View Full Version : Legal ramifications of no-gun signs?

January 5, 2009, 02:25 PM
I have a question for those of you savvy in the area of legalese:

Are there potential legal ramifications (meaning, liabilities) to banning firearms in a public establishment?

A friend of mine suggested that a business which posts a "no guns" sign on their property could be held liable for damages if a concealed carry holder was injured by a criminal on their property as a result of not having their weapon with them. He also suggested that this liability was the impetus behind the removal of a lot of those signs. He's not a lawyer, nor am I. I'm curious if that's just hot air or if there's something to it. If so, a lot of the "here's the letter I'm writing to <insert store name> about their CPZ" folks could revise their statements to actually hold some legal water.

Thanks for any input.

Double Naught Spy
January 5, 2009, 07:22 PM
Can your friend prove in court that a person injured in a no-guns property was injured specifically because that person abided by the rules of the establishment...that having a gun would have conclusively precluded injury? That ain't going to happen. All that can be argued is that the person could have had a chance to preclude injury and that is far from conclusive.

To date, I don't know of any attempted or successful suits of this time and this subject has come up several times. Basically, unless otherwise stated by law, it is within the owner's right to ban guns and so long as the owner takes "reasonable" precautions for the safety of the people in the establishment, they are not liable for what happens as a result of criminal activity. "Reasonable" precautions are simple things such as proper lighting.

Maybe somebody else here can document such a suit?

January 5, 2009, 09:06 PM
I cannot think of any, and have heard of people looking out for them for years.

tony pasley
January 5, 2009, 09:27 PM
North Carolina protects businesses from such lawsuits.

January 5, 2009, 10:27 PM
Yeah, to my knowledge no such liability has ever been established. I'd not be surprised if the opposite has been (where by not banning firearms, they take on liability if an injury occurs).

Pretty sure this is why nearly every major corporation bans firearms on their property...they basically have a duty to their shareholders to reduce this financial risk, and the liability issues make it a no-brainer.