"no carry" zones opening them selfs to law suits? - Page 2

PawPaw · July 24, 2012, 04:12 PM

From my (very) limited reading of the Colorado Revised Statutes, it appears that the property owner can limit firearm carry on his property. If that's the case then it would be interesting to see what actions the property owners take against the shooter. Could they sue him? Could they have a charge added? I admit that I'm woefully ignorant of Colorado law, but there must be some action that the theater can take to limit the liability from an obviously criminal act.

Young.Gun.612 · July 24, 2012, 04:26 PM

I could be mistaken but aren't there some (maybe just one) states that have such a law on the books? They can prohibit lawful carry but in doing so they are burdened with liability if their patrons are harmed by a criminal on the premesis. I thought I had read that somewhere.

Also, I disagree with calling cc a "privilege". That may be the way its interpreted now, but if you define some of the words in the second amendment (bear: verb, to carry) its impossible to say its a privilege when its a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Just my take on it.

**Frank Ettin** · July 24, 2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

...Public and private establishments and employers do in fact have a certain liability to protect patrons and employees. They may be required to both have an emergency exit and (presumably) a requirement to keep it secured but they can't chain it shut so it can't be used in the case of an actual emergency. They are responsible for the relative safety of the premises. If a light fixture falls off the ceiling and injures someone, they are responsible....

These, and various other premises liability rules, are generally matters of building codes and use permit requirements and a general obligation to keep a premises open to the public in good repair. But in general, as discussed above, absent special circumstances a business is not liable for the criminal conduct of third parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Young.Gun.612

I could be mistaken but aren't there some (maybe just one) states that have such a law on the books? They can prohibit lawful carry but in doing so they are burdened with liability if their patrons are harmed by a criminal on the premesis....

There is something like that under the Wisconsin CCW law, but that is unique. AFAIK, no other State has any law remotely similar.

Nathan · July 24, 2012, 09:23 PM

This like many legal arguments is in a legal gray area and depends on your ability to appeal to the judge.

I think it is a valid argument which the NRA ought to be actively spending our money to fight these cases. After a solid win or two, this will become a solid president.

**Tom Servo** · July 24, 2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

I think it is a valid argument which the NRA ought to be actively spending our money to fight these cases.

I can't see the NRA backing such a case. It's a long stretch in the best of circumstances, and the backlash from business owners on every front would be damaging.

riggins_83 · July 24, 2012, 10:25 PM

Colorado states the law doesn't uphold signs at a local business for no concealed carry. In other words it's not a violation of state law to carry into a business that's posted. Only if they somehow discover you're carrying, ask you to leave and you refuse are you breaking the law.

"“No Firearm” signs in Colorado have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.
Carry In State Parks/State & National Forests/WMA"

http://handgunlaw.us/states/colorado.pdf

Skadoosh · July 25, 2012, 09:28 AM

http://www.100wapi.com/rssItem.asp?f...temid=29882592

Quote:

Brown is also suing the Century 16 movie theater where the shooting took place for failing to equip the emergency exits with alarms or manning them with security guards. Witnesses said that Holmes entered through an exit door he had initially jimmied open before the movie started.

I wonder how that particular lawsuit will shake out...

**Frank Ettin** · July 25, 2012, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skadoosh

http://www.100wapi.com/rssItem.asp?f...temid=29882592

Quote:

Brown is also suing the Century 16 movie theater where the shooting took place for failing to equip the emergency exits with alarms or manning them with security guards. Witnesses said that Holmes entered through an exit door he had initially jimmied open before the movie started.

I wonder how that particular lawsuit will shake out...

That is a theory of liability that might possibly have some legs. It's still a long shot, but it's better than the "they're responsible because they wouldn't let me have a gun" line of thinking.

Glenn E. Meyer · July 25, 2012, 10:56 AM

I got this in the e-mail:

http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m22.1.html

Claims that carry is against the law altogether in CO and Aurora. Is this true? Or is the claim BS? CO experts?

As far as the door bit - a liability type buddy of mine, yesterday in the gym, thought that the door bit might have traction. He does kind of work and said that nonfunctions alarms could be grounds. Probably go for a settlement.

**Tom Servo** · July 25, 2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

I wonder how that particular lawsuit will shake out.

I saw that, and the thought crossed my mind that nobody's calling for lawsuits against the gun manufacturers, or the retailers who sold Holmes the guns and ammunition. How the times have changed.

Quote:

Claims that carry is against the law altogether in CO and Aurora. Is this true?

