Do "anti-CCW" stores have a greater legal responsibility to protect customers?

Boatswain2PA

New member
Do "anti-CCW" stores have a greater legal responsibility to protect customers?

If a store prevents me from defending myself (or my family) to my full legal ability by prohibiting me from carrying my firearm, then do they have a greater responsibility for providing for my (or my families) protection?

Seems like a lot of "anti-CCW" establishments only do that because their lawyers have told them it will reduce their legal liabilities (we don't want people with guns in the store!!). I wonder what would happen if, next time a violent crime occurs in an anti-CCW establishment, the establishment were sued by a CCW license-holder for not providing sufficient protection.

Your thoughts?
 
Soooo, I have a paint store and I don't particularly like firearms. I have posted NO GUNS ALLOWED in plain sight IAW State Law. Now, per your question, I'll have to provide stock clerks/SWAT employees to keep the area secure and stocked. Who will be eating this additional cost? Just asking :>)
 
I understand where Boatswain2pa is coming from. I also understand where mappow is coming from, the angle of a business owner. As a business owner, my focus is to provide a service or goods to my customers. That is probably my main focus. As a business owner, am I legally responsible for providing security for my customers? The answer to that is probably not. I guess it all boils down to what our expectation is for the possibility of a crime happening. The the type of business, what goods or services they sell, location of business and clientele probably has to be considered. If the business has a high expectation for the possibility of security related incidents then they will probably beef up security. The cost of that security will roll down hill to the customer through increased prices. Business owners are in the business to make a profit. If I were in business my goal would be able to make a profit at the end of the day. If that is not my goal then I wont be in business for very long. If a business decides that they do not want anyone carrying weapons in their business that is their right. As a cwp holder, if I do not feel safe going into that business without my weapon I have the choice of going somewhere else where I can. I rarely visit restaurants that sell alcohol for consumption on site. That is because I can not legally carry my weapon in there. When I do go to a restaurant that sells alcohol to eat lunch then I am taking a calculated risk that nothing is going to happen. We have to find a good balance between being a tree hugging pacifist that likes to think all CWP holders are paranoid or the 2nd amendment survivalist that thinks you must be locked and loaded 24x7 no matter where you are. There, that ought to set some folks on fire this morning. LOL...
 
I could definitely see how the store could be liable having stripped your legal right to protect yourself in their store. It's going to take a lawsuit like that to make these establishments think twice. IMHO guns are less of a liability than the lack there of.
 
Soooo, I have a paint store and I don't particularly like firearms. I have posted NO GUNS ALLOWED in plain sight IAW State Law. Now, per your question, I'll have to provide stock clerks/SWAT employees to keep the area secure and stocked. Who will be eating this additional cost? Just asking :>)

If it costs your paint store more to have the Anti-CCW sign (in the form of increased liability and/or increased security), then maybe you won't put up the Anti-CCW sign.
 
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Interesting. I find the quote you include with your post to be diametrically opposed to the point of view you express in this post. I guess the implication is that the only rights you are truly interested in protecting are your own. You are your own minority? Because, if you truly believe the idea underlying this quote, then, regardless of your personal view of concealed or open carry, you would also defend the right of other individuals to carry despite your own discomfort.

As for your question, the answer is Yes - you DO have an obligation to insure that, if you deny others their right to carry on the premises of your business, other measures are in place to mitigate the potential for harm to come to your customers. That is part of the cost of doing business in these times in which we live. The alternative is that you understand that you will probably lose some business because some individuals will not shop in stores that require them to check their right to self-defense at the door. Either way, it has the potential to affect your bottom line to some degree. That is the reality of doing business these days.
 
As someone who owns a business, and does NOT have any gun signage, I can tell you that I should be able to refuse service to anyone I want, without violating the civil rights act of 64. I keep a handgun at my side in my office, and have several customers who carry when they come in. I do not know these customers well enough to know if they have any firearm knowledge or not, or if they even know anything about guns at all. But I choose, as a business owner, to allow guns in our office. If I did not, who are you (or the government) to tell me otherwise.
As a wise man said to me in a different context "life is fraught with peril. thinking that the government can legislate, or we can sue, our way to safety is just foolish"
. Funny, I just got done watching atlas shrugged for the 3rd time last night. Rand's writings are real to me. Laissez nous faire.
 
