New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby Paul Mc » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:30 pm

In all of the state or federal gun free zones, there is expressed security there to protect the people. This is because we have been denied our second amendment rights to protect ourselves.

New law proposal> If a business or private individual institutes a gun free zone, the business or private individual shall be held liable for the safety of all people entering that area since they have been denied the right to defend themselves.

There is seriously nothing ominous about this. If they want a gun free zone, they need to take responsibility for it. Watch there be liability waivers to get into businesses. They can't be worse than the no fault liability waiver for most gun ranges.

-Paul
Paul Mc
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:22 pm

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby Brian D. » Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:16 pm

Welcome. That concept has been floated to legislators at our Statehouse more than once. It has never gotten any traction with even the most "firearms friendly" of them.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Brian D.
 
Posts: 14988
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby carmen fovozzo » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:46 am

Welcome to OFCC...
Life is full of God given coincidences..
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
carmen fovozzo
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 18448
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:08 am
Location: NEO

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby JediSkipdogg » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:13 am

And I will never support something like that myself as a big proponent of carrying. Why shift liability of safety onto a business? It's like saying a business is still liable if they post a wet floor sign and you slip on the floor directly next to said sign. The fact that they have a no guns sign up should let you know that by entering that area, you are putting safety in your own hands without a weapon. If you decide you don't want to adhere to said safety, then that's on you.

Now, government buildings and a few others, I'm up for debate on. But those shouldn't be posted zones to begin with.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10170
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby Sevens » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:51 am

I'd call it a victory if they were forced by law to make available a secure gun-check, so I have my carry gun (and other "prohibited" items) on my walk to and from my vehicle, and so they aren't stolen from my vehicle.
I like to swap brass... and I'm looking for .32 H&R Mag, .327 Fed Mag, .380 Auto and 10mm. If you have some and would like to swap for something else, send me a note!
User avatar
Sevens
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 7427
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 8:30 am
Location: Far East Side of CBus

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby carmen fovozzo » Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:08 pm

JediSkipdogg wrote:And I will never support something like that myself as a big proponent of carrying. Why shift liability of safety onto a business? It's like saying a business is still liable if they post a wet floor sign and you slip on the floor directly next to said sign. The fact that they have a no guns sign up should let you know that by entering that area, you are putting safety in your own hands without a weapon. If you decide you don't want to adhere to said safety, then that's on you.

Now, government buildings and a few others, I'm up for debate on. But those shouldn't be posted zones to begin with.


Woundn't support it either.

The business is still liable if you fall even if there is a wet floor sign..
Life is full of God given coincidences..
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
carmen fovozzo
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 18448
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:08 am
Location: NEO

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby WestonDon » Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:02 pm

The thing with second amendment supporters is they have a tendency to support the rest of the BOR also.

Firearm rights versus property rights has been discussed at length on this board. The consensus, if one could call it that, is that your rights end at my property line and vise versa.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2633
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby Sevens » Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:55 pm

WestonDon wrote:The thing with second amendment supporters is they have a tendency to support the rest of the BOR also.

Firearm rights versus property rights has been discussed at length on this board. The consensus, if one could call it that, is that your rights end at my property line and vise versa.

While I agree, often lost in the discussion is the radical difference between one's private property/residence and one's property where he invites folks/customers/employees such to the point of it's entire purpose of existence.

My home and my yard do not exist for the select purpose of attracting people. Retail businesses exist for the express purpose of attracting people (and their money.) Other businesses exist for the express purpose of production or service, which requires employees that they simply MUST attract or cease to exist.

That part of the discussion is repeatedly lost by the hardliners.
I like to swap brass... and I'm looking for .32 H&R Mag, .327 Fed Mag, .380 Auto and 10mm. If you have some and would like to swap for something else, send me a note!
User avatar
Sevens
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 7427
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 8:30 am
Location: Far East Side of CBus

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby schmieg » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:02 pm

carmen fovozzo wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:And I will never support something like that myself as a big proponent of carrying. Why shift liability of safety onto a business? It's like saying a business is still liable if they post a wet floor sign and you slip on the floor directly next to said sign. The fact that they have a no guns sign up should let you know that by entering that area, you are putting safety in your own hands without a weapon. If you decide you don't want to adhere to said safety, then that's on you.

Now, government buildings and a few others, I'm up for debate on. But those shouldn't be posted zones to begin with.


Woundn't support it either.

The business is still liable if you fall even if there is a wet floor sign..

You need a new lawyer.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby Paul Mc » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:11 pm

I appreciate the warm welcome!

