Question about liability of business with "no guns" policy

[john_bud]

In Wisconsin now and the state is close to passing a CC bill. But some business's have been putting up "no guns" signs to deter open carry and more are lining up to deter CC if/when that happens. But I was wondering, is a business with a no gun sign taking on total responsibility for protecting their customers and unlimited liability if a customer or employee is ever injured or robbed?

Trying to line up ducks to help in removing those pesky signs...

Thanks!

 

[MDFF2008]

I think your going to run into a lot of problems with those signs. Legally speaking, it's private property. I can kick you off my property if you start talking shit I don't want to hear, even though you have a 1st amendment right to free speech.

My advice would be organized boycotts of the businesses, stating you don't want to shop or eat inside because law abiding citizens can't carry, and criminals will break the law anyway.

 

[QuebecoisWolf]

Nope, not unless the business in question is a bodyguard service or if an employee of the business is responsible for the violence. Basically, it doesn't matter what sign is in the window. As far as I know, Luby's Diner wasn't held liable for the shooting, despite its "no guns" sign and the fact that there was at least one disarmed CCW holder inside. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Edit: Never mind. Hupp was disarmed because the Diner served alcohol, not because of a No Guns policy. I did not do the research.

 

[jonnyl]

I'd personally go with a low key approach. Small local eatery. Stop at the entrance with wife and small child in tow. Ask if you can ask the owner a quick question. Politely mention that you noticed the sign and ask what steps he's taken to ensure customer safety. Look a little disappointed at the inadequate answer, say your sorry to hear that and let him see some revenue walking away with an obviously law abiding, easy going family man.

No confrontation, and it'll make him really think about his policy. Especially if it happens a fee times a week.

 

[john_bud]

I'd personally go with a low key approach. Small local eatery. Stop at the entrance with wife and small child in tow. Ask if you can ask the owner a quick question. Politely mention that you noticed the sign and ask what steps he's taken to ensure customer safety. Look a little disappointed at the inadequate answer, say your sorry to hear that and let him see some revenue walking away with an obviously law abiding, easy going family man.

No confrontation, and it'll make him really think about his policy. Especially if it happens a fee times a week.

Good approach, thanks.

 

[matt_b89]

i don't see how this is legal. IF carry is protected under Constitution and it is, how can a restaurant or some public place deny you the right to eat there. It was my understanding that if it's a public place they would have to let you in just like a racist owner would have to let a minority eat there.

 

[NateIU10]

i don't see how this is legal. IF carry is protected under Constitution and it is, how can a restaurant or some public place deny you the right to eat there. It was my understanding that if it's a public place they would have to let you in just like a racist owner would have to let a minority eat there.

Private property rights, and the fact that it's not state action. Race is different, as in the laws around it, and it's status as a protected class.

"all persons are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without any discrimination or segregation based on race, color, religion, or national origin"

Lots of places had no carry signs when I lived in Indiana. It was not against the law to carry against the signs, but if you were asked to leave and refused, you could be charged w/ trespassing.

 

[Trapper]

We've had this discussion before. Some will argue private-property rights, others will argue constitutional rights of individuals (if "carry" is constitutionally protected, it gets the same protection as "race" and "free speech"). I'm with the latter, if the owner can't ask a protected class to leave their premises, then they shouldn't be allowed to ask a legally carrying person to either. In my mind, it should be protected the same way. Either you can discriminate against everyone, or no one, that's my opinion (which means about that much).

None of that is either here-nor-there to the OP. The question was - if you deny people the ability to protect themselves, are you responsible for their protection? The short answer, according to the Supreme Court, is "no".

 

[MDFF2008]

Actually I think businesses can refuse service for any reason so they could have a white only cafe, it would just get protested to hell.

The private property argument is acceptable to me, because taking away private property rights could lead to a bad place.

 

[matt_b89]

they "technically" probably could deny anyone the right to service, but if it was all minorities it'd be easy to prove and would never last

 

[MDFF2008]

they "technically" probably could deny anyone the right to service, but if it was all minorities it'd be easy to prove and would never last

They would be protested to death, but unless they refused to hire, or discriminated against employees, it would probably be legal.

 

[swinokur]

Ever go in a restaurant and see a sign that says

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"?

Same thing. Owner sets the rules. If you see a no guns sign and enter unarmed to comply, you made the decision to enter, not the owner. How is he liable? He didn't force you to enter.

