Colorado Restaurant Wants Customers, Employees To Carry Guns

[color of law]

Colorado Restaurant Wants Customers, Employees To Carry Guns.

Guns are carried openly by waitresses and patrons alike.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... Carry-Guns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TJW815]

From a management standpoint I do not know if "encouraging" employees to carry is a good idea. Liabilities and what not.

From a 2A standpoint, oh yeah. Sounds appealing.

[Tweed Ring]

From a management standpoint I do not know if "encouraging" employees to carry is a good idea. Liabilities and what not.

From a 2A standpoint, oh yeah. Sounds appealing.

My thought, too. Liability for the owner if an e/e shoots an innocent customer by accident. I wonder what level of insurance coverage, if any, the owner has to protect his business and personal assets?

[color of law]

From a management standpoint I do not know if "encouraging" employees to carry is a good idea. Liabilities and what not.

From a 2A standpoint, oh yeah. Sounds appealing.

My thought, too. Liability for the owner if an e/e shoots an innocent customer by accident. I wonder what level of insurance coverage, if any, the owner has to protect his business and personal assets?

The employer may be held harmless by state law.

The employer may not have any personal assets.

The employer may require the employee to sign a hold harmless statement before carrying.

And accidents do happen.

So, when are you guys going to quit carrying?

[Tweed Ring]

I have no access to the state law, ergo, my comment/question.

My concern was for the assets of the owner, not the e/e.

By judging the number of lawyers, nationwide, who deal in injury lawsuits, accidents do happen, and many times, somebody then pays damages. Generally, someone has to pay for the pain, the suffering, any loss of wages, any loss of consortium, etc. of the accident victim.

Typically, said loss by a business owner is covered by insurance, personal assets, etc.

That is the rub.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

In Ohio, I would just require that my armed employees all held valid CHL's.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126(C)(2)(a)

A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer's decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, "private employer" includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

[Tweed Ring]

Ohio is controlled by Republicans. I believe Colorado is currently ruled by Democrats. What protection, if any, is provided by Colorado law, similar to what business owners enjoy in Ohio?

[docachna]

In Ohio, I would just require that my armed employees all held valid CHL's.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126(C)(2)(a)

Yes, but it's one thing to "permit" your CHL-holding employees to carry at work; it's quite another to "require" them to carry at work. I don't think it's a stretch for a court to find that the statute, as written, doesn't cover your potential liability arising from imposing such edicts upon your employee, only if you "permit" it.. ("if the legislature had meant to also cover those scenarios, it could have written the statute to so reflect").

Particularly up in Cleveland-land. Those judges could turn a hot fudge sundae into a toaster. And the Eighth District is no better.

[JediSkipdogg]

In Ohio, I would just require that my armed employees all held valid CHL's.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126(C)(2)(a)

A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer's decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, "private employer" includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

And that only protects against a civil lawsuit. That doesn't protect against....

1) Damage to the store caused by such action including cleanup which can easily run $50,000-$100,000.
2) Public opinion after the incident
3) Public opinion prior to the incident including any protests that may take place by certain groups. I for one avoid eating at any place that has a protest taking place. I'm sure there are many others like that as well.

[TunnelRat]

I for one avoid eating at any place that has a protest taking place. I'm sure there are many others like that as well.

Huh. Kinda like Starbucks and Chipotle, I suppose...

[TJW815]

Ohio is controlled by Republicans. I believe Colorado is currently ruled by Democrats. What protection, if any, is provided by Colorado law, similar to what business owners enjoy in Ohio?

My sentiments exactly. When it comes to Colorado and gun rights... What have they done for us lately? Not much good will towards gun owners in recent history.

Jedi brought up another point, crime scene clean up is a terribly expensive service. Public perception can be very detrimental to business.

There are pros and cons on both sides of that scenario. Freedom, choices, consequences, and whatnot.

[JediSkipdogg]

I for one avoid eating at any place that has a protest taking place. I'm sure there are many others like that as well.

Huh. Kinda like Starbucks and Chipotle, I suppose...

I meant one with people taking place at the location. There's always the bad apple in the group that won't let you just eat or they become extremely loud and obnoxious ruining the time.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

In Ohio, I would just require that my armed employees all held valid CHL's.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126(C)(2)(a)

Yes, but it's one thing to "permit" your CHL-holding employees to carry at work; it's quite another to "require" them to carry at work. I don't think it's a stretch for a court to find that the statute, as written, doesn't cover your potential liability arising from imposing such edicts upon your employee, only if you "permit" it.. ("if the legislature had meant to also cover those scenarios, it could have written the statute to so reflect").

Particularly up in Cleveland-land. Those judges could turn a hot fudge sundae into a toaster. And the Eighth District is no better.

You'll note that I did not suggest that I would require my employees to be armed. I said I would require that my ARMED employees have CHL's. The choice of being armed would be theirs.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

In Ohio, I would just require that my armed employees all held valid CHL's.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126(C)(2)(a)

A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer's decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, "private employer" includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

And that only protects against a civil lawsuit. That doesn't protect against....

1) Damage to the store caused by such action including cleanup which can easily run $50,000-$100,000.
2) Public opinion after the incident
3) Public opinion prior to the incident including any protests that may take place by certain groups. I for one avoid eating at any place that has a protest taking place. I'm sure there are many others like that as well.

#1 - Sure. That's what insurance is for. I acknowledge that it might be a task to find a willing underwriter AND a reasonable premium.

#2 - Depends on the type of incident. Depends even more on how many people know about the incident and the details surrounding it.

#3 - I would PROACTIVELY and PREEMPTIVELY invite ALL known anti-gun activists to my grand opening, and offer them ALL 10% discount cards.

That's the thing about "public opinion"...it's not one specific thing. Where one person thinks a thing is a bad idea, another will think it's great.

Protests? The kind that I can call the news cameras in to cover? The kind that I can advertise that I will give 10% discounts to all customers during protests?

How could I WISH for better exposure?!

[djthomas]

In Ohio, I would just require that my armed employees all held valid CHL's.

And if your hypothetical restaurant had a liquor license you'd have no choice for sure