an active shooter.

The movie theater in Aurora, CO, was sued, but the gun free zone policy was actually the government's policy/law that disarmed the public.  That's usually been the case since so many of these crimes occurred in cities and states where concealed carry is not commonly permitted.  After Bruen, that's already changing.

Now that "shall issue" is the law of the land, many places (like here) are rushing to stop CCW by trying to get businesses to do it for them.  I predict there will be more lawsuits over gun free zones once the people responsible can't hide behind the law and qualified immunity.

I will be one to file suit if I'm ever injured due to a no guns allowed place.  I hope that I never have to though, because that means something bad happened.

I will be one to file suit if I'm ever injured due to a no guns allowed place.  I hope that I never have to though, because that means something bad happened.

Thanks for being willing to take one for the "team!"

 

That's a weak opinion.

"Can you find any such example where a company has been successfully sued because someone suffered due to policy to not allow a firearm? "

That's not the entire issue.  The issue is whether the company also added security measures to ensure the safety of its customers and employees.

Schools have been sued after mass shootings.  Some of those are still going through the legal process.

Police departments were sued for failure to stop an active shooter.

The movie theater in Aurora, CO, was sued, but the gun free zone policy was actually the government's policy/law that disarmed the public.  That's usually been the case since so many of these crimes occurred in cities and states where concealed carry is not commonly permitted.  After Bruen, that's already changing.

Now that "shall issue" is the law of the land, many places (like here) are rushing to stop CCW by trying to get businesses to do it for them.  I predict there will be more lawsuits over gun free zones once the people responsible can't hide behind the law and qualified immunity.

I would be interested in the outcome of those cases to see what type of precedent they set.


Seems like they could be sued either way though. If a business allows you to bring in your firearm and you accidentally shoot an innocent person, then the store could still get sued

I would be interested in the outcome of those cases to see what type of precedent they set.


Seems like they could be sued either way though. If a business allows you to bring in your firearm and you accidentally shoot an innocent person, then the store could still get sued

Hence a no signage at all is the best option.

I would be interested in the outcome of those cases to see what type of precedent they set.


Seems like they could be sued either way though. If a business allows you to bring in your firearm and you accidentally shoot an innocent person, then the store could still get sued

I started this answer three times, and each time I was getting sucked into your vortex of nonsense.  Let me make it simple for you.

The business has no control over what a customer who decides to hurt others does.  That also applies to accidental (negligent) discharges.  There's no liability from that perspective.  No sign, policy or law will stop a criminal or careless person who decides to carry anyway from hurting others, whether it's with a gun, knife, flame thrower or just their hands. 

The business does have control over allowing law abiding people to protect themselves.  That makes them liable for providing protection for their customers' safety against the person who might want to hurt others if the business decides to ban firearms.

I started this answer three times, and each time I was getting sucked into your vortex of nonsense.  Let me make it simple for you.

The business has no control over what a customer who decides to hurt others does.  That also applies to accidental (negligent) discharges.  There's no liability from that perspective.  No sign, policy or law will stop a criminal or careless person who decides to carry anyway from hurting others, whether it's with a gun, knife, flame thrower or just their hands. 

The business does have control over allowing law abiding people to protect themselves.  That makes them liable for providing protection for their customers' safety against the person who might want to hurt others if the business decides to ban firearms.

You're simple answer doesn't work for whataboutism, which is why it was ignored.

You're simple answer doesn't work for whataboutism, which is why it was ignored.

I posted this while the Sun shined. 

Trolls only come out late at night. 

Give him/her/it/they a little more time before assuming they read it.

 

From their profile:  [Last Active:March 21, 2024, 11:59:42 PM]

I started this answer three times, and each time I was getting sucked into your vortex of nonsense.  Let me make it simple for you.

The business has no control over what a customer who decides to hurt others does.  That also applies to accidental (negligent) discharges.  There's no liability from that perspective.  No sign, policy or law will stop a criminal or careless person who decides to carry anyway from hurting others, whether it's with a gun, knife, flame thrower or just their hands. 

The business does have control over allowing law abiding people to protect themselves.  That makes them liable for providing protection for their customers' safety against the person who might want to hurt others if the business decides to ban firearms.

I understand your reasoning, I just am not sure it would hold up in a civil suit.

I understand your reasoning, I just am not sure it would hold up in a civil suit.

Posted at 11:21 PM.

I rest my case.

"I'm not sure' = "I don't know"

If you posted about everything you don't know, we'd never finish reading your comments.

Posted at 11:21 PM.

I rest my case.

"I'm not sure' = "I don't know"

If you posted about everything you don't know, we'd never finish reading your comments.

He could of also posted the "why" he doesn't think it would win.  I mean, you posted the why they should be liable in detail.

Maybe in order to go to start his day, he has to post something.

He could of also posted the "why" he doesn't think it would win.  I mean, you posted the why they should be liable in detail.

Maybe in order to go to start his day, he has to post something.

i don't think he really wants to engage in discussion.  He posts when the fewest members possible are going to see his comments.

Then he waits days -- sometimes weeks -- before responding to any replies.

If he was really interested in engaging, he would read and answer responses more punctually.

i don't think he really wants to engage in discussion.  He posts when the fewest members possible are going to see his comments.

Then he waits days -- sometimes weeks -- before responding to any replies.

If he was really interested in engaging, he would read and answer responses more punctually.

Maybe he post at work and works night shift.

Maybe he post at work and works night shift.

Maybe his posts ARE his work?

#PaidTroll