Should businesses that don't prohibit carrying guns have any responsibility to protect patrons?

[ashling]

[jody]

1. No because government is not obligated to protect citizens and neither should any other entity. nt

[rfranklin]

2. Huh?

Police are a function of government.

[jody]

7. What I said is fact as SCOTUS has said, see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

and there are others. Glad I could remove some of your ignorance.

When you are threatened by a criminal and seconds count, call the police who will be there in minutes or hours.

[PavePusher]

8. Which bears on relationship to any legal obligation...

or compensation for failing any legal obligation.

[Peepsite]

9. Police only have an obligation to protect those in their custody, not the rest of us.

[trouble.smith]

23. The police are good at investigating your murder. They're terrible at actually preventing it though.

nt

[rfranklin]

28. Even in scary Chicago your chances of being murdered are .0002

You probably have more chance of dying from that cheeseburger in your hand.

[trouble.smith]

30. when you add to that your chances of being robbed, burglarized, assaulted, raped, etc

it's a different picture. And the police really aren't able to prevent someone from doing any of that either. They'll just file the report and move on. As an ER nurse in a large violent city, I can tell you that there's no shortage of violent crime victims.

[Callisto32]

31. And they have no obligation to protect YOU.

Thnk about it, if they did imagine the liability every time a crime is committed.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. If a business forbids me to carry a gun, then they are not allowing me to defend myself.

If they remove from me that ability, then they should then take responsibility for the results.

Here in Texas that isn't a problem. Only 30.06 signs have the force of law and they are extremely rare.

[jody]

13. I cited a case for my statement. Please cite a case that supports your second sentence assertion.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. I misread the OP. I am in agreement with you. N/T

[jody]

27. Thanks nt

[trouble.smith]

24. Luby's cafe had a sign.

My ex girlfriend's uncle put that fucker down.
edit: or so she claimed.

[formercia]

3. They better have good Liability Insurance.

jus' sayin'

[upaloopa]

5. Why shouldn't the one carrying a gun be

required to have insurance?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. Why should anyone...

...be required to have insurance?

[SheilaT]

4. It is my understanding that in some places

businesses cannot opt out of allowing gun-carrying citizens.

[PavePusher]

10. ?? Where would that be?

To the best of my knowledge, any private enterprise can restrict just about anything on their own property, with the exception of commiting certain Civil Rights violations.

[Reasonable_Argument]

16. In some states

The "gun buster" signs have no force of law so people are free to ignore them. If they find you with a weapon all they can ask you to do is leave. So technically they can but practically they can't.

[PavePusher]

17. Well, practically, yes they can...

because if they ask you to leave, and you refuse, they can call the police and have you removed for trespassing.

Slightly round-about route to the same effect.

[Reasonable_Argument]

18. True

But you have to remember in some states, like Ohio, they DO have the force of law and ignoring them is an automatic criminal tresspass charge. As long as the signs are prominently displayed.

[MrSlayer]

6. No, they're protecting themselves with guns.

Isn't that the point?

[GreenStormCloud]

12. The patrons are responsible for their own defense, just like on the street.

You have the ability to defend yourself. If you fail in that then the police will attempt to find and punish your attacker - after you have been attacked and injured. Whether that happened in a store or on the street doesn't matter.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. The movie theater in Aurora is being sued for some of that

Going to be very interesting to see how that goes. I expect an insurance settlement. A decision against the theater could make it very hard for a business or college to deny CCW or open carry otherwise.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Nnnnnope.

No one says you have to patronize a business that doesn't ban its customers from carrying guns. You make that decision yourself.

[Reasonable_Argument]

20. Hypothetically

Let's say there's one pharmacy in town and they prohibit weapons. What then?

[Glaug-Eldare]

21. Simple.

In that case, there's one pharmacy in town and they prohibit weapons. That leaves you with 3 options:

1) Don't take a gun to the pharmacy
2) Get the pharmacy's policy changed
3) Start a gun-permissive pharmacy

Alternately, there's the alternative of simply carrying anyway, policy be damned. I think that's a violation of the owner's right to regulate conduct inside their pharmacy, so I don't consider it an option.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. The question I answered pertained to a business that allows customers to carry guns.

And whether they should be liable if a patron gets injured. My answer was no.

Are you asking me what a carrier would do if they encounter a pharmacy that prohibits weapons? I guess I'd leave my gun at home then.

[petronius]

25. I answered in the other thread, but I'll answer here too: IMO businesses should be able

to bar, or not, the carrying of firearms, but whichever they choose shouldn't affect their legal responsibilities...

[DWC]

29. NO!!! None At All.

f a citizen who does not choose to exercise the right to legally carry a defensive firearm wants to patronize a business that allows firearms on it's premises, then the individual must either:

1. Patronize the business at his/her own risk without a defensive firearm, or
2. Not patronize the business until and unless it's "Guns Allowed" policy changes

It is the individual's right and free choice not to carry a defensive firearm

It is a business owner's right and free choice to establish the terms and conditions under which he/she will do business

Both are individual rights, not to be infringed. Neither bares any responsibility to the other.

the Free Market, NOT more regulation will sort it out.

Semper Fi,

[ileus]

32. They're already promoting a safer business model.

By not requiring me to leave my safety device behind they promote a safer society.