Here is some of the language in the Kroger lawsuit. Just think what would be necessary to meet the requirements alleged in the lawsuit:
On October 24, 2018, the Kroger Defendants permitted customers to carry firearms inside of its stores and elsewhere on the property. No effort was made to prevent Gregory Alan Bush from bringing a loaded firearm into the Kroger store.
On October 24, 2018, the Kroger Defendants had no policy in place to ensure that Gregory Alan Bush was licensed to carry a firearm. Kroger Defendants undertook no efforts to ensure that those carrying firearms in its store did not use them to harm other customers.
Gregory Alan Bush has a long history of severe mental illness and has been prohibited by Court orders from carrying guns on multiple occasions. Kroger has no policy to ensure that persons bringing guns into their stores are legally allowed to carry those firearms, that they are law-abiding, and that they are of sound mind.
On and before October 24, 2018, Kroger Defendants were on actual notice that allowing firearms on the property of Kroger stores created a dangerous condition on the store premises and could result in customers being shot and killed. With this actual knowledge, Kroger Defendants decided to allow loaded firearms inside of its stores.
The Albertson’s and Safeway chains of grocery stores do not allow firearms on its premises.
Neither does Target, Chili’s, Sonic, Jack in the Box, Chipotle and Starbucks, to name a few.
Every time I look at or even think about this lawsuit I wonder what it would take to make Kroger, or for that matter, Albertson’s Safeway, Target, Chili’s, Jack in the box, Chipotle or Starbucks truly safe for any violence. While these businesses may have corporate no gun policies, they do nothing to enforce them. I regularly meet clients at Starbucks. I’ve been in Target, Chili’s and Chipotle and not once has anyone ever been questioned or searched upon entry. And we know there have been many shootings in gun free zones.
I did a quick search and there have been shootings at Starbucks over the past several years. So has Albertson’s, Chili’s, Sonic, Target and yes, even jack in the Box.
So the only answer would be to have armed security with magnetometers and xrays like at the courthouse checking everyone going in. There would be lines of people trying to get in to the store all day long. But wait, KY is Constitutional Carry so now it is pretty much presumed that if you are carrying it is legal. Police cannot require you even give your name unless they have reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal activity. And, even though this is on private property, they cannot use the police to get information the police would not otherwise be able to get on by law. So, like the courthouse, only police or other approved persons, would be allowed to carry firearms on the property.
But wait … the complaint alleges that Kroger allows people to carry in stores and elsewhere on the property! So this security checkpoint is going to have to be at each entrance to the parking lot! It is going to have to be like getting on a military installation!
The only answer I can see is going to be having your groceries, dinner and coffee delivered to your home. Thankfully, I know Total Wine and More already has home delivery! I guess I’ll be just fine.
I think I need to sign off now. I need a beer!
So, if Kroger has someone drive a vehicle through the front of their store, they will be held accountable because they permitted drivers to drive a vehicle through the front of the building …. no effort was made to stop someone from driving through the building.
And
No policy was in place to ensure those who did drive through the front of the building were actually licensed to drive.
Indeed… or perhaps Kroger is responsible for anyone who turns off of the public road,… or perhaps on public roads… if they plan on shopping at Kroger.
Where does it end…
And people wonder why they are looked at as if they are …. nope, I will not say it.
Xctly!
I recently heard that double negatives are not regarded in all languages as making a positive. But, there are no instances where a double positive makes a negative.
As in this case, my response is …
Yeah, right!
I’ve always wondered if I could sue my employer for not allowing me to carry, (infringe), at work. In their gun free zone, that I am forced to attend. Funny, this is a company that I like well, and have established a really good relationship with. Yet, I am uncomfortable having a gun discussion with anyone, for fear of being targeted, (being a problem employee, and eventually removed). Because there is a no gun policy, and I had to agree to be fired if I carried a weapon to work, (my bad, I guess, but no choice, since this is a uniquely good fit for me), I feel even more limited about the possibility of protecting myself at work. No metal detectors, that I know about, but if I accidentally exposed my gun ( my bad again), I’m not sure what would happen.
I have thought of asking an attorney to annoumously ask for me. Just not sure that is the best approach. I keep thinking infringed. Any suggestions, or similar experiences?
The word ‘infringe’ is not accurate or applicable for your employment. The rights we all have area equal, and the employer has their own rights, to not allow firearms on their property… just as if you have a friend who invites you to a cookout, if at their home they do not want firearms, it is their property and your choice is to disarm and leave your weapon secured in your vehicle or to not attend the cookout.
If you like your job, you must respect your employer’s rights, just as they can not tell you to not carry when off of their property.
The way to address it if you want to really do so is to discuss the policy and ask what security features the employer has implemented and if an updated firearms policy might be considered.
As far as suing… you can sue anyone pretty much for anything, though you would most likely lose regarding a lawsuit on an employer not allowing firearms.
Thanks, I better understand. And I mean that respectively. There is a lot I don’t understand, and don’t believe is right, but perhaps legal. So I appreciate a legal viewpoint.
I would only sue, if I knew I would win for being right. (We all think we’re right in some way, I realize. I wouldn’t sue, for the possibility of a financial gain. (Financial fear to promote good behavior is something different as explained below)
If we are all equal, and we both have the same rights, then I could tell my neighbor that he must protect me or be liable if he demands me to disarm, and he chooses to put my life in potential danger (that is not likely apparent, at a cookout). My body is my property, and protected by the Constitution, as I would be in the US and a legal citizen. I am still innocent and hasn’t been proven guilty. And believe metal detectors are illegal search and seizure, that is publicly accepted yet privately invasive.
A property (or business) owner shouldn’t have more or less rights than a non owner, since we are all equal.
It seems there is a lot we 2nd amendment supporters and citizens have allowed to happen. Was thinking to we need to hold those who impose their believes on us, need to financially be accountable. So that they fear gun rules, more than guns.
For example, money hungry lawyers, should be filling a class action sute against Bloomsburg and other anti gun folks, in much the same way as if Bloomberg supported Slavery or something else bad.
Sorry I strayed, again I appreciate more reasonable viewpoints than mine. (Thanks for letting me vent too) And realize to counter act the bad gun laws will take time.
Seems like we need to do something peaceful, besides just hoping for a good politician, or legal case, or someday Supreme Court positive outcome.
The Constitution protects you from the actions of the Government. Period. Other federally enacted legislation or amendments to the Constitution, protects you from some things such as discrimination.
Unless you, as a private property owner, are willing to allow anyone to exercise their freedom of speech, expression in religion in your home, be careful what you ask of another private property owner.
They do not have more rights than you, only the same rights you have. The rights in your property you have, just as they have rights in their property. You do not have a right to ‘their’ property. So, if they come to your house for a cookout, you can say they can not carry a firearm, or you can say they can not carry or wear a ‘peace sign necklace’ or they must wear shoes, or whatever your peculiarities are.
I do consider metal detectors an unwarranted search, however, it is MY choice, if I want to enter a facility and part of that is a security measure, I am agreeing to it, similar to when a police officer ASKS to search your vehicle, you can say no, it is your choice. (If they have probable cause, they can request a warrant, and may be able to detain you until they receive one). It is your choice to go to your neighbors house, and by choosing to do so, you do not make your neighbor totally liable for you. They must take reasonable precautions, ensure their property is safe within reason, and not have rakes lying around with the tines up so you could get hurt, or not have exposed holes that you could injure yourself in ….but it still falls to you to decide to go to their property.
Equal Rights. There is also personal responsibility.
This is well put. Be careful of what you ask, as you may get it, and it may impact your rights.
A business owner doesn’t have more rights than his patrons, and a lot of what happens within that business is based on his wishes. Bottom line, while we all do have equal rights, we all also have an equal right to choose. While I may be fine with someone coming into my store with their gun, there are others who aren’t okay with it, and it isn’t right or wrong, just a matter of personal preference. While we may not agree with no gun guy, we should respect his right to his opinion. And be thankful we all get to choose.