I could definitely see how the store could be liable having stripped your legal right to protect yourself in their store. It's going to take a lawsuit like that to make these establishments think twice. IMHO guns are less of a liability than the lack there of.

what "legal right to protect yourself" on someone else's property are you referring to?
 
Many businesses posted immediately after Nov. 1st here in WI. The municipality I live in had a meeting to determine if they would allow carry in the town bldgs. Advised to wait til there was case law on this issue by the town laywer, our municipal bldgs are not posted. I have not noticed a posted business in my town as of yet. I know several were thinking of it, but due to the way our law is written, the business is not liable for injury due to an incident were one used a concealed weapon, so I think many people think that they are covering there six by posting. As for me, if it is posted, I will not patronize them. If they think that a law abiding people are a threat they need to wake up. I am also a bussiness owner. It is not the "permit" holder I fear, it is the criminal who has no respect for the working man and feels he can take whatever he wants because he has a gun. I realize some insurance companys have you against the wall.(I would switch) but I think here in WI we got a fairly good deal on the carry law, although long in comming

So I think that if a business wants your patronage, they should provide a reasonably safe enviroment for you or allow you to carry.
 
I have tried and tried, to understand why people think that posting signs to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their legal and constitutional right, to carry a handgun concealed,for their personal protection,is of any benefit to anyone. It only gives the people who carry illegally, and with intent to do harm, the incentive to do so, in their stores. It also makes one who is law-abiding and legal, want to go spend their money elsewhere.
 
I still find it hilarious to think that these business people who put up No Guns Allowed signs actually believe that this will prevent bad guys from bringing a firearm into their establishment - much like the politicians who want us to believe that declaring a given area as a gun-free zone accomplishes the same purpose. As go the sayings about locks and fences, they may keep honest people honest, but they don't do squat to prevent bad guys. The numbers speak for themselves. Look at all the gun-related crimes that have occurred in areas designated "gun-free". Since 1990, when the gun free school zone act first went into effect, there have been 217 events, resulting in over 700 casualties. That's just at schools, daycare centers, and colleges/universities. Throw in hospitals, shopping centers, banks, etc., and that number goes up dramatically. And why? Because such a designation guarantees the bad guys honest, law-abiding, DEFENSELESS targets. If bad guys will disobey laws that prohibit them from illegally carrying weapons in the first place, what makes you think for one moment that a sign that you placed in your window is going to make them think twice?

As for the question, "what 'legal right to protect yourself' on someone else's property are you referring to," the right to self-defense is an inherent human right. Just because you as a business owner choose not to take precautions to protect yourself and your investment doesn't preclude each individual from protecting themselves. We don't check our right to self-defense at the door; it goes with us wherever we go. That means that we reserve the right to defend ourselves from being ripped off if the business person happens to be a shyster and we reserve the right to defend ourselves should someone else try to commit a crime while we are conducting business in that establishment and we believe the situation dictates such action. If you decide that the prudent thing for you is to wait the 18 - 20 minutes it takes, on average, for police to arrive on the scene in response to a 911 call (by which time the crime has already been committed, the damage is already done and the injuries or deaths have already occurred), that's up to you. But you have no right to require someone else NOT to act in their own defense if they believe the situation calls for it. There was a time, years ago, when, in a hold-up situation, the prudent thing was to do what the bad guy asked; there was a very good chance that you would still be alive when that situation concluded. That isn't the case any more today. Now it is just as likely that, once you have given then bad guy what he wants, he will still blow you away just for the fun of it. Human life doesn't mean as much today as it once did. Which means that actively protecting it is even more important today that it was back in the day.
 
...the short answer is NO. A shop owner is NOT obligated to protect you, that's the job assigned to the local police.

Just because the shop owner puts up NO GUNS signs does NOT mean that the shop owner has a moral or legal obligation to provide you with any 'extra' security.

I believe that in SOME jurisdictions, the private shop owner has NO legal right to deny you the right to carry (if you're legally carrying)...of course in others that shop owner may have every legal right to say NO GUNS! I live and carry in Indiana, and I have no idea whether a shop owner can deny my rights....it's never came up.

Like it or not, its the way it is...you can always go somewhere else to do your shopping, and also let the shop owner know that you're doing so (politely), and maybe if enough people do so, it might sway his/her thinking.

happy shootin'
 
I still find it hilarious to think that these business people who put up No Guns Allowed signs actually believe that this will prevent bad guys from bringing a firearm into their establishment - much like the politicians who want us to believe that declaring a given area as a gun-free zone accomplishes the same purpose. As go the sayings about locks and fences, they may keep honest people honest, but they don't do squat to prevent bad guys. The numbers speak for themselves. Look at all the gun-related crimes that have occurred in areas designated "gun-free". Since 1990, when the gun free school zone act first went into effect, there have been 217 events, resulting in over 700 casualties. That's just at schools, daycare centers, and colleges/universities. Throw in hospitals, shopping centers, banks, etc., and that number goes up dramatically. And why? Because such a designation guarantees the bad guys honest, law-abiding, DEFENSELESS targets. If bad guys will disobey laws that prohibit them from illegally carrying weapons in the first place, what makes you think for one moment that a sign that you placed in your window is going to make them think twice?

As for the question, "what 'legal right to protect yourself' on someone else's property are you referring to," the right to self-defense is an inherent human right. Just because you as a business owner choose not to take precautions to protect yourself and your investment doesn't preclude each individual from protecting themselves. We don't check our right to self-defense at the door; it goes with us wherever we go. That means that we reserve the right to defend ourselves from being ripped off if the business person happens to be a shyster and we reserve the right to defend ourselves should someone else try to commit a crime while we are conducting business in that establishment and we believe the situation dictates such action. If you decide that the prudent thing for you is to wait the 18 - 20 minutes it takes, on average, for police to arrive on the scene in response to a 911 call (by which time the crime has already been committed, the damage is already done and the injuries or deaths have already occurred), that's up to you. But you have no right to require someone else NOT to act in their own defense if they believe the situation calls for it. There was a time, years ago, when, in a hold-up situation, the prudent thing was to do what the bad guy asked; there was a very good chance that you would still be alive when that situation concluded. That isn't the case any more today. Now it is just as likely that, once you have given then bad guy what he wants, he will still blow you away just for the fun of it. Human life doesn't mean as much today as it once did. Which means that actively protecting it is even more important today that it was back in the day.

So by your logic we all have the right to bring guard dogs into every business for protection. And flame throwers. And whatever other item we might deem necessary to exercise the "inherent right to defend ourselves." Have you tried exercising this right on a commercial airliner?
 
...the short answer is NO. A shop owner is NOT obligated to protect you, that's the job assigned to the local police.

The local police have no obligation to protect you, their job is to solve crimes not prevent them. There have been cases where the judge has agreed that the police have no duty to protect you.
So your best bet is to protect yourself and loved ones from harm till the police decide to show up and decide if you have committed a crime defending yourself or loved one from harm.
 
what "legal right to protect yourself" on someone else's property are you referring to?

It's not a legal right, but a civil right. Just like if you owned a bus company you couldn't force a black person to sit in the back of the bus. The 2nd Amendment just states no laws shall impede that civil right.
 
A business owner is under no obligation to protect employees or customers from criminal acts. Even the police are under no obligation...

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police.

There have been more than 10 supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones.
 
So by your logic we all have the right to bring guard dogs into every business for protection. And flame throwers. And whatever other item we might deem necessary to exercise the "inherent right to defend ourselves." Have you tried exercising this right on a commercial airliner?

Yes, if someone somehow gets through the screening process of the airline and you got attacked I guarantee you have the right to find the airline liable.
 
There is a business in my town that I started to boycott for their use of a no weapons sign. I drove up and noticed the no weapons sign on the door. I started to leave but thought I would go in and inform them of no longer being a customer due to their no weapons policy. Just as I got closer to the door and read the sign completely, I read under the typical diagonal lined circle over a gun, "except under the statute...." What a great sign!!! I will make a trip over to the store and get a picture of it. Maybe more store owners would use that type of policy rather than NO WEAPONS. To me it sends a message, "If you are legally carrying, come on in. If you are coming in with criminal intent, beware.....someone may be armed" I like it. Might have a bunch made and offer them to some businesses.
 
It should be noted signs have to be 8" x 11" with bold letters and contrasting background. If its not, you can legally carry and the must the facility to do is ask you to leave. At least that is the case in MN
 
None whatsorever. If they did more stores would think twice about just slapping a sign on their door. If people think this is about property rights keep in mind the same government has no problem confiscating your land if they want it. It's more about hassling people that carry.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,665
Members
74,995
Latest member
tripguru365
Back
Top