No @ouade5 I am not aware of any business successfully being sued for a firearms prohibition. But, Kroger in Kentucky is being sued for not prohibiting firearms.
2 Likes
“No gun” policies have never stopped someone who wants to harm others from doing so.
5 Likes
This is why we’re losing ground. 
3 Likes
I actually believe it is right that businesses can make their own rules and potential employees and customers can choose whether to do business with them.
I am following the Kroger case. The case should be dismissed. Plaintiffs want to hold Kroger responsible for the death of two people and injuries, emotional and physical, to several others, after a person entered the store and randomly shot 2 black shoppers. The shooter was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole last month after pleading guilty but mentally ill.
The steps plaintiffs seek to “protect customers” would require security similar to an airport.
3 Likes
I’m no legal expert, but wouldn’t that set a precedent whereby most businesses would have to provide similar security?
4 Likes
I’ve been to some other countries where this is the norm. Every business has one or two security guards posted at the door. Maybe that’s where we’re heading. The Walmart greeters will be a little more intimidating.
Kroger should have just put a Gun Free Zone sign on the front door. We all know that works every time. 
3 Likes
They work sooooooooooooo well 
I work in a “Gun Free Zone”. All I have to say about that is that I’m actually glad I work on the second shift as opposed to the first shift. At least the doors are locked and access is extremely more controlled. Plus, when the schools are empty, there is less of a probability of somebody coming in and shooting.
1 Like
Bottom line is the companies want to protect themselves from law suits more than they want to protect their employees from physical harm. Lawyers are more expensive than drivers.
4 Likes
^^^ Agreed. If we don’t like a company’s policies, we can choose to find other employment. If we violate their policies, they can fire us.
BTW - we’re hiring 
We want our team to be trained and educated about self-defense-- and carry.
4 Likes
Here is the other side of employer prohibiting/store prohibiting etc. and suing them for failure to provide protection if the unthinkable should happen. We are not being forced to shop anywhere, so we agree to their terms and conditions when we shop at a store. If we feel unsafe going to a store that prohibits its customers from carrying and does not provide armed security, you are free not to shop there. So, by choosing to shop there, we are accepting those policies. That really is their protection from a lawsuit for something happening. Its just like employment. If you do not agree with a company’s no firearms policy, you are free to accept the consequences with no recourse to sue if you violate those rules or you are free to find another job that has a policy more in line with your beliefs.
As @MikeBKY says, private companies have and should have the right to set policies and employees and customers are free to accept those policies or shop and search for employment elsewhere. The problem is that too many of us are a bit lazy when it comes to corporate policy. Those of us who own stocks, or 401K’s etc. do not exercise our rights as stockholders to raise an issue when a company institutes a corporate policy that we disagree with.
1 Like
This won’t help Lyft in their legal battle with California about whether drivers are employees or independent contractors.
If she is an independent contractor then she is the company whose company policy prevails!
1 Like
Its call “concealed carry” no one should know your carrying but you.
2 Likes
Those are the rules, I don’t see a problem. In some states Lyft could have been sued had she hit an innocent person. Why do you think cabs have dividers in them. If you don’t like the rules rules don’t take the job.
As crappy as that is, I’m glad she’s still around to be fired. Good for her.
Todd Wallace
2 Likes
I am sorry but this is condescending. You know many families are on the threshold of starvation and have to use any chance of earning a buck. Why should she choose between her children going hungry, or herself murdered or raped? Cab trade by nature exposes drivers to higher risk of criminality, violence. What measures had Lyft or Uber taken to protect their drivers? Is this behavior irresponsible? Is punishing an employee who defended herself going to encourage more criminality? Is this irresponsible?
2 Likes
Better fired than dead or crippled!
GOOD JOB LADY! ! !
1 Like
It occurred to me that as CCW person, why would I ever want to pay to ride with a company ( or contractor) that says, “no guns in car”?
2 Likes
The statement is the truth and one that explains why companies leave America. Postal workers, fast food workers, lineman, engineers and many other fields do not and are not allowed to carry weapons. When you agree to take a job you agree to all of the rules, she took the job knowing the risk.
You are right, but when your family is hungry, the truth becomes nuanced. The only clean dichotomy was offered to the lady - live or die.
2 Likes
I would think they would want all their drivers to be able to protect themselves and the schools should too.
1 Like