I appreciate all the feedback. I agree that the personal property rights are not involved here. This is for businesses. Many businesses only ban CCW for liability reasons. It is easier to shift it to us. But enough about us... what about the other people who go there and don't realize they are that vulnerable. I think this proposed treatment of commercial property is fair. Especially for the patrons who are unaware. It is wrong to shift the liability to people without informing them.

I don't disagree that small businesses would go nuts. Now the lawyers would give them two choices. Buy insurance and ban firearms OR let the law of the land prevail. I wonder what insurance companies think? Has anyone ever asked what they tell businesses?

Thanks,
Paul
Paul Mc
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:22 pm

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby JustaShooter » Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:41 am

Count me in as one that opposes such legislation. It is absolutely a property rights issue, as well as a personal responsibility issue.

Paul Mc wrote:It is wrong to shift the liability to people without informing them.

You are informed by the "no guns" sign, and choose to accept that risk by continuing to patronize the establishment.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4819
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby JediSkipdogg » Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:17 am

[quote="Paul Mc" I agree that the personal property rights are not involved here. This is for businesses.[/quote]

Keep in mind the courts and the law have long agreed that a business = a person. There is no distinction between the two. Anyone is allowed to come and walk through your front yard and even up to your front door. The only time they lose that ability is when it is posted in a manner that prohibits them such as no trespassing signs, no solicitor signs, etc. Without signage, a residence is no different than a business.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10170
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

Re: New law regarding gun free zones and liability

Postby M-Quigley » Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:57 pm

Paul Mc wrote:In all of the state or federal gun free zones, there is expressed security there to protect the people. This is because we have been denied our second amendment rights to protect ourselves.

New law proposal> If a business or private individual institutes a gun free zone, the business or private individual shall be held liable for the safety of all people entering that area since they have been denied the right to defend themselves.

There is seriously nothing ominous about this. If they want a gun free zone, they need to take responsibility for it. Watch there be liability waivers to get into businesses. They can't be worse than the no fault liability waiver for most gun ranges.

-Paul


This was tried in Tenn and they couldn't get it passed there. The most they were able to do was provide immunity for businesses that chose not to post.

https://www.bakerdonelson.com/Tennessee ... -Liability

If I'm correct, Ohio provides immunity to a business whether they choose to post or not post. I heard MO was trying to get such a law passed (putting liability on a business for posting) but don't know if it was successful. What I did find was this, for states that don't specify immunity for posting:

What about a place of employment that is regularly open to the public? Using the above scenario, what if instead of an injury to another employee, the employee with the concealed weapon harms an innocent bystander/customer. Does the customer have a cause of action against the business owner?

In this scenario where the employee ignored the employer’s policy and brought a weapon in and then used the weapon, as long as there is no evidence the employer knew (or should have known) the gun was brought into work, it is unlikely the employer would be found negligent (though the employee could face negligence claims from the customer).

Let’s consider another scenario in which the business owner had posted a sign in accordance with state law. The business is a convenience store, regularly open to the public. An armed robber enters the store when two customers and one employee are present. A struggle ensues and one of the customers is injured by the robber’s gun. What responsibility does the business owner have in this scenario?

Some may argue that by posting the sign, the business owner failed to give the customers the ability to carry a weapon and defend themselves. However, it’s unlikely this argument would hold much weight unless it can be shown that it would be foreseeable that someone would be present with a weapon, requiring an individual to defend themselves. The argument would also be unlikely to show that had weapons been allowed, the customer would have had one present, and used it effectively to prevent harm to anyone else in the store. Ultimately, the risk will come down the "foreseeability" — given it’s a convenience store, it may be more prone to robberies. So a jury would look at other measures the business owner took to protect the store and its occupants.

In Wisconsin, some owners may rely on the immunity statute and not post a sign (thereby allowing individuals in with a weapon and avoiding liability). But posting a sign does not necessarily mean an owner would be liable in the event of injury. Rather, it comes down to the circumstances and whether harm was foreseeable (or what duty did the owner owe to its customers).

Conclusion

While employers and business owners want to carefully weigh any decision they make regarding allowing weapons in their place of business, to do so requires evaluating different possible scenarios and understanding what liability could fall on the organization first. A sign or policy may not stop an irrational gunman, but it may change your risk profile.





As far as forseeability, I'm not a lawyer but some might say any business open to the public at all that posts a no guns sig, it's foreseeable that someone with a weapon is going to come into the place and commit some kind of crime. The sign itself if it was honest is an invitation, that this is a victim disarmanent zone, if you are a criminal feel free to do whatever without any risk. Despite this, I also oppose strict or mandatory liability for a private business that chooses to post. IMO they should have a right to post, just as I have a right to not shop there.
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio


Return to Tweed Ring's Ohio Politics and Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests