I wonder what the possibility of a potential law suit to stick in the following situation…
A regular CCW person abides by the posted sign of “no guns allowed”. A perp comes in shooting and the CCW person is injured or family member is injured. Would the CCW person be in a position to sue the place that posted the sign for being unable to protect themselves? Could this be elevated to a state, or even federal level and start applying the suit to law makers that are making these rash laws?
It would be interesting to see these type of law suits being filed.
It might not get very far though since these signs have no force of law. The person would be making their own decision to disarm out of respect for the owner’s request as well as making their own decision to even be in that establishment.
I could see teachers making a case for schools, since that’s an actual law and that’s their career. It’s pretty impactful to force someone to change their career in order to be protected by the Constitution. But then again, SCOTUS ruled in Bruen that there’s a long history of having “protected places” where firearms are not allowed, so even that likely wouldn’t get very far.
A Lawyer knows what to do, just hire one and sue the pants off the establishment. Afterall, they don’t want guns in their place of business, then they SHOULD be held responsible for the safety of employees and patrons, oh, but there’s that CATCH NOT RESPOSIBLE FOR STOLEN ITEMS in their PARKING LOT, lock your vehicles, so as for everything else, enter at your own risk kind of thing, since it’s open to the public, and we all know that’s anybody, everybody, AND any in between. Maybe there’s a reason many businesses install cameras and surveillance to AVOID lawsuits, burglaries, and everything else under the sun. “GUNFREE ZONES” my @$$.
The plaintiff would have to prove more shootings happen in places that only differ by GFZ status. This would be monumental, but I don’t think that stats exist in this regard.
I think, this would say that it is ‘their’ responsibility to protect their clients. They would argue that they were in fact protecting them by not allowing guns on the premises. Followed by “See, if that guy would have complied everyone would have been safe, nobody would have been shot.”
They do. Actually just about every mass shooting has happened in a GFZ.
But in any case, years ago the company I was working for issued a memo that our offices were going to be GFZ. I marched right into our VP of Legal’s office and told him that the State had checked me thoroughly and awarded me a license to carry a concealed firearm to protect myself.
I then told him that if anything happened to me that could have been prevented by me carrying my LEGAL firearm and the company had stoped me from doing so for no real reason, I would leave my entire estate to a law firm to sue the company into oblivion for millions and tie them up in court forever.
Not necessarily true. You have to check state-by-state. In some states they have the force of law and violating them is a crime; in other states they are simply a statement of policy, and if discovered you can be trespassed by the establishment.
I sure hope you are right. Why havent any of the victims sued on this ground yet?
I think the 2 places have to be in the same state, in substantially similar neighborhoods, or defendants lawyers would argue, no, the shooting happened not due to GFZ policy, but due to dangerous neighborhood. I am not a lawyer though.
Heh, I work for one now. I could tell you about some calls with clients, angry and irrational, forget business appropriate language… What stops that guy from showing up?
Quite frankly, if my company had moved on with the policy I would have ignored them. But everyone needs to make their own assessment that has to include state and local laws. In the state I lived in at the time all that COULD have happened was that they fired me and I was ready to sue them is that happened. But, they wisely backed off.
I think in most cases where companies do this because it’s trendy and feel good and they know no one will challenge it. Has to be because there is zero facts and logic to back this policy.
First, if the sign is posted in a building owned and managed by a government entity, you’d have to defeat a sovereign immunity defense.
Second, you’d have to show that your injuries were caused by the presence of the sign and not by your own negligence (e.g., you did not have to enter the building in the first place and the proximate cause of your injuries were caused by the perp, not the building owner who put up the sign).
Third, you’d have to find a lawyer who was willing to file the lawsuit on a contingency fee basis or commit to spending your own money to bring and pursue a lawsuit with dubious likelihood of success.
Fourth, you’d have to be alive to file the suit or your heirs would have to be willing to spend their inheritance on a lawsuit.
Discrimination is not actionable. It’s like the “No shirt, no service signs.” Store owners can and do set the rules for people who enter their property. Likewise, people can and should discriminate against establishments that post “no guns” signs. Eat somewhere else, shop somewhere else. Buy the stuff you want on the internet.
NOT RESPOSIBLE FOR STOLEN ITEMS in their PARKING LOT, lock your vehicles, so as for everything else, enter at your own risk kind of thing, since it’s open to the public, and we all know that’s anybody, everybody, AND any 
in between. Maybe there’s a reason many businesses install cameras and surveillance to AVOID lawsuits, burglaries, and everything else under the sun. “GUNFREE ZONES” my @$$. 