Colorado has statewide preemption, meaning that state law supercedes any local law (state code 29-11.7-101). Aurora, Denver, and several others still have stricter laws on the books, but if I'm correct, those aren't enforceable.

Denver has won lawsuits allowing them to restrict "assault weapons," "Saturday Night Specials," and open carry, but that's all I'm aware of. The Aurora statutes should have no effect.

ScottRiqui · July 25, 2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

I saw that, and the thought crossed my mind that nobody's calling for lawsuits against the gun manufacturers, or the retailers who sold Holmes the guns and ammunition. How the times have changed.

Yep, I think it's pretty well established in case law by now that the intervention of a criminal third party insulates the firearm/ammunition manufacturers from lawsuits in cases where there's nothing actually defective with the gun or ammo. Contrast that to cigarettes, where product-liability lawsuits *have* gained traction, because there's no criminal third party between the manufacturers and the consumers.

WW2 · July 25, 2012, 07:34 PM

The theaters I visit near my home have marked "emergency" exits that are not alarmed. These are also normal exits from the theaters to the parking lot so that you do not need to go through the crowded lobby of the complex when a movie is over. Up until now the only problem the theater had was someone opening the doors and letting a non-paid person in to see the movie. It is not unusual to see the door open and close several times before a movie starts. Anyway, they are exits that double as emergency exits.

Because of this, I see any suit based upon the exit doors not being alarmed will fail. However, these are complex suits and the better lawyers often prevail in spite of what we might expect.

scrubcedar · July 25, 2012, 07:58 PM

Frank Ettin stated that you had to prove: 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.
To me this is the crux of the matter. In another situation maybe you could say they were morally responsible for banning guns and someone got killed. Not in this case. We've debated this in other threads to death. There simply wasn't a way that didn't involve divine intervention to stop this.

BillCA · July 26, 2012, 03:01 AM

It's a plausible jump to such a conclusion, but as noted above by Frank & others, it probably won't fly in this case.

But... let's think it through a little bit.

How many folks who CCW also have liability insurance for up to $500,000 or more to specifically cover you in the event your carry weapon improperly discharges in a theater, Wal*Mart or Starbucks and injures someone? Anyone?

How much do you think such a policy would cost? Obviously no insurance company will cover deliberate acts -- even shooting someone in lawful self-defense -- but accidents, maybe.

Suppose that someone did successfully sue a business for a "No Firearms" policy after a shooting. What then? Would businesses be required to let in anyone who was carrying? What about the owner's property rights?

Or do you think the insurance companies would lobby the snot out of legislators to force thee and me to obtain some kind of liability insurance? If they lobby for such a law, you can be sure it will also include limiting or excluding the liability of businesses. (Hint: There's money to be made here, both ways).

John Q. Public sits down in a theater and, for whatever reason, his gun goes off. The bullet plows through the seat and strikes another patron in the foot. How much for surgeries to restore the foot, plus damages? John Q. gets to pay and the theater get off free. Even if the victim is say, a second year Dallas Cowboy's running back.¹

And once that requirement becomes law, how will the insurance company determine your premiums? They'll use public records of unintentional discharges vs. the population of CCW carriers. Then look for any police reports involving you - any ND's, your driving and/or criminal record, your credit history (are you trustworthy?), age and health (taking any medications?). You can continue this nightmare from here on your own.²

Before pointing a finger at a business or property owner who posts a "No Firearms" sign as having some blame, think of what the long term consequences might be.³

¹ This is the kind of thing that can keep you awake at night, even if you are insured.
² Not only are most insurance companies risk-adverse, but many supported anti-gun legislation just to reduce medical claims by insured clients. No reason to think they'd have an incentive to provide any kind of "low cost" insurance.
³ This applies only to businesses open to the public where you are a customer. If implemented by a landlord or apartment management, or you're an employee of a business there may be other legal remedies.

July 24, 2012, 04:12 PM	#26
PawPaw Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 2010 Location: Central Louisiana Posts: 3,137	From my (very) limited reading of the Colorado Revised Statutes, it appears that the property owner can limit firearm carry on his property. If that's the case then it would be interesting to see what actions the property owners take against the shooter. Could they sue him? Could they have a charge added? I admit that I'm woefully ignorant of Colorado law, but there must be some action that the theater can take to limit the liability from an obviously criminal act. __________________ Dennis Dezendorf http://pawpawshouse.blogspot.com

July 24, 2012, 04:26 PM	#27
Young.Gun.612 Senior Member Join Date: April 28, 2010 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 400	I could be mistaken but aren't there some (maybe just one) states that have such a law on the books? They can prohibit lawful carry but in doing so they are burdened with liability if their patrons are harmed by a criminal on the premesis. I thought I had read that somewhere. Also, I disagree with calling cc a "privilege". That may be the way its interpreted now, but if you define some of the words in the second amendment (bear: verb, to carry) its impossible to say its a privilege when its a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Just my take on it. Last edited by Young.Gun.612; July 24, 2012 at 05:12 PM.

July 24, 2012, 10:25 PM	#31
riggins_83 Senior Member Join Date: January 19, 2009 Location: Wherever I may roam Posts: 1,506	Colorado states the law doesn't uphold signs at a local business for no concealed carry. In other words it's not a violation of state law to carry into a business that's posted. Only if they somehow discover you're carrying, ask you to leave and you refuse are you breaking the law. "“No Firearm” signs in Colorado have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law. Carry In State Parks/State & National Forests/WMA" http://handgunlaw.us/states/colorado.pdf __________________ l've heard police work is dangerous. Yes, that's why l carry a big gun. Couldn't it go off accidentally? l used to have that problem. What did you do about it? l just think about baseball. -Leslie Nielsen

July 25, 2012, 10:56 AM	#34
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	I got this in the e-mail: http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m22.1.html Claims that carry is against the law altogether in CO and Aurora. Is this true? Or is the claim BS? CO experts? As far as the door bit - a liability type buddy of mine, yesterday in the gym, thought that the door bit might have traction. He does kind of work and said that nonfunctions alarms could be grounds. Probably go for a settlement. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

July 25, 2012, 07:58 PM	#38
scrubcedar Senior Member Join Date: May 3, 2012 Location: Southwestern Colorado Posts: 507	Frank Ettin stated that you had to prove: 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. To me this is the crux of the matter. In another situation maybe you could say they were morally responsible for banning guns and someone got killed. Not in this case. We've debated this in other threads to death. There simply wasn't a way that didn't involve divine intervention to stop this. __________________ Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado

July 24, 2012, 09:23 PM	#29
Nathan Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2001 Posts: 6,336	This like many legal arguments is in a legal gray area and depends on your ability to appeal to the judge. I think it is a valid argument which the NRA ought to be actively spending our money to fight these cases. After a solid win or two, this will become a solid president.

July 26, 2012, 03:01 AM	#39
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	It's a plausible jump to such a conclusion, but as noted above by Frank & others, it probably won't fly in this case. But... let's think it through a little bit. How many folks who CCW also have liability insurance for up to $500,000 or more to specifically cover you in the event your carry weapon improperly discharges in a theater, WalMart or Starbucks and injures someone? Anyone? How much do you think such a policy would cost? Obviously no insurance company will cover deliberate acts -- even shooting someone in lawful self-defense -- but accidents, maybe. Suppose that someone did successfully sue a business for a "No Firearms" policy after a shooting. What then? Would businesses be required to let in anyone who was carrying? What about the owner's* property rights? Or do you think the insurance companies would lobby the snot out of legislators to force thee and me to obtain some kind of liability insurance? If they lobby for such a law, you can be sure it will also include limiting or excluding the liability of businesses. (Hint: There's money to be made here, both ways). John Q. Public sits down in a theater and, for whatever reason, his gun goes off. The bullet plows through the seat and strikes another patron in the foot. How much for surgeries to restore the foot, plus damages? John Q. gets to pay and the theater get off free. Even if the victim is say, a second year Dallas Cowboy's running back.¹ And once that requirement becomes law, how will the insurance company determine your premiums? They'll use public records of unintentional discharges vs. the population of CCW carriers. Then look for any police reports involving you - any ND's, your driving and/or criminal record, your credit history (are you trustworthy?), age and health (taking any medications?). You can continue this nightmare from here on your own.² Before pointing a finger at a business or property owner who posts a "No Firearms" sign as having some blame, think of what the long term consequences might be.³ ¹ This is the kind of thing that can keep you awake at night, even if you are insured. ² Not only are most insurance companies risk-adverse, but many supported anti-gun legislation just to reduce medical claims by insured clients. No reason to think they'd have an incentive to provide any kind of "low cost" insurance. ³ This applies only to businesses open to the public where you are a customer. If implemented by a landlord or apartment management, or you're an employee of a business there may be other legal remedies. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)