Protected classes are a different story. The law specifically denies private property owners the right to refuse service based on race or gender or other strict conditions in the law. Gun owners are not a protected class so the owner can do as he pleases

Your right to carry does not trump his right to determine what happens on his property

 

[Trapper]

Ever go in a restaurant and see a sign that says

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"?

Same thing. Owner sets the rules. If you see a no guns sign and enter unarmed to comply, you made the decision to enter, not the owner. How is he liable? He didn't force you to enter.

Protected classes are a different story. The law specifically denies private property owners the right to refuse service based on race or gender or other strict conditions in the law. Gun owners are not a protected class so the owner can do as he pleases

Your right to carry does not trump his right to determine what happens on his property

I disagree. If the law forbids a property owner from discriminating based on race or gender - because of civil rights - then the fundamental civil right of self-defense trumps the property owner's ability to regulate. Once that property is opened for public commerce, the owner must abide by a different set of rules. This does not apply to private property used for private purposes, but applies to private property open for puplic purpose, such as commerce.
Puting up a sign, on a public establishment (not a private club), that says "no women allowed" would get the owner sued for a civil rights violation, if that opens them up to litigation, then so should a sign that says "no guns allowed".
Equal protection under the law means equal for all people and purposes.

P.S. - Going without a shirt or shoes is NOT a "Fundamental Civil Right".

 

[swinokur]

Unfortunately I don't believe there is a court precedent to support your position. In most states property rights still trump your right to carry. SCOTUS has ruled that reasonable regulation by Govt is permissible. They did not specify where. So currently states "reasonably regulate" by supporting property rights which may include carry and that wide term may allow the property owner wide discretion. That certainly might fall under reasonable regulation.Most current law still supports property rights over 2A rights. Your position is correct in theory but that isn't reality.

If you go into a business and start bad mouthing them the owner can tell you to leave. Do you have a first amendment right to speak freely? Yes. But the owner can still order you off HIS property. The Bill of Rights tells govt what it cannot do. It has no bearing on private property.

 

[SkunkWerX]

If a restaurant has a "no guns" sign at the door, and someone is CC-ing, and they don't see the sign, walk in, order, eat their food and pay, and walk out, and no one saw their firearm since it was CC, did a tree really fall in the forest?


Next question: Someone is CC-ing, they don't see the sign, they walk in, order their food and it is served. While eating the food the waitress sees what 'might' be a gun under the customer's jacket. She tells the mgr. who asks the customer to leave. The customer hasn't finished their meal, they are being denied continuation of their meal, so they walk out without paying. Who loses?

These "signs" are not Stop signs, or Yield signs. They are privately placed signs. Violating a law is one thing, violating a private policy is altogether something else.

My personal feeling is to compile the number of times 2A folks "pass by" one of these establishments, then send a monthly Email stating "Your business lost $xxxx.yy revenue due to your policy on LEGAL firearms carry."

As well, 2A supporters can send Emails stating you will NOT patronize their establishment. Then let the invislbe hand of captalism do the rest.

 

[swinokur]

Totally agree. In some states a no guns sign has the power of law (Texas 30.06). In others, no legal weight.But what is true in all states is that if asked to leave private property and you refuse, you are guilty of trespass, which is a law like a stop sign.Failure to comply with an order to leave private property will result in a charge of trespass.

That's a fact

If you don't finish your meal because you are asked to leave, I see no reason to pay for a product you are not satisfied with and didn't completely receive. I don't CC in a store with a sign but I CC in a store with no sign and never ask.

As noted, take your business elsewhere if they are anti

 

[BlueHeeler]

They would be protested to death, but unless they refused to hire, or discriminated against employees, it would probably be legal.

Not legal AFAIK unless the business is a private club.

Rand Paul took a hammering because he said he would support business owner’s rights over the government mandated protected classes defined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[erwos]

Ignore the sign and go about your way. If asked to leave, do so. It's like all these random signs you see at the local grocery store where they just disclaim responsibility for X, Y, or Z - just 'cause you write it doesn't mean it's the law.

 

[gamer_jim]

Carry these with you and give them to the owner:

http://www.learntocarry.com/nogunsnomoney/

 

[ProShooter]

There is movement around the country for some type of liability act regarding permit holders who must disarm themselves to comply with a business owners demands. Whether it will ever gain momentum is anyones guess.