View Single Post
Old July 23, 2012, 12:55 PM   #14
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
As one of the local "gun-friendly lawyers", Glenn's pretty much spot on.

[1] In general, a business will not be held responsible for the criminal acts of a third party. The few times in which a business has been held liable, there have been some unique circumstances, e. g., known special risks such as a business open late in a bad part of town that has already had a number of incidents and has thereafter failed to do anything at all.

[2] To even get close to getting anywhere with a business that has a "no guns" policy, you will need to show that (1) some honest person there would have had his gun if it were not for the "no guns" policy; and (2) he would have fixed things if he had his gun. If the situation involves a well armed gunman in body armor, in a large, dark, crowded room, with obscuring smoke and in the midst a bunch of panicking people, it would be a real tough sell to convince a judge that a marginally trained (if that) guy with his trusty J-Frame would be able to do any good.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02098 seconds with 8 queries