The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act

[Mic]

I fail to see the difference. WalMart, and other corporations, are owned by a group of people, not just one. The have rights as owners, just like any other. The difference is that they have big wallets and are much easier targets to sue because juries are filled with persons whom believe they are "sticking it to the man."

I think it is completely wrong that a homeowner or business owner should be responsible for EVERYTHING that goes on. Lets say your at a resturant (or heck your friend's house), which gets robbed, should the resturant be liable? I remeber hearing about a case where (I believe Denny's and I don't know who won) was sued becaues they faiiled to have hired a security guard. What non-sense! The utter cost and waste of requiring every single business/househould to have a security person is simply rediculous.

Neither a CHL nor a carrying a gun is a guarrentee of anything other than you have one more option of dealing with the problems that might happen.

I'm a firm believer in property rights, and I think the rampant lawsuit crap is cooked up by a bunch of lawyers who have no goal other than to line their own pockets at the expense the court system. People should have the right to control their property. I have the right to decide where I spend my money and spend my time.

Texas42,

Legally and philisophically, I agree 100% that large corporations are just properties of more people pooling their money together, but I don't see them the same as a small business. The owners are removed from just about every aspect of running their business. And this isn't about lawsuits and their deep pockets - to me I view it as the rights of an individual. And I just care less about the rights of a large corporation than I do a small business.

Most small business owners routinely run their businesses, spend time at their businesses, and make decisions like "do I want to have some person on my property with a firearm that I do not know". These seem much more like me at my house making my decisions.

Large corporations are just money making entities in my opinion. The "owners of the business" aren't necessarily on their property every day, involved in running the individual store. They have CEOs, executives, store managers running their stores. Making all kinds of decisions regarding the running of the business. And these people aren't there because they have invested their life savings into a business and care deeply about it. They are there because they receive a paycheck every week.

While I'm not saying screw 'em - they have no rights. I have moved away from my previous view that they are the same as a small business and the same as you and me making decisions for our own home.

The employer parking lot thing jumps to mind here big time. I would still support this if all we had to deal with were small businesses and some guy didn't want me having my firearm in my vehicle, but would have more reservations about it. But I will be 100% honest with you - I could care less if a Walmart or GM is told pack sand, your employees can carry their firearms in their parking lots whether you like it or not. Most of the time, in a large corporation, these decisions are made by some suck-ass attorney just looking to make sure the company doesn't have any liability for anything.

Just my take. I used to agree 100% with you that there is no difference, but no longer.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Mic, that is a slippery slope. If you say they don't have rights as property owners then one could also argue that you don't have liability as property owners.

You either own the property or you don't. Treating a place of business owned by individuals like public property is dangerously close to government ownership in my opinion.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Why can a homeowner be sued if somebody is walking on their sidewalk, fall, & break a leg?
I am talking, flat, level, perfect sidewalk.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Why can a homeowner be sued if somebody is walking on their sidewalk, fall, & break a leg?
I am talking, flat, level, perfect sidewalk.

It's the third party liability tort laws I brought up earlier. Anyone can sue anyone else at any time if they want to. They'd have to prove that the sidewalk was dangerous and abnormal for some reason to actually win though. Say for example the steps were 3 ft. tall with rebar sticking out and there's been a history of injuries.

 

[Renegade]

No need for the law as you already have the right to sue.

Millions have already been paid out in almost every major shooting in the last 30+ years, even if they did not have a no guns zone.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

It's the third party liability tort laws I brought up earlier. Anyone can sue anyone else at any time if they want to. They'd have to prove that the sidewalk was dangerous and abnormal for some reason to actually win though. Say for example the steps were 3 ft. tall with rebar sticking out and there's been a history of injuries.