My Sis InL works for a middle school and they do not have full time security on site, so I decided to ask the school district why not,
Here’s their reply. Just an FYI, this school is on the outskirts of the city limits on the CA border.
5 Likes
You might want to respond to their answer with something like this:
From the SLCPD Releases Response Time Data for January 2022
If the number is one dead per minute on an average response there will be 24 dead kids. If you get lucky and the Response is at the Priority 1 Average only ten families will loose a child. Heaven forbid you have a Sep-21 average response time.
6 Likes
Not limited to the school, but any place which inhibits ability of adults to protect themselves or children, should bear responsibility if a criminal attacks. Any GFZ. If they prohibit guns where guns are normally allowed, and they dont provide security guards - they should be liable.
2 Likes
Can we then also hold the business liable if an armed patron negligently injures or kills another? If the carrier shoots an innocent bystander during a DGU, is the business liable for that also? If not, why not?
2 Likes
Can a person sue city if some kind of firearm discharge results in bullet wound to that person? Doubt you can sue a business any more than that. This is not the same situation, when a business establishes a rule above and beyond local laws, taking away any chance of self defence from patrons.
2 Likes
And what law school did you graduate from and what states are you licensed to practice in? Even a D- law student should know that liability laws vary from state to state and what might meet the burden of proof in North Dakota may fail miserably in Kallyfornicadia.
2 Likes
A person also can’t sue the city because that person was harmed by a criminal somewhere that carry is against the law. Doubt you can sue a business for that either.
I don’t believe that prohibiting firearms takes away any chance of self defense, we need to not be so reliant on having a firearm that we just give up and believe there is no chance of self defense without them…but…more to the point…the patron chooses not to have that firearm when the patron chooses that visiting that business is worth disarming. Though it is true that a firearm is definitively the most effective and efficient tool for self defense from deadly threats
You don’t have to go to their business. Just don’t go.
2 Likes
Nay! I am a gentleman of proper upbringing, my parents taught me to stay away from places of indecency, such as law firms and political assemblies of any sort.
4 Likes
As an lawyer worth his salt will tell you, anyone with the filing fee can file a lawsuit,but there is a long way between filing a suit, getting a favorable verdict and actually collecting the awarded damages. So, yes, one can certainly file a lawsuit. No one can tell you what the outcome of that lawsuit is. Anyone who predicts the outcome is a fool or worse, a charlatan. As anyone with any knowledge of the law will tell you, no one can predict the outcome of a jury trial. Not even a judge who hears cases day in and day out can predict the outcome of a jury trial.
2 Likes
Oh, but then the “No Guns” sign is missing important small print. Eg, “patrons acknowledge all risk of crime while on premises and assume all responsibility for potential laceration, evisceration, incineration”
3 Likes
Some issues: the sign may or may not carry the weight of law, depends on the state law. You have the choice of not entering that business, and, can the business be held accountable for third party violence? unfortunately things get legally sticky, to say the least. Then there’s the rights of the property owner.
3 Likes
Right now there is a case wending its way though the CA court system (notice I did not use the word “justice”) with Target as the target defendant (pun fully intended) involving a fracas wherein several customers were slashed by a knife wielding assailant. There is a slight difference in this case as the assailant obtained the knife from a display in the store to use as his weapon of choice. A little different from a felon who brings his own weapon to the store. It will be interesting to see wither Target folds and settles after discovery or goes to trial. My money is on settling with no admission of liability and the woundees will have their lips forever stitched shut with non-disclosure agreements stacked six feet high all around them.
4 Likes
“Some issues: the sign may or may not carry the weight of law, depends on the state law.”
My state says that if the establishment does not enforce the signage then the rule doesn’t apply. But how would you know if they enforce it? Ask management? My state also has a stand your ground law. Would that apply on private property? It seems the state law would override this. But i dunno.
2 Likes
What is your state?
That “if the establishment does not enforce the signage” thing sounds very weird
“Stand your ground” is pretty unrelated to no guns signs
2 Likes
Are “No Weapons Allowed” signs enforced in Nevada? If yes, violating the sign would be considered to be a crime. If no, violating the sign would not be considered a criminal offense. Accordingly No Weapons Allowed signs are NOT enforced in Nevada.
per USCCA state gun laws section. I am assuming that enforcement means having a metal detector at the entrance and/or cameras and security personnel checking each and every individual for a bulge.
3 Likes
The operative phrase here is
““No Weapons” signs are not enforced in Nevada.”
The yes or no explanation is just explaining what a Yes answer means vs what a No answer means. Nevada is No. So, what applies is “If no, violating the sign would not be considered a criminal offense”
4 Likes
It all depends on the state. Here in Wisconsin, it’s explicitly stated in our CCW statute. If a property owner doesn’t permit carry in an establishment, they become civilly liable for the safety of everyone who enters. If they do allow carry, then the person carrying assumes all liability for doing so.
It took a long time for us to get a carry permit system (we were the next to last, 49th state) and it took a Republican majority in the Assembly, Senate, and Governor’s seat to get it passed. It passed the Assembly and Senate many times before, but was vetoed by the Governor every time.
With a majority to pass whatever kind of permit system we wanted, the law was very well written with the civil liability part above and protections for employees who carry in a vehicle. It also basically repealed the ban on tasers and stun guns. Before our CCW law was passed, even the possession of an electric weapon was a felony (while carrying a firearm was and still is a misdemeanor…go figure.) There was an exception made for CCW permit holders. Even now, carrying a taser without a carry permit is a felony here.
2 Likes
Hello and welcome @Scott404
Thanks for your input
2 Likes
Welcome to the family brother @Scott404 and you are in the right place at the right time.
2 Likes
It’s a felony to carry in a USPS facility (even parking lots, I think). Can we sue the government if a bad guy shoots us there? What about on a State owned highway in a state that doesn’t allow guns (thinking New Jeresey)?
4 